James Perloff –The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline–Videos

Posted on December 22, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline

James Perloff exposes the subversive roots and global designs of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Passed off as a think-tank this group is the “power behind the throne” with hundreds of top-appointed government officials drawn from its ranks – regardless of which party has occupied the White House. It began in 1921 as a front organization for J.P. Morgan and Company and by World War II it had acquired unrivaled influence on American foreign policy. In this presentation Mr. Perloff traces the CFR’s activity from the Wilson to Reagan administrations.



Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

“…The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonprofit nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Founded in 1921 and headquartered at 58 East 68th Street in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C., the CFR is considered to be the nation’s ‘most influential foreign-policy think tank.’ [1] It publishes a bi-monthly journal Foreign Affairs.


As stated on its website, the CFR’s mission is to be “a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries.”

The CFR aims to maintain a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. It convenes meetings at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members of the foreign policy community discuss major international issues. Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars, as well as ten in-resident recipients of year-long fellowships, who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today’s international agenda. These scholars contribute to the foreign policy debate by making recommendations to the presidential administration, testifying before Congress, serving as a resource to the diplomatic community, interacting with the media, authoring books, reports, articles, and op-eds on foreign policy issues.

The council publishes Foreign Affairs, “the preeminent journal of international affairs and U.S. foreign policy.” It also publishes Independent Task Forces which bring together experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise to work together to produce reports offering both findings and policy prescriptions on important foreign policy topics. To date, the CFR has sponsored more than fifty reports.[2]

The CFR aims to provide up-to-date information and analysis about world events and U.S. foreign policy. In 2008, CFR.org’s “Crisis Guide: Darfur” was awarded an Emmy Award by the Television Academy of Arts and Sciences, in the category of “New Approaches to News & Documentary Programming: Current News Coverage.” In 2009, the Crisis Guide franchise won another Emmy for its “Crisis Guide: The Global Economy,” in the category of business and financial reporting.

Early history

The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars, called “The Inquiry”, tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917–1918, this academic band, including Wilson’s closest adviser and long-time friend “Colonel” Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at 155th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. The team produced more than 2,000 documents detailing and analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. Their reports formed the basis for the Fourteen Points, which outlined Wilson’s strategy for peace after war’s end.[3]

These scholars then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 that would end the war; it was at one of the meetings of a small group of British and American diplomats and scholars, on May 30, 1919, at the Hotel Majestic, that both the Council and its British counterpart, the Chatham House in London, were born.[4]

Some of the participants at that meeting, apart from Edward House, were Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and Charles Seymour of Yale.[citation needed]

In 1938 they created various Committees on Foreign Relations throughout the country. These later became governed by the American Committees on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C.[citation needed]

Network diagram showing interlocks between various U.S. corporations and institutions and the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2004

The Council on Foreign Relations, a sister organization to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (now known as Chatham House), was formed in 1922 as a noncommercial, nonpolitical organization supporting American foreign relations.[5] From its inception the Council was bipartisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African Americans, although women were initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential.[6] A critical study found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.[7]

Today it has about 5,000 members (including five-year term members[8] between the ages of 30-41), which over its history have included senior serving politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, former national security officers, bankers, lawyers, professors, former CIA members and senior media figures.[citation needed]

In 1962, the group began a program of bringing select Air Force officers to the Harold Pratt House to study alongside its scholars. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps requested they start similar programs for their own officers.[7]

Vietnam created a rift within the organization. When Hamilton Fish Armstrong announced in 1970 that he would be leaving the helm of Foreign Affairs after 45 years, new chairman David Rockefeller approached a family friend, William Bundy, to take over the position. Anti-war advocates within the Council rose in protest against this appointment, claiming that Bundy’s hawkish record in the State and Defense Departments and the CIA precluded him from taking over an independent journal. Some considered Bundy a war criminal for his prior actions.[7]

Seven American presidents have addressed the Council, two while still in office – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.[9]

The Council says that it has never sought to serve as a receptacle for government policy papers that cannot be shared with the public and does not encourage its members serving in government to do so. The Council says that discussions at its headquarters remain confidential, not because they share or discuss secret information, but because the system allows members to test new ideas with other members.[10]

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., in his book on the Kennedy presidency, A Thousand Days, wrote that Kennedy was not part of what he called the “New York establishment”:

“In particular, he was little acquainted with the New York financial and legal community– that arsenal of talent which had so long furnished a steady supply of always orthodox and often able people to Democratic as well as Republican administrations. This community was the heart of the American Establishment. Its household deities were Henry Stimson and Elihu Root; its present leaders, Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy; its front organizations, the Rockefeller, Ford and Carnegie foundations and the Council on Foreign Relations; its organs, the New York Times and Foreign Affairs.”[11]


It has an extensive website, http://www.cfr.org, featuring links to its history, fellows’ biographical information, think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, Independent Task Force reports[12] and other reports, CFR books, expert interviews, meeting transcripts, audio, and videos, Emmy award-winning multimedia Crisis Guides and timelines, Foreign Affairs, and many other publications, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.[2]

