Posts Tagged ‘FED’

What happened to America?

July 4, 2013

What happened to America?

By Dark Politricks

On the 4th of July, 2013 there is only one question that needs to be asked to all Americans who are actually celebrating 4th of July, Independence Day.

“What are you actually celebrating?”

It cannot be the freedom of speech you used to cherish. No you have to have permits and free speech zones for protests now. Plus your constant chatter on the phones, Internet and in public is constantly monitored by technological mammoth like NSA’s PRISM and the much older ECHELON.

It cannot be the free movement around the country without fear of harassment, secure in your papers from unreasonable searches. Not when the Police, TSA, Transport Cops, Border Guards and other agencies can now forcibly take blood and DNA samples from you, scan your naked body and grope your genitals if you refuse to be scanned, stored and studied as you go about your way.

It cannot be freedom from a tyrant, a King George like figure who thinks he has a God given right to take your life. No the President now has the authority to take your life without even bothering with the charade that passes for a trial if he thinks you are a danger to your country.

Freedom from drone strikes? Nope.

Freedom from assassination squads? Nope.

Freedom to blow the whistle when you find that your government has broken the law, spied on people without warrants or committed massacres in war zones?

Nope, you will be hunted down like a dog and tried for being a spy. The papers and journalists who dare print your stories of government abuse will also be attacked, spied upon and harassed. Even people who should know better will call for your execution on live TV. Who knows who is even a real TV presenter anymore and who is really a COINTELPRO agent stirring up hate against “enemies of the state” who dare speak truth to power?

Is it the freedom to work long hours for little pay? Forced to hand over large amounts of your earnings for goods that your Government mandates you “must” purchase and then watch as the endless cycle of your Government buying it’s own printed money through the convoluted and corrupt Federal Reserve system means that the value of your wage decreases in real terms every month?Well you don’t have any choice in that now do you?

It has now come to the stage that you are monitored so much in real life through linked up CCTV systems such as TRAPWIRE, massive city sized computer systems that can log every purchase you make, every movement you make through your cars GPS tracking systems or even that useful bug you so happily carry around with you for others to track you with, your phone, that you cannot even escape into cyberspace anymore. A virtual world is just as monitored as the real one. Are even the virtual homes you visit in virtual worlds like Second Life bugged and monitored by virtual agents of the state? Probably.

Facebook, Google, Skype, Apple and all the other big techno giants we are being shepherded into using 24/7 are all just front ends to those 3 letter acronyms that litter the American landscape. Acronyms like NSA, CIA, FBI and the  TSA are all hankering after those data packets that log every URL, website, file, instant message and email you have ever written.

These are the modern day “papers” of the 21st century, and secure is not something you can expect to be, especially when you willingly hand over your data to the “cloud” for safe storage.

So if you are celebrating “Independence Day” today then I would be interested to know what is so special about your independence when compared to a dictatorship?

You have been living under emergency laws since 9.11.

Laws that give the President dictatorial like powers through Orwellian pieces of legalese like the PATRIOT ACT which was written years before the date and then eagerly dusted off when the events of 9.11 unfolded.

All to be enacted under a climate of fear and patriotism, where politicians didn’t even bother reading what they voted for and detractors were attacked with Anthrax or declared “unpatriotic”. All because they were not willing to hand over their basic rights such as habeas corpus, a fair trial, freedom from torture or the right to know what you have been accused of in an open court of law.

This was back when we had a far right government running the USA. Now we are supposedly living under a liberal, left wing, Democrat!

How I laugh when I hear Americans call Obama left wing or socialist! Society is not something he is promoting with Homeland Security asking neighbours to become de-facto spies and inform on each other or where over a million Americans have top secret security clearance.

There is nothing democratic or liberal about the NDAA, drone strikes at will or the President declaring that he can spy on anyone in the world without due process.

I have to wonder on this day what President Obama see’s when he looks in the mirror.

Does he see the leader of a once great free nation that has succumb to fear, militarism, war mongering and the all pervasive surveillance state.

If not, does he honestly believe he’s a liberal in charge of a “free nation”?

If so does he not feel the slightest bit of guilt when he looks at that Nobel Peace prize he was so, so prematurely given in the hope that pre-election rhetoric would be converted into real “hope and change” from the Bush/Cheney years?

Instead he has taken the ball from the GOP and kicked it out the stadium, far surpassing anything the Republicans did to kill liberty and freedom in America.