Influence on foreign policy

Beginning in 1939 and lasting for five years, the Council achieved much greater prominence within the government and the State Department when it established the strictly confidential War and Peace Studies, funded entirely by the Rockefeller Foundation.[13] The secrecy surrounding this group was such that the Council members who were not involved in its deliberations were completely unaware of the study group’s existence.[13]

It was divided into four functional topic groups: economic and financial, security and armaments, territorial, and political. The security and armaments group was headed by Allen Welsh Dulles who later became a pivotal figure in the CIA’s predecessor, the OSS. It ultimately produced 682 memoranda for the State Department, marked classified and circulated among the appropriate government departments. As a historical judgment, its overall influence on actual government planning at the time is still said to remain unclear.[13]

In an anonymous piece called “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” that appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1947, CFR study group member George Kennan coined the term “containment.” The essay would prove to be highly influential in US foreign policy for seven upcoming presidential administrations. 40 years later, Kennan explained that he had never suspected the Russians of any desire to launch an attack on America; he thought that was obvious enough he didn’t need to explain it in his essay. William Bundy credited the CFR’s study groups with helping to lay the framework of thinking that led to the Marshall Plan and NATO. Due to new interest in the group, membership grew towards 1,000.[14]

Dwight D. Eisenhower chaired a CFR study group while he served as President of Columbia University. One member later said, “whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics, he has learned at the study group meetings.”[14] The CFR study group devised an expanded study group called “Americans for Eisenhower” to increase his chances for the presidency. Eisenhower would later draw many Cabinet members from CFR ranks and become a CFR member himself. His primary CFR appointment was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles gave a public address at the Harold Pratt House in which he announced a new direction for Eisenhower’s foreign policy: “There is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power.” After this speech, the council convened a session on “Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy” and chose Henry Kissinger to head it. Kissinger spent the following academic year working on the project at Council headquarters. The book of the same name that he published from his research in 1957 gave him national recognition, topping the national bestseller lists.[14]

On 24 November 1953, a study group heard a report from political scientist William Henderson regarding the ongoing conflict between France and Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh forces, a struggle that would later become known as the First Indochina War. Henderson argued that Ho’s cause was primarily nationalist in nature and that Marxism had “little to do with the current revolution.” Further, the report said, the United States could work with Ho to guide his movement away from Communism. State Department officials, however, expressed skepticism about direct American intervention in Vietnam and the idea was tabled. Over the next twenty years, the United States would find itself allied with anti-Communist South Vietnam and against Ho and his supporters in the Vietnam War.[14]

The Council served as a “breeding ground” for important American policies such as mutual deterrence, arms control, and nuclear non-proliferation.[14]

A four-year long study of relations between America and China was conducted by the Council between 1964 and 1968. One study published in 1966 concluded that American citizens were more open to talks with China than their elected leaders. Kissinger had continued to publish in Foreign Affairs and was appointed by President Nixon to serve as National Security Adviser in 1969. In 1971, he embarked on a secret trip to Beijing to broach talks with Chinese leaders. Nixon went to China in 1972, and diplomatic relations were completely normalized by President Carter’s Secretary of State, another Council member, Cyrus Vance.[14]

In November 1979, while chairman of the CFR, David Rockefeller became embroiled in an international incident when he and Henry Kissinger, along with John J. McCloy and Rockefeller aides, persuaded President Jimmy Carter through the State Department to admit the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into the US for hospital treatment for lymphoma. This action directly precipitated what is known as the Iran hostage crisis and placed Rockefeller under intense media scrutiny (particularly from The New York Times) for the first time in his public life.[15][16]

Current policy initiatives

The CFR started a program in 2008 to last for 5 years and funded by a grant from the Robina Foundation called “International Institutions and Global Governance” which aims to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the 21st century.[17]

The CFR’s Maurice C. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, directed by scholar and author Sebastian Mallaby works to promote a better understanding among policymakers, academic specialists, and the interested public of how economic and political forces interact to influence world affairs.[18]

The CFR’s Center for Preventive Action (CPA) seeks to help prevent, defuse, or resolve deadly conflicts around the world and to expand the body of knowledge on conflict prevention. It does so by creating a forum in which representatives of governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, and civil society can gather to develop operational and timely strategies for promoting peace in specific conflict situations.


Main article: Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

There are two types of membership: life, and term membership, which lasts for 5 years and is available to those between 30 and 36. Only U.S. citizens (native born or naturalized) and permanent residents who have applied for U.S. citizenship are eligible. A candidate for life membership must be nominated in writing by one Council member and seconded by a minimum of three others.[19]

Corporate membership (250 in total) is divided into “Basic”, “Premium” ($25,000+) and “President’s Circle” ($50,000+). All corporate executive members have opportunities to hear distinguished speakers, such as overseas presidents and prime ministers, chairmen and CEOs of multinational corporations, and U.S. officials and Congressmen. President and premium members are also entitled to other benefits, including attendance at small, private dinners or receptions with senior American officials and world leaders.[20]


The Council has been the subject of debate, as shown in the 1969 film The Capitalist Conspiracy by G. Edward Griffin, the 2006 film by Aaron Russo, America: Freedom to Fascism and a 2007 documentary Zeitgeist: The Movie, as well as the book The Naked Capitalist which reviewed Carroll Quigley’s book Tragedy and Hope from a less supportive standpoint.

This is partly due to the number of high-ranking government officials (along with world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership, its secrecy clauses, and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with, beginning with Wilson’s Fourteen Points. Wilson’s Fourteen Points speech was the first in which he suggested a worldwide security organization to prevent future world wars.[3]

The John Birch Society believes that the CFR is “Guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government…”.[21] Conservative Democratic congressman from Georgia Larry McDonald, the second head of the John Birch Society, introduced American Legion National Convention Resolution 773 to the House of Representatives calling for a congressional investigation into the Council on Foreign Relations, but nothing came from it.[22]

Carroll Quigley claimed it “became well known among those who believe that there is an international conspiracy to bring about a one-world government.” In Tragedy and Hope, he based his analysis on his unsourced research in the papers of an Anglo-American elite organization that, he held, secretly controlled the U.S. and UK governments through a series of Round Table Groups. Critics assailed Quigley for his approval of the goals (not the tactics) of the Anglo-American elite while selectively using his information and analysis as evidence for their views.[23] Speaking of Carroll Quigley, Rep. Larry McDonald said, “He says, sure we’ve been working it, sure we’ve been collaborating with communism, yes we’re working with global accommodation, yes, we’re working for world government. But the only thing I object to is that we’ve kept it a secret.”.[24] CFR publications discuss multilateralism and global governance as well.[25]

In response to the allegations, the CFR’s website contains a FAQ section about its affairs.[26] …”


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Geithner’s Government Gamble–Vampire Vulture Ventures–Heads The Vermin Win–Tails The American People Lose!

Posted on March 24, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Homes, Investments, Law, Links, Music, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Gladys Knight & The Pips – If I were Your Woman











A CFR Conversation with Timothy F. Geithner

Tim Geithner’s Toxic Asset Plan


In-Depth Look – Geithner’s Plan – Bloomberg


In-Depth Look – Treasury Plan – Bloomberg


In-depth Look – Geithner Plan Needs Details – Bloomberg


Wall Street On Geithner’s Plan – Bloomberg


The F Word: How About Breaking The Banks?


Mar 24 ’09 The Geithner Plan: How it works and a great discussion follows


DN! Paul Krugman (1\2) on $1 Trillion Geithner Plan to Buy Toxic Bank Assets


In-Depth Look – Toxic Assets – Bloomberg

3-24-2009 – Pence discusses AIG and the Geithner plan on MSNBC


Geithner Plan is a joint venture  between the Federal Government or Vampire and a private investor or Vulture to buy “toxic”  or “trouble assets”  now called ” legacy loans and securities ” –just call it Vampire Vulture Ventures. The official label is a Public Private Investment Program (PPIP), hence the reference to the Pips as in Gladys Knight and the Pips. 

Who wants the Federal Government as a partner even if they are putting up half the money?

Vulture investors–greedy risk taking bastards with money–capitalists!

The real problem is the bad banks get bailedout by getting the ” legacy loans and securities ” off their books, while the American people or taxpayers pay for any losses.

The banks made highly leveraged bad investments and lost. 

The American people should not be placed in a position of making them whole.

Instead the banks should be closed, no matter how big they are.

The price of failure should be FDIC receivership and not another bailout.

Take the big bad banks over, bring in new management and try to sell the bank to another buyer–FDIC Receivership.


Geithner’s Plan “Extremely Dangerous,” Economist Galbraith Says


Geithner’s Plan “Extremely Dangerous,” Economist Galbraith Says


Survival of The Fittest–Liquidate the Losers.

Your Bank Has Failed


Put a stake in the heart of the Vampire.

No more bailouts.



Let the Vultures invest 100% of their own money and feed on the carcass.

Vampire Vulture Ventures–Dead On Arrival! 

Good-bye Geithner and good riddance.

Jim Rogers was right about Geithner.

Jim Rogers On Geithner


President Obama made his first big mistake when he selected him as Treasury Secretary and then kept him.


Obama Defends Geithner


It will only be a matter of time before President Obama will throw Tim Geithner under the bus.





 Background Articles and Videos

My Plan for Bad Bank Assets

The private sector will set prices. Taxpayers will share in any upside

“…Today, we are announcing another critical piece of our plan to increase the flow of credit and expand liquidity. Our new Public-Private Investment Program will set up funds to provide a market for the legacy loans and securities that currently burden the financial system.