Wars have increased, with covert action and drone strikes occurring in more places across the world than ever before. All under the never ending “war on terror” banner.

Liberty at home has decreased and a true liberal POTUS would have at least stood up for the freedoms he attacked Bush for removing when he was only a Senator. Does he honestly not believe he is the hypocrite is blatantly is.

It is funny how power corrupts.

It is not so funny to look at the state of Amerika on this once special day.

 

View the original article What happened America? at the main site www.darkpolitricks.com.

 

Quiz Are you only against an American police state when “your man” is in the White House?

June 17, 2012

By Dark Politricks

This a pop quiz to see if you are a free thinker who chooses your morals independently of whether “your guy” is in the White House or someone who sees right and wrong whichever side of the coin is in power.

1. Are you someone who is attacking Obama‘s expansion of the war on terror. His increase in drone strikes and failure to close Gitmo. The  killing by Presidential decree and implementation of civil liberty destroying measures such as increased Internet Spying and the implementation of the NDAA?

2. Were you doing the same when George Bush was implementing the PATRIOT ACT and using warrant-less phone hacking. Allowing his Vice President to have a personal execution team to take out enemies of the state and using extraordinary rendition and torture to gain information from prisoners who were mostly innocent people sold to the Americans by the Afghan warlords. Were you decrying  the implementation of drone attacks which de-link the close up smell and emotion of a killing from the deed turning it to nothing more than a real life video game? Did your protests stop when a Democrat “you could believe in” entered the White House and then carried on the Bush policies?

3. Are you someone supporting the Occupy Wall St’s desire to have real banking reformstop bailouts of casino banks that waste billions on bets or “hedges” like JP Morgans’s recent London Whale and want to close the disparity between the top 1% and the rest of America. Do you mind that during the worst depression of our lifetime the wages of those in the top percent of the country have increased by staggering amounts whereas the lowering, devaluing dollar that means lower and middle class families are seeing real price increases, inflation and lowering living standards?

4. Were you supportive of the original Tea Party and Ron Paul when they were making some of the same claims. Did you change your support of economic policy when Bush left and Obama entered the White House. Do you think it matters who sleeps in the White House bed when the FED can print money, loan out billions to foreign and domestic banks on a whim and devalue the dollar in your pocket without any political oversight?

5. Is it moral or ethical to kill an American citizen without any judicial process even if they are not in America at the time of the killing?

6. What about if they were in America? Should the President be able to sign your death warrant like an English King without your knowledge and without any recourse to  court?

7. Is it okay to kill a Jihadist in Pakistan by drone attack because a CIA agent “thinks” they have the right person in Langley, Virginia?

8. Is it still okay if 50 innocent Pakistani villagers, woman and children are also killed at the same time?

9. What about a thousand people? What number is a legitimate figure for “collateral damage” in these kinds of attacks?

10. What if you later find out that the Jihadist wasn’t killed at all and it was a case of mistaken identity. Was the attack still justified? What recourse should the families of the dead victims have against the American government who is supposedly not at war with Pakistan?

11. If a gang of burglars broke into your house in the middle of the night, shot your dog dead, beat you with sticks and de-humanised you in front of your family. Should you have the right to fight back, to kill if necessary to protect your family and possessions?

12. What if the gang wore SWAT uniforms and were following a false tip phoned in by a jealous neighbour or they thought you were smoking marijuana. Should the fact that the state is the gang of thugs killing your pets and beating you make any difference to your right to defend your family and your property?

13. Do you think Obama is bankrupting the country by increasing national debt?

13. What about President Bush or President Reagan? Does your perspective of national debt change depending on whether you are a Republican or Democrat or is debt, debt no matter who is President? Both Bush and Reagan increased the national debt by huge amounts – what is the difference between  a Republican increasing debt and a Democrat?

14. Do you think Obama wants to turn your country into socialist Cuba by having a health policy that actually allows poor people or those with existing conditions to get affordable health care?

15. What would you do if you lost your job due to a bank bailout and a house repossession caused by policies enacted under George W Bush and you couldn’t afford your health insurance?

16. What would you do if you broke your leg or had a serious disease. How would you treat your condition? Would you use the most expensive health care system in the world by turning up at your local Hospital Emergency department?

17. Do you think that a healthy work force is a productive one? Or should people born into poor families through no fault of their own be left to suffer and die due to lack of money?