The Public-Private Investment Program will purchase real-estate related loans from banks and securities from the broader markets. Banks will have the ability to sell pools of loans to dedicated funds, and investors will compete to have the ability to participate in those funds and take advantage of the financing provided by the government.

The funds established under this program will have three essential design features. First, they will use government resources in the form of capital from the Treasury, and financing from the FDIC and Federal Reserve, to mobilize capital from private investors. Second, the Public-Private Investment Program will ensure that private-sector participants share the risks alongside the taxpayer, and that the taxpayer shares in the profits from these investments. These funds will be open to investors of all types, such as pension funds, so that a broad range of Americans can participate.

Third, private-sector purchasers will establish the value of the loans and securities purchased under the program, which will protect the government from overpaying for these assets.

The new Public-Private Investment Program will initially provide financing for $500 billion with the potential to expand up to $1 trillion over time, which is a substantial share of real-estate related assets originated before the recession that are now clogging our financial system. Over time, by providing a market for these assets that does not now exist, this program will help improve asset values, increase lending capacity by banks, and reduce uncertainty about the scale of losses on bank balance sheets. The ability to sell assets to this fund will make it easier for banks to raise private capital, which will accelerate their ability to replace the capital investments provided by the Treasury. …”



Grasping Reality with Both Hands

The Semi-Daily Journal of Economist Brad DeLong: A Fair, Balanced, Reality-Based, and More than Two-Handed Look at the World

“… The Geithner Plan FAQ


Q: What is the Geithner Plan?

A: The Geithner Plan is a trillion-dollar operation by which the U.S. acts as the world’s largest hedge fund investor, committing its money to funds to buy up risky and distressed but probably fundamentally undervalued assets and, as patient capital, holding them either until maturity or until markets recover so that risk discounts are normal and it can sell them off–in either case at an immense profit.

Q: What if markets never recover, the assets are not fundamentally undervalued, and even when held to maturity the government doesn’t make back its money?

A: Then we have worse things to worry about than government losses on TARP-program money–for we are then in a world in which the only things that have value are bottled water, sewing needles, and ammunition.

Q: Where does the trillion dollars come from?

A: $150 billion comes from the TARP in the form of equity, $820 billion from the FDIC in the form of debt, and $30 billion from the hedge fund and pension fund managers who will be hired to make the investments and run the program’s operations.

Q: Why is the government making hedge and pension fund managers kick in $30 billion?

A: So that they have skin in the game, and so do not take excessive risks with the taxpayers’ money because their own money is on the line as well.

Q: Why then should hedge and pension fund managers agree to run this?

A: Because they stand to make a fortune when markets recover or when the acquired toxic assets are held to maturity: they make the full equity returns on their $30 billion invested–which is leveraged up to $1 trillion with government money. …”



Paul Krugman

More on the bank plan

“…But if you think that the banks really, really have made lousy investments, this won’t work at all; it will simply be a waste of taxpayer money. To keep the banks operating, you need to provide a real backstop — you need to guarantee their debts, and seize ownership of those banks that don’t have enough assets to cover their debts; that’s the Swedish solution, it’s what we eventually did with our own S&Ls.

Now, early on in this crisis, it was possible to argue that it was mainly a panic. But at this point, that’s an indefensible position. Banks and other highly leveraged institutions collectively made a huge bet that the normal rules for house prices and sustainable levels of consumer debt no longer applied; they were wrong. Time for a Swedish solution.

But Treasury is still clinging to the idea that this is just a panic attack, and that all it needs to do is calm the markets by buying up a bunch of troubled assets. Actually, that’s not quite it: the Obama administration has apparently made the judgment that there would be a public outcry if it announced a straightforward plan along these lines, so it has produced what Yves Smith calls “a lot of bells and whistles to finesse the fact that the government will wind up paying well above market for [I don’t think I can finish this on a Times blog]” …”




Geithner’s gamble

Goh Eng Yeow on the latest US plan to manage toxic bank assets.

“…Instead of handling the problem all by itself, the government wants to set up a 50-50 joint venture with a private investor in which each party would take $5 million of the doubtful debt.The JV then goes to a government agency (the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to borrow the remaining $90 million.

The bank gets its $100 million back while the JV becomes the owner of the doubtful debt.

But here is the catch: If the doubtful debt cannot turn “good” and turns bad, with the borrower refusing to pay a single cent at all, all the JV will lose is the $10 million. It will not have to repay the $90 million loan it owes the FDIC.

It is a “heads you win tails I lose” situation for the pension funds and insurance firms if they come up with the small outlay to participate in Tim Geithner’s programme.

Most borrowers would love to be in such a situation – you get to keep the money you make, but the bank takes the bulk of any losses you may incur.

But doesn’t it remind you of the mess which caused the the world to plunge into this credit crunch crisis in the first place? …” 



Geithner’s Gamble

“…What needs to be done?