18. Do you think war should be decided by Presidential decree alone or that Congress should vote on every decision that sends peoples children into harms way? Should Congress vote according to their conscience or their parties line on the matter?

19. Do you agree with the wars in Iraq and Libya. Were you against the war in Iraq when Bush was President and for the war in Libya when Obama was? Why was  that?

20. Do you want your country to turn into a modern day Police state where all communications are listened to, automatically filtered and then decisions about whether you can leave and enter the country or travel by plane decided by a text message or email?

21. Should the TSA be able to touch your wife’s breasts and touch your children’s bodies all in the name of protecting the homeland from terrorists disguised as 4 year old white boys and 80 year old grannies?

22. Should people be able to speak out about government abuses, criminal acts and actions that break international law if they feel that the people have a right to know? Does the law apply to everyone or just the serfs and not the landowners?

23. Should these whistle blowers be punished for breaking “secrets act” laws or praised for following their conscience?

24. Should the American government force private companies to stop trading with people and organisations that try to bring the truth to the people. Knowledge and misdeeds that your government would rather you didn’t know about such as the illegal bugging of UN dignitaries or the massacre of innocent people in a war zone?

25. Do you want to live in a world where it is increasingly hard to tell the difference between your once free country and a banana dictatorship that kills opponents on a whim, uses torture and prison without trial, prints money to cause inflation and goes to war to distract the people from real problems at home?

26. Do you really think that by electing Mitt Romney as the next US President anything will really change?

27. If Mitt Romney is elected do you think jobs will suddenly come flooding back to America from all those companies like his own and Apple who offshore them to Chinese cheap labour camps?

28. Will Romney stop the FED printing money and will the government never raise the national debt under his presidency?

29. Do you think that he will stop or expand the war on terror and increase it more to the homeland by naming US Citizens as domestic terrorists. Do you think you are on one of the government watch-lists right now?

30. What can you do about it?

Please put your ideas in the comment boxes.

Geithner and Bernanke: Laundering Money Through an Illegal Trust?

February 3, 2010

Frank Gaffney

Big Government

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

This afternoon on Secure Freedom Radio we announced a breaking news story concerning the Administration’s ongoing cover-up of AIG financial wrong-doing.  In an interview with David Yerushalmi, senior litigator on the Murray v. Geithner et al lawsuit, we expose possible fraud, money-laundering and criminal activity.

As Yerushalmi says in the interview, “So here’s what we find out in the midst of discovery when we depose the Treasury Department’s deponent and the Fed and get documents, here’s what we’ve learned: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time that it structured the debt that it was going to give AIG insisted that not only did it get the debt, not only would it get principal and interest payments and collateral for that, it wanted 80% of AIG, precisely 77.9% of the shares and the voting rights.  But the Federal Reserve Bank and Geithner knew that it was illegal for the Fed system whether there’s a Fed or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to own that, so what did they do….”

Read the rest – the  transcript and audio of the interview – at Secure Freedom Radio.    Come back for an update tomorrow involving Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP….and an animated movie showing exactly how the AIG, Treasury and Federal Reserve scheme worked.

The Fed as Giant Counterfeiter

February 3, 2010

Robert Murphy
Campaign For Liberty
Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

San Jose State economics professor Jeffrey Rogers Hummel tells all his students that the easiest way to understand the Federal Reserve is to think of it as a giant, legalized counterfeiter. I had always known that the Fed and other central banks were like counterfeiters, but I still thought that the actual mechanics of open-market operations and so forth actually provided some important distinctions.

In large part because of my frequent email exchanges with Hummel, I now realize that I was being naïve. Once you understand the details of modern central banking, you are able to step back and see that it truly is a way for the government to use the printing press to pay its bills. All of the complicated process of targeting interest rates through buying Treasuries simply hides this essential point — and perhaps deliberately so.

An Old-Fashioned Monarch With a Printing Press

Before we examine Fed operations, let’s start with something simpler. Suppose there is a powerful monarch reigning over a large, industrialized country. The monarch has managed to wean his subjects off commodity money such as gold or silver, and instead they use fiat notes, rectangular slips of paper featuring the king’s portrait. The king has a printing press at his disposal, which gives him unlimited ability to create more slips of paper with which he can buy goods throughout his kingdom.