At the kernel of the credit crisis are hundreds of billions of dollars of unsuitable mortgages handed out to subprime borrowers in 2005, 2006 and 2007. These loans, parcelled up into mortgage-backed securities and derivatives called collateralised debt obligations, are already going sour in large numbers, as borrowers default and their foreclosed homes are dumped on the market at low prices.

Investors have shunned these securities and derivatives for more than 18 months now, fearful that the US housing market will keep getting worse. When these assets do sell, it is at depressed prices, far below face value. Banks, believing that the housing market will eventually stabilise and most borrowers will not default, do not want to sell in these circumstances.

A similar stalemate has been reached in the market for commercial mortgages and other types of credit derivatives, such as parcels of credit card loans. In all, perhaps $2 trillion of impaired assets is sitting on bank balance sheets. The government hopes that offering taxpayer money to buy them will kickstart the frozen markets and restore confidence more widely. …”



Geithner’s Plan “Extremely Dangerous,” Economist Galbraith Says


“…In short, because the plan is yet another massive, ineffective gift to banks and Wall Street. Taxpayers, of course, will take the hit
Why does Tim Geithner keep repackaging the same trash-asset-removal plan that he has been trying to get approved since last fall?

In our opinion, because Tim Geithner formed his view of this crisis last fall, while sitting across the table from his constituents at the New York Fed: The CEOs of the big Wall Street firms. He views the crisis the same way Wall Street does–as a temporary liquidity problem–and his plans to fix it are designed with the best interests of Wall Street in mind.

If Geithner’s plan to fix the banks would also fix the economy, this would be tolerable. But no smart economist we know of thinks that it will.

We think Geithner is suffering from five fundamental misconceptions about what is wrong with the economy. Here they are:

The trouble with the economy is that the banks aren’t lending. The reality: The economy is in trouble because American consumers and businesses took on way too much debt and are now collapsing under the weight of it. As consumers retrench, companies that sell to them are retrenching, thus exacerbating the problem. The banks, meanwhile, are lending. They just aren’t lending as much as they used to. Also the shadow banking system (securitization markets), which actually provided more funding to the economy than the banks, has collapsed.

The banks aren’t lending because their balance sheets are loaded with “bad assets” that the market has temporarily mispriced. The reality: The banks aren’t lending (much) because they have decided to stop making loans to people and companies who can’t pay them back. And because the banks are scared that future writedowns on their old loans will lead to future losses that will wipe out their equity. …” 



Gibbs on Geithner: “Uhhhh….uhhhh…uhhh”

By Michelle Malkin  

“…The Robert Gibbs Live Comedy Hour WH press briefing is on. Press corps is actually pressing Gibbs on Tim Geithner.

A journo asked Gibbs about the Geithner date discrepancies (March 10? March 3?) Gibbs replied, and I quote: “Uhhh…uhhhh…uhhh…uhhh.”

After having made snarky remarks about “his friends on cable TV” in response to a question about Obama’s rotten week, Gibbs then dismissed Geithner questions by offering to give one of the questioning journalists a dollar to read the latest newspaper accounts of the actual chronology today.

Another journo asked why Gibbs himself used the erroneous March 10 date that Geithner is sticking to even now despite the House hearing video that exposes that lie.

More deflection and uhhhs.

It’s all cable television’s fault! …”




“…Vampires are mythological or folkloric revenants who subsist by feeding on the blood of the living. In folkloric tales, the undead vampires often visited loved ones and caused mischief or deaths in the neighbourhoods they inhabited when they were alive. They wore shrouds and were often described as bloated and of ruddy or dark countenance, markedly different from today’s gaunt, pale vampire which dates from the early Nineteenth Century. Although vampiric entities have been recorded in most cultures, the term vampire was not popularised until the early 18th century, after an influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe from areas where vampire legends were frequent, such as the Balkans and Eastern Europe,[1] although local variants were also known by different names, such as vampir (вампир) in Serbia, vrykolakas in Greece and strigoi in Romania. This increased level of vampire superstition in Europe led to mass hysteria and in some cases resulted in corpses actually being staked and people being accused of vampirism.

In modern times, however, the vampire is generally held to be a fictitious entity, although belief in similar vampiric creatures such as the chupacabra still persists in some cultures. Early folkloric belief in vampires has been ascribed to the ignorance of the body’s process of decomposition after death and how people in pre-industrial societies tried to rationalise this, creating the figure of the vampire to explain the mysteries of death. Porphyria was also linked with legends of vampirism in 1985 and received much media exposure, but this link has since been largely discredited.