At first, one might think that our hypothetical king has infinite wealth. But upon reflection, we see that there are actually pragmatic limits on how much new money he will print up each year. It’s true that there are no legal constraints on how many notes he can create, but the more monetary inflation he sows, the greater the price inflation he will reap.

At some point, the monarch would actually make himself poorer in the long run by running the printing press too heavily in the present. For example, if he doubled the stock of money in one year, the resulting price inflation would destabilize his economy and cause much needless capital consumption. His subjects would be less willing to invest in their businesses and retirement portfolios, knowing that he might effectively confiscate their savings again through massive creation of new money. Foreign investors too would be wary of exposing themselves to his country if he made his fiat currency too volatile.

Because of these considerations, the monarch would no doubt run off new money every year from his printing press, but he wouldn’t overdo it. He would aim for a moderate level of constant price inflation, with the purchasing power of his fiat currency slowly falling over time in a predictable manner. Each year, the new influx of money into the economy would represent a transfer of wealth from all other currency holders into the king’s possession.

Now what if our monarch is really profligate? What if he wants to spend more money than the income and tribute he earns in his position as monarch, even including the amount of new money he dares to create each year with his printing press, can support? In this case, the monarch can still resort to old-fashioned borrowing. Therefore in any given year, the monarch can only spend what he collects in tribute (taxes), debt financing, and inflation.

Modern Counterfeiting, Fed Style

At first glance, our present monetary system is nothing like the simple tale of a king with a printing press. For one thing, the US Treasury is a distinct entity from the Federal Reserve. When the US federal government runs a budget deficit, it can’t simply have the Fed print up enough $100 bills to cover the shortfall. No, the Treasury always covers its budget deficits by issuing debt, referred to as Treasuries. These are bonds, IOUs sold by the Treasury to outside investors who lend the Treasury money today in the hopes of being paid back in the future.

But wait, there’s more to the story. One of the main buyers of this Treasury debt is the Federal Reserve itself. This phenomenon is especially pronounced during emergencies such as major wars and the current financial crisis. Indeed, in the second quarter of 2009, the Federal Reserve was the effective buyer of some 48 percent of the new Treasury debt issued that period, as part of its “quantitative easing.” It’s true, the Fed doesn’t show up at the Treasury auctions and directly buy the new T-bills and so forth, but private dealers pay higher prices for the Treasuries knowing that the Fed is waiting in the wings to pick them up.

At this point let’s review exactly what happens when the Federal Reserve buys Treasuries from private dealers. Let’s say the Fed wants to buy $1 million worth of T-bills from Joe Smith. So it writes Joe a check for $1 million, drawn on the Fed itself. Joe hands the T-bills over to the Fed, where they end up on the asset side of its balance sheet. Joe then deposits the check in his personal checking account, which goes up by $1 million.

“If nothing else, the Fed’s massive buying of Treasury debt pushes up the auction price of the Treasuries, meaning the federal government can borrow at cheaper interest rates.”

So at this point the Fed has increased the money supply by $1 million. In normal times, because of the fractional-reserve banking system, Joe’s bank would lend out $900,000 of the new deposit to another customer, so that the money supply would grow even further. But that’s not what interests us in this article, so we’ll leave that train of thought.

What we want to focus on is the effect of the Fed’s purchase on the US Treasury. By entering the bond market and buying Treasuries (with money created out of thin air), the Fed pushes up the price of the bonds. That of course means that their yield drops. So, for example, if the Treasury issues a T-bill promising to pay the holder $10,000 in 12 months, then the auction price determines how much money the Treasury actually gets to borrow now in exchange for this promise to pay back $10,000 in one year. If the demand is such that people pay $9,901 for each T-bill with a face value of $10,000, then the Treasury gets to borrow money for a year at an interest rate of 1 percent.

Already we see why the folks at the Treasury are big fans of the Fed’s “quantitative easing” program, in which Bernanke decided it was in the national interest to begin adding more than a trillion dollars’ worth of Treasury debt to the Fed’s balance sheet. If nothing else, the Fed’s massive buying of Treasury debt pushes up the auction price of the Treasuries, meaning the federal government can borrow at cheaper interest rates.