The charismatic and sophisticated vampire of modern fiction was born in 1819 with the publication of The Vampyre by John Polidori; the story was highly successful and arguably the most influential vampire work of the early 19th century.[2] However, it is Bram Stoker’s 1897 novel Dracula that is remembered as the quintessential vampire novel and provided the basis of the modern vampire legend. The success of this book spawned a distinctive vampire genre, still popular in the 21st century, with books, films, and television shows. The vampire has since become a dominant figure in the horror genre. …”



vulture investor

“…An investor who attempts to profit by buying debt of bankrupt or credit-impaired companies. Vulture investors are generally interested in the debt of problem companies that hold substantial tangible assets. …”


Social Darwinism

“Social Darwinism refers to various ideologies based on a concept that competition among all individuals, groups, nations, or ideas drives social evolution in human societies.[1] The term draws upon the common use of the term Darwinism, which is a social adaptation of the theory of natural selection as first advanced by Charles Darwin. Natural selection explains speciation in populations as the outcome of competition between individual organisms for limited resources or “survival of the fittest” (a term in fact coined by Herbert Spencer) (also refer to “The Gospel of Wealth” theory written by Andrew Carnegie). The term first appeared in Europe in 1879 and was popularized in the United States in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent.[2]

While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species. Others whose ideas are given the label include the 18th century clergyman Thomas Malthus, and Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton who founded eugenics towards the end of the 19th century. …”

“…Herbert Spencer’s ideas, like those of evolutionary progressivism, stemmed from his reading of Thomas Malthus, and his later theories were influenced by those of Darwin. However, Spencer’s major work, Progress: Its Law and Cause (1857) was released two years before the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and First Principles was printed in 1860. In regard to social institutions, there is a good case that Spencer’s writings might be classified as ‘social Darwinism’. He argues that the individual (rather than the collectivity) is the unit of analysis that evolves, that evolution takes place through natural selection, and that it affects social as well as biological phenomena.

In many ways Spencer’s theory of cosmic evolution has much more in common with the works of Lamarck and Auguste Comte’s positivism work than Darwin. …”



Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)

“The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is a United States government corporation created by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It provides deposit insurance, which guarantees the safety of deposits in member banks, currently up to $250,000 per depositor per bank. Funds in non-interest bearing transaction accounts are fully insured, with no limit, under the temporary Transaction Account Guarantee Program. However, not all banks are participating in the TLGP/TAGP.

On January 1, 2010[10], the standard coverage limit will return to $100,000 for all deposit categories except IRAs and Certain Retirement Accounts, which will continue to be insured up to $250,000 per owner.

Insured deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.[2]

The vast number of bank failures caused by runs on the bank in the Great Depression spurred the United States Congress to create an institution to guarantee deposits held by commercial banks, inspired by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its Depositors Insurance Fund (DIF).[3]

The FDIC insures accounts at different banks separately. For example, a person with accounts at two separate banks (not merely branches of the same bank) can keep funds up to the insurance limit in each account and be insured for the total deposited. Also, accounts in different ownerships (such as beneficial ownership, trusts, and joint accounts) are considered separately for the insurance limit. Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2005, Individual Retirement Accounts are insured to $250,000. …”

“…The two most common methods employed by FDIC in cases of insolvency or illiquidity are:

  • Purchase and Assumption Method (P&A), in which all deposits (liabilities) are assumed by an open bank, which also purchases some or all of the failed bank’s loans (assets). There are several types of P&As:
    • The Basic P&A: assets that pass to acquirers generally are limited to cash and cash equivalents.
    • The Loan Purchase P&A: the winning bidder assumes a small portion of the loan portfolio, sometimes only the installment loans, in addition to the cash and cash equivalents.
    • The Modified P&As: the winning bidder purchases the cash and cash equivalents, the installment loans, and all or a portion of the mortgage loan portfolio.
    • The P&As with Put Options: to induce an acquirer to purchase additional assets, the FDIC offered a “put” option on certain assets that were transferred.
    • The Whole Bank P&As: Bidders were asked to bid on all assets of the failed institution on an “as is,” discounted basis (with no guarantees). This type of sale was beneficial to the FDIC for three reasons. First, loan customers continued to be served locally by the acquiring institution. Second, the whole bank P&A minimized the one-time FDIC cash outlay, and the FDIC had no further financial obligation to the acquirer. Finally, a whole bank transaction reduced the amount of assets held by the FDIC for liquidation.
    • The Loss Sharing P&As: these use the basic P&A structure except for the provision regarding transferred assets. Instead of selling some or all of the assets to the acquirer at a discounted price, the FDIC agrees to share in future loss experienced by the acquirer on a fixed pool of assets.[24]
  • Payoff Method, in which insured deposits are paid by the FDIC, which attempts to recover its payments by liquidating the receivership estate of the failed bank. These are straight deposit payoffs and are only executed if the FDIC doesn’t receive a bid for a P&A transaction or for an insured deposit transfer transaction. In a straight deposit payoff, no liabilities are assumed and no assets are purchased by another institution. Also, the FDIC determines the insured amount for each depositor and pays that amount to him or her. In calculating each customer’s total deposit amount, the FDIC includes all the interest accrued up to the date of failure under the contractual terms of the depositor’s account.[25]  …”



Receivership Management Program

“When an insured institution fails, the FDIC is ordinarily appointed as receiver. In that capacity, it assumes responsibility for efficiently recovering the maximum amount possible from the disposition of the receivership’s assets and the pursuit of the receivership’s claims. Funds collected from the sale of assets and the disposition of valid claims are distributed to the receivership’s creditors in accordance with the priorities set by law.