Now, if this were the whole story, it would be fishy but not nearly as bad as our hypothetical monarch with the printing press. Sure, the Fed would create new dollars (which would push up dollar prices of goods and services) in order to keep the Treasury’s borrowing costs low. But still, the Treasury would have to pay some interest on its debt, especially for longer-dated debt with higher yields, like 10-year Treasury notes. So although the mechanism we have described would encourage the Treasury to run higher deficits at the expense of average people, who suffer from rising prices, things don’t seem nearly as crooked as they were in the case of our monarch.

Ah, but we’re not done yet. Not only does the Fed’s accumulation of Treasury debt artificially push down the interest rate, but the Fed gives the interest payments right back to the Treasury! After all, interest is how the Fed “makes money.” It writes checks on itself (created out of thin air) and accumulates assets, and then earns the interest and (in some cases) capital gains on the assets. But after the Fed pays its employees, pays its electric bill, and throws the staff Christmas party, it remits the excess earnings back to the Treasury.

For example, in fiscal year 2008 the Federal Reserve distributed to the US Treasury some $31.7 billion (page 173)Download PDF of its net earnings. To repeat, much of this money consisted of interest payments that the Treasury paid out to the holders of its debt, who just so happened to be the Fed for much of it. So not only is the official rate of interest kept artificially low by the Fed’s money-creation, but the interest payments themselves are largely refunded to the Treasury, to the extent that the Fed ends up holding the Treasuries rather than outsiders.

“But after the Fed pays its employees, pays its electric bill, and throws the staff Christmas party, it remits the excess earnings back to the Treasury.”

All right, so the Fed (a) suppresses the interest rate on Treasury debt and (b) refunds virtually all of the interest payments on Treasury debt held by the Fed. And remember, the way the Fed does this is through creating new dollars out of thin air, in order to buy the Treasury debt from the original investors who lent money to the Treasury. Therefore the Fed is clearly giving aid to the US government’s deficit spending at the expense of everyone holding assets denominated in US dollars.

Still, the one thing holding back the complete recklessness of the feds is that they still have to pay off the principal of their bonds when they mature, right? In other words, all we’ve really shown is that the Fed allows the Treasury to run deficits virtually at zero interest expense, at least for debt held by the Fed. But this is still a far cry from our hypothetical monarch, who had a whole component of his expenses which he met year in and year out by running the printing press.

Sorry, but our own monetary system has the same feature. When the Treasury securities held by the Fed mature — so that the Treasury has to pay back the face value in principal — the Fed rolls over the debt. Over time, the nominal market value of the Fed’s holdings of Treasury debt continually grows. Barring a sudden reversal in this policy, the Treasury knows that it will never have to pay off this debt. For all practical purposes, any Treasury debt ultimately finding its way onto the Fed’s balance sheet is economically equivalent to our monarch running the printing press to pay his bills.[1]

We have just one last consideration. Up till now we’ve seen that the modern US government, with its complicated central bank and fiat money system, operates essentially as a king with a simple printing press, to the extent that the Fed is willing to accumulate larger holdings of Treasury debt. But what determines how much the Fed is willing to take on? At what point would the Fed decide to ease off on its open-market operations and stop creating so many new dollars to (indirectly) hand over to the government?

The ultimate constraint on the Fed’s operations is the same one our hypothetical king faced: investor and citizen backlash in response to rising prices. That is, the Federal Reserve can only absorb so much of the Treasury’s new debt each year because too much dollar-creation would lead to unacceptably high price inflation. Thus our profligate government, like the hypothetical monarch, must finance some of its spending through traditional borrowing from private citizens and other governments.

Conclusion

Stripped of its fancy terminology and confusing mechanics, modern central banking boils down to a legalized counterfeiting operation. If there were suddenly a widespread public outcry to “punt the press,” we can bet our hypothetical monarch would mobilize all his allies in the media to discredit the people threatening his source of revenue. In that light, we can understand the reaction today to people calling to “end the Fed.”

Notes

[1] Actually, because private banks typically cause further money creation by pyramiding more loans on top of the Fed’s initial injection of new money, our financial system is arguably worse than the hypothetical monarch’s. In order for the king to finance a $1 billion deficit through inflation, he had to print up $1 billion worth of new currency. But if the Fed creates $1 billion in order to absorb that much in new Treasury debt, typically the actual money supply can end up rising by $10 billion. Thus modern inflation through central banking in democratic states is arguably less “efficient” than under a monarchy with an explicit printing press.