The FDIC seeks to terminate receiverships in an orderly and expeditious manner. Once the FDIC has completed the disposition of the receivership’s assets and has resolved all obligations, claims, and other legal impediments, the receivership is terminated, and a final distribution is made to its creditors. Receivership creditors may include secured creditors, unsecured creditors (including general trade creditors), subordinate debt holders, shareholders of the institution, uninsured depositors, and the DIF (as subrogee). The FDIC is often the largest creditor of the receivership.

In addition, the FDIC works closely with other regulators and with the industry to stay abreast of capital markets and financial markets developments to be prepared for potential resolutions involving complex financial instruments. Further, with growing globalization, international outsourcing, and the interconnections of financial markets, the FDIC enters into international agreements, through cross border memoranda of understanding, to facilitate closer cooperation with key foreign authorities on the analysis of emerging issues, improved understanding of national legal and policy structures, and contingency planning for potential resolutions. …”



The David Copperfield School of Economic Recovery, Pt. II

By Michelle Malkin  

Now what?

Last week, the Obama administration brought us a $1 trillion Federal Reserve magic trick hatched by the David Copperfield School of Economic Recovery — printing up a trillion bucks and “pumping it into the U.S. economy”…by buying up bonds and mortgage securities…sold and backed by the government.

Today, hapless, truth-challenged tax cheat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner officially unveils another $1 trillion magic trick. Instead of letting failed banks fail, we’ll have another desperately massive and massively desperate attempt to prop them up through a “public private partnership investment program.” Eager to get the still-unfolding Bonus-gate behind them (see “Geithner Aides Worked With AIG for Months on Bonuses” and “AIG paid over $218 million in bonus payments”), Team Obama leaked details of the plan over the weekend. World stock markets were up this morning, full of audaciously blind hope.

Geithner ’s WSJ op-ed this morning lays out some of the details he failed to deliver when he first unveiled his non-plan plan a month ago: …”



Can Geithner Sell New Bailout Plans After the AIG Fiasco?


Comments on the latest Geithner Plan


DN! Paul Krugman (2\2) on $1 Trillion Geithner Plan to Buy Toxic Bank Assets



The Geithner plan = The Paulson plan


Geithner Plan I


Geithner Plan II


House Of Cards – Part 1


House Of Cards – Part 2


Mortgage Meltdown – 44min. documentary


subprime derivatives


March 23, 2009: The Day in 100 Seconds


The Real Count Dracula – Romania



Gladys Knight & The Pips: You Are The Best Thing That Ever Happened To Me


Related Post On Pronk Palisades

Creature from Jekyll Island: The Federal Reserve System–Videos

Mark-To-Market Accounting Rules Driving Banks To Bailouts–Change The Rules–Fed Chair Bernanke Explains!–Videos

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

Inside the Meltdown: Who Was Withdrawing From Money Market Funds On September 16-18, 2008 and Why?

The Mother of All Bailouts–2 to 3 Trillion Dollars–$2,000,000,000–$3,000,000,000!–Rewarding Greed, Arrogance and Stupidity–Pay for Play!

Bad Government Intervention Requires Bad Government Bank-The Road Map Out Of The World Economic Crisis–Stabilize–Stimulate–Strengthen–Simultaneously! 

President Obama’s Sales Pitch–Buy My Government Dependency Package–I Won The Election!–No Sale–The American People Want Their Money Back!

President Barack Obama Peddling The Government Dependency Package (GDP) and Fear Mongering The Raw Deal!

Pelosi’s Porky Pigout Poison Package–Economy Wrecker and Job Destroyer–Have A Blue Christmas 2009! 

BO’s Raw Deal: Obama’s Two Year Recession and Two Year Hyperinflation–Hopeless & Small Change!

Boycott Bailedout Businesses and Banks

Ban Bailouts–Stop Inflation Now (SIN)–Stop Socialism of Losses!

The Sovereign Wealth Fund Threat: Are Chinese Communists Behind Rush In Passing Bailout Bill?

The United States is Broke!–Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Time For GM and Ford Is Now!

Recession–Recession–Recession–Scaring People–Have A Hot Dog!

It Is Official–The U.S. Economy Has Been In A Recession for 11 Months and Continuing!

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Wealth, Income and Job Creation: Let A 1000 Microsofts Bloom

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

New World Order–They Are Coming To Take You Away–Hossana Obama–HO-HO–HO!

Posted on November 15, 2008. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Comedy, Communications, Cult, Education, Energy, Life, Links, Music, People, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Religion, Security, Talk Radio, Video, War | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |


Black Hawk – blackhawk helicopter music video

Looks like the black helicopters will be landing any minute.

Time to find a cave and stay there.


Santa Claus is coming to town!


Bruce Springsteen – Santa Claus Is Comin’ To Town


You better watch out
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
He’s making a list
And checking it twice;
Gonna find out Who’s naughty and nice
Santa Claus is coming to town
He sees you when you’re sleeping
He knows when you’re awake
He knows if you’ve been bad or good
So be good for goodness sake!
O! You better watch out!
You better not cry
Better not pout
I’m telling you why
Santa Claus is coming to town
Santa Claus is coming to town


New World Order


The New World Order is Here!




New World Order – Time to blow the cover




North American Union Discussed on FOX


Defamation And The Takeover Of America


Background Articles and Videos


New World Order

“…New World Order refers to a supposed conspiracy in which a powerful and secretive group is plotting to eventually rule the world via an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign states and other checks and balances in world power struggles. In this theory, many significant occurrences are said to be caused by a powerful secret group or groups. Historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to rule the world primarily through a combination of political finance, social engineering, mind control, and fear-based propaganda.[1][2][3][4][5]


The modern use of the phrase New World Order originated in the early 20th century with Cecil Rhodes, who advocated that the British Empire and the United States of America should jointly impose a Federal World Government (with English as the official language) to bring about lasting world “peace”.[6] A sinister motive is seen in the fact that Rhodes founded the Rhodes Scholarship as a global brotherhood of future leaders. Lionel Curtis, who also believed in this idea, founded the Round Table movement in 1909, which led to the establishment of the British-based Royal Institute for International Affairs in 1919 and the U.S.-based Council on Foreign Relations in 1921.[7] The concept was further developed by Edward M. House, a close advisor to Woodrow Wilson during the negotiations to set up the League of Nations (it is unclear whether it was House or Wilson who invented the actual phrase). Another important influence was the author H.G. Wells, a vigorous advocate for world government.[8]
One official mention which has garnered attention was in Gerald Ford’s “Declaration of Interdependence” on October 24, 1975; according to the ex-general counsel of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, Peter Beter, the Declaration of Interdependence states that:

We must join with others to bring forth a new world order… Narrow notions of national sovereignty must not be permitted to curtail that obligation.[9]

Elements are present in the populism of the nineteenth century. In present form, this can be traced to the collapse of the Soviet Union and President George H. W. Bush’s new world order speech of September 11, 1990. In it, he described the United States’ objectives for post-cold-war cooperation with the former Soviet Union, using the phrase new world order.[10]

Alternative terms for the New World Order are used by theorists: Cryptocracy, Fourth Reich, High Cabal, Illuminati Bankers, Power Elite, Powers That Be, and Synarchist International. …” 



Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America









“…The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) was launched in March of 2005 as a trilateral effort to increase security and enhance prosperity among the United States, Canada and Mexico through greater cooperation and information sharing.

This trilateral initiative is premised on our security and our economic prosperity being mutually reinforcing. The SPP recognizes that our three great nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions.

The SPP provides the framework to ensure that North America is the safest and best place to live and do business. It includes ambitious security and prosperity programs to keep our borders closed to terrorism yet open to trade.

The SPP builds upon, but is separate from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships. It energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations, such as the protection of our environment, our food supply, and our public health. …”



Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America

“The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is a region-level dialogue with the stated purpose of providing greater cooperation on security and economic issues.[1] The Partnership was founded in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005 by Paul Martin, Prime Minister of Canada, Vicente Fox, President of Mexico, and George W. Bush, President of the United States.[1]…”

“…The stated goals of the SPP are cooperation and information sharing, improving productivity, reducing the costs of trade, enhancing the joint stewardship of the environment, facilitating agricultural trade while creating a safer and more reliable food supply, and protecting people from disease.

The SPP is based on the belief that prosperity is dependent on security, and claims that the three nations are bound by a shared belief in freedom, economic opportunity, and strong democratic institutions. It is intended to assist, rather than replace, existing bilateral and trilateral institutions like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and claims to work towards the three North American countries working cooperatively in the face of common risks and economic competition from low cost comulti-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.

North American Facilitation of Transportation, Trade, Reduced Congestion & Security (NAFTRACS) is a three phase pilot project designed to focus on business processes and information as freight is transported from buyers to sellers. The project is intended to create a partnership between businesses and local, state, and federal governments, while claiming to foster cooperation among the same entities. …”


The Dangers of the “North American Union” by Jerome Corsi


Roy Masters as a guest on The Joe Franklin Show 1/2


Roy Masters as a guest on The Joe Franklin Show 2/2


Roy Masters: Be still and “you’ll know.”


Roy Masters: This Is Not An Ordinary Discussion


Roy Masters “How Not to React”


Roy Masters “Understand, Don’t Learn”


PART 1 Meditation Exercise by Roy Masters “Be Still & Know”


PART 2 Meditation Exercise by Roy Masters “Be Still & Know”


Foundation of Human Understanding

* * * S P E C I A L F E A T U R E * * *
Democrats: The Trojan Horse of Democracy?


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...