Paulson Feared Run On The Dollar

February 1, 2010

Krishna Guha
Financial Times
Monday, February 1st, 2010

Hank Paulson feared there would be a run on the dollar during the early phase of the financial crisis when global concerns were focused on the US, the former Treasury secretary has told the Financial Times.

“It was a real concern,” Mr Paulson said in an interview ahead of the release on Monday of his memoir On the Brink. A dollar collapse “would have been catastrophic,” he said. “Everything that could go bad did not go bad. We never had the big dislocation of the dollar.”

When the crisis escalated and went global with the failure of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, the dollar rallied – but Mr Paulson had to grapple with a firestorm of financial failures.

He feared Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would go down along with Washington Mutual and Wachovia.

Full article here


Bloomberg: Maybe A Secret Banking Cabal Does Run The World After All

January 29, 2010

AIG cover-up proof that “conspiracy theorists” aren’t so crazy, writes columnist

Bloomberg: Maybe A Secret Banking Cabal Does Run The World After All 290110top

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, January 29, 2010

In another measure of how what the establishment labels “conspiracy theory” is quickly becoming mainstream, Bloomberg News carries a story today acknowledging that those derided as “crazy” for warning that the world is run by a secret banking cabal have largely been proven right in light of the AIG cover-up.

“The idea of secret banking cabals that control the country and global economy are a given among conspiracy theorists who stockpile ammo, bottled water and peanut butter. After this week’s congressional hearing into the bailout of American International Group Inc., you have to wonder if those folks are crazy after all,” writes Bloomberg’s David Reilly today.

“Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.”

Reilly goes on to describe how the New York Fed conducted a backdoor bailout (or in plainer terms a wholesale looting of the taxpayer) of banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co., Societe Generale and Deutsche Bank AG, and then sought to keep it secret from the public.

Reilly also highlights another telling quote by Representative Marcy Kaptur during the hearing on Wednesday, when she told Geithner, “A lot of people think that the president of the New York Fed works for the U.S. government. But in fact you work for the private banks that elected you.”

Reilly savages Tim Geithner’s denial of any involvement in the scandal and concludes with stating, “When unelected and unaccountable agencies pick banking winners while trying to end-run Congress, even as taxpayers are forced to lend, spend and guarantee about $8 trillion to prop up the financial system, our collective blood should boil.”

As we have constantly emphasized, as the global government and the financial takeover accelerates, it’s becoming harder and harder for the elite to hide the true intention of what they are doing, which is centralizing power into fewer hands, destroying sovereignty and creating a one world order run by an unelected, undemocratic authoritarian system.

So whereas “conspiracy theorists” were once sidelined as paranoid kooks, as more and more of what they warned about comes to fruition, they gain more credibility and the establishment finds it more difficult to neutralize what they are saying by means of character assassination.

The Bloomberg writer’s admission that the “conspiracy theorists” were probably right reminds us of former Clinton advisor Dick Morris’ appearance on Fox News last year, when he pointed out that people who have been sounding the alarm bells over a global government takeover for decades have also been vindicated.

“Those people who have been yelling ‘oh the UN’s gonna take over, global government’, they’ve been crazy but now – they’re right!,” stated Morris on Sean Hannity’s show.

Watch the clip below.

View the original article at Prison Planet

Despite Role in AIG Bailout, Senate Votes to Reappoint Bernanke

January 29, 2010

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
January 28, 2010

Alan Greenspan’s protege Ben Bernanke is about to be reappointed to a second four-term as the Federal Reserve boss.

Earlier today, the Senate voted 77-23 to end debate on Bernanke after his supporters took to the floor and sang his praises and critics made ominous warnings. “To vote against confirmation could unnerve investors and exacerbate economic uncertainty in the marketplace, which is exactly what we do not need at this time,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, according to The Wall Street Journal. “We need the wisdom of patience,” he said. “Let us not judge the man or the work prematurely.”

Bernanke did nothing about the unsustainable build-up of leverage in the housing market. In fact, his Fed inflated the bubble that made it possible.

He oversaw the bailout of Bear Stearns and AIG, a call that Congress and the American people should have made.

Bernanke oversaw the massive expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet from about $900 billion to over $2 trillion.

At the behest of international bankers, Helicopter Ben transcended monetary policy and bank supervision into the world of fiscal policy, financial speculation, and the resultant economic crisis we are now experiencing.

He is a loyal friend of the banksters and has worked tirelessly to cover up where Fed money has gone and prevent Congress and the American people from looking at the Fed’s crooked books.

If the Senate follows through, Bernanke will be allowed to continue the bankster agenda designed to ruin the country and continue the move toward globalization, world government and the bankster plan for a planetary slave labor plantation indistinguishable from the one operating in China.

“Bernanke fiddled while our markets burned,” said Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Senate Banking Committee. “I believe that it is the duty of this body to hold accountable those regulators whose poor oversight of our financial institutions and markets helped produce the greatest economic crisis this country has experienced in eighty years.”

Bernanke did more than merely fiddle while markets burned — he actively micromanaged the process.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was grilled yesterday over the AIG deal that benefited Goldman Sachs and the banksters.

Earlier this week we found out that Ben had things to hide. Sen. Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, said on CNBC that he has seen documents showing that Bernanke covered up the fact that his staff recommended the Fed not bailout AIG. A letter Bunning sent Monday to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd also refers to an “[e]mail exchange regarding restructuring of assistance to AIG, initiated by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner” in March 2009.

Only Dodd’s Banking Committee had access to the documents and they were kept close to the vest. Access only came after Bunning publicly complained that Dodd and Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) were the only members of the committee could see them, writes Ryan Grim. “On Monday, Bunning sent a letter to Dodd, asking him to subpoena the emails and other documents. Bunning and other committee members have thus far had to view the documents at the Federal Reserve and are bound by confidentiality from revealing their contents.”

Not that it matters. It looks like the Senate will reappoint Bernanke and send a message to Wall Street and the houses of international finance — Ben’s OK with us and the greatest heist in history can continue with the support of the Senate.

All who gave Ben a wink and a nod should be bounced out of Congress come the elections of 2012.

Utah GOP unanimously passes an Audit the Fed resolution!

January 29, 2010

By kconstantine

It is my great honor to report that the Utah Republican Party has unanimously passed a resolution in support of HR1207 and S604!  Earlier last year, the Salt Lake County Republican Party passed a similar resolution with only 1 Nay vote.

Utah’s entire delgation, save 1 (Democratic Representative Jim Matheson), have signed on as co-sponosres to either the House or Senate version of the bill and it is receiving tremendous support from Utah State Legislators.

The text of the resolution:

RESOLUTION OF THE UTAH REPUBLICAN PARTY STATE CENTRAL COMMITTEE
IN SUPPORT OF HR 1207 (THE FEDERAL RESERVE TRANSPARENCY ACT OF 2009) AND ITS COMPANION BILL, S 604 (THE FEDERAL RESERVE SUNSHINE ACT OF 2009)

WHEREAS, we, as Members and Representatives of the Utah Republican Party applaud transparency and accountability in government and reject government secrecy involving monetary policy that impacts the entire economy; and

WHEREAS, serious discussions of proposals to oversee and audit the Federal Reserve are long overdue; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Reserve can enter into agreements with foreign governments and foreign central banks and the United States Congress is prohibited from overseeing these agreements; and

WHEREAS, we, as Members and Representatives of the Utah Republican Party, believe agreements made by the Federal Reserve with foreign powers and foreign banking institutions should be subject to Congressional oversight; and

WHEREAS, the United States Constitution, gives the United States Congress the authority to coin Money and regulate the value thereof; and

WHEREAS, auditing the Federal Reserve will allow Congress to assert its constitutional authority over monetary policy and help to protect the value of the United States dollar;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Members of the Utah Republican Party State Central Committee, in defense of the United States Constitution, STRONGLY URGE the members of the 111th United States Congress to support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 and its companion bill, the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act of 2009.

Submitted by: Kurtis Constantine, Salt Lake County Secretary.

Co-Submitted by: Thomas Wright, Salt Lake County Chairman; Rick Votaw, Salt Lake County Vice Chairman; Robert Wright, Salt Lake County Treasurer.

A similar Resolution was passed by the Salt Lake County Executive Committee with unanimous consent and recommended to the Salt Lake County Central Committee on August 13, 2009.
A similar Resolution was passed by the Salt Lake County Central Committee (with only one dissenting vote) and recommended to the Utah State Central Committee on September 17, 2009.

View the original article at Campaign for Liberty

Geithner Told To Quit After E Mails Reveal Involvement In AIG Cover-up

January 27, 2010

John Mica slams Treasury Secretary’s “lame excuses” during fiery hearing

Geithner Told To Quit After E Mails Reveal Involvement In AIG Cover up 270110top2

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s denial that he played any role in the AIG cover-up is contradicted by emails which confirm that both Geithner and the New York Federal Reserve were both intimately involved in keeping details about payments to banks including Goldman Sachs from the public.

Geithner told lawmakers today that he had no involvement in withholding information about the bailout of AIG, much to the chagrin of House Oversight Committee Ranking Member Darrell Issa, who wasn’t buying it for a second.

“He has asserted complete ignorance of the Fed’s efforts to cover up the bailout details,” said Issa, R-Calif. “Many Americans, including members of this Committee, have a hard time believing that Secretary Geithner entered an absolute cone of silence on the day that his nomination was announced.”

John Mica of Florida went further, calling for Geithner to quit as a result of the scandal.

“Why shouldn’t we ask for your resignation?” Mica asked Geithner. “We’re not getting the whole story, we’re getting the blame story. You’re either incompetent on the job or you knew what was taking place and you tried to conceal it, and I think that’s grounds for your review.”

Mica characterized Geithner’s denials as “lame excuses” as the Treasury Secretary became visibly angry.

In November and December 2008, The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, headed up by Geithner, instructed the bailed out AIG to hide from the public details regarding payments the insurance giant made to banks, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Societe Generale SA.

Using Fed secured taxpayer bailout money, AIG paid several banks 100 percent of the face value of credit-default swaps, as other financial institutions were negotiating deep discounts for the unregulated paper assets that do not have to be backed by cash.

The decision to pay the banks in full may have cost AIG, and therefore taxpayers, at least $13 billion over the odds.

The “backdoor bailout” of the banks, as it has been dubbed was exposed in March 2009 after the SEC challenged AIG’s filing, however, e-mails obtained by Representative Darrell Issa, ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, reignited the situation after they conclusively exposed a collusion between AIG and the Fed to deceive the public.

The e-mails between company and regulator show that The New York Fed crossed out reference to the payments and that AIG also omitted the details when the Securities and Exchange Commission filing was made public on Dec. 24, 2008.

The emails, the content of which are highlighted in this Bloomberg News article, also show that the Fed wanted numerous other details about the AIG bailout withheld or delayed from public oversight.

“It appears that the New York Fed deliberately pressured AIG to restrict and delay the disclosure of important information,” said Issa, adding that taxpayers “deserve full and complete disclosure under our nation’s securities laws, not the withholding of politically inconvenient information.”

Geithner’s denial that he, even as President of the New York Fed, had no involvement with the AIG case is contradicted by fresh revelations this week in a new report issued by Issa that show Geithner was “at a minimum, engaged personally in reviewing what information about the AIG bailout would be revealed to Congress and the public.”

On November 6, 2008 Geithner received an email from Sarah Dahlgren, the FRBNY’s lead staff member in AIG’s operations, seeking Geithner’s approval for a proposed statement regarding AIG’s upcoming equity capital raise. The fact that Geithner’s approval had to be obtained merely for putting out statements concerning AIG clearly indicates that he was deeply involved in the matter.

On November 13, Geithner was sent a report on AIG’s restructuring that would be sent to Congress. Sophia Allison, a staff member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, asked that Geithner point out any information that he believed should not be “publicly disclosed”.

In addition, records of who Geithner met with during his tenure as President of the FRBNY “show that he was regularly engaged with top AIG officials and the FRBNY officials directly responsible for AIG’s disclosures to the SEC. Geithner’s schedule shows that he had at least six formal meetings with top FRBNY staff members about AIG-related issues between November 4, 2008, and November 21, 2008.”

Watch the clip from today’s hearings where Mica demands Geithner’s resignation.

Federal Reserve Moral Hazard Smoking Gun: In August 2008 Goldman Was Willing To Tear Up AIG Derivative Contracts, Offered To Take Haircut

January 26, 2010

Tyler Durden
Zero Hedge
Tuesday, January 26th, 2010

As observant readers will recall, a week ago we pointed out a letter in which the New York Fed’s Steven Manzari instructed AIG to stand down on all discussions with counterparties on “tearing up/unwinding CDS trades on the CDO portfolio.” At the time we focused on the word “stand down” as an indication of the Fed’s lead role in the process. At this point there is no doubt that the FRBNY, together with its law firm, Davis Polk, were in the pilot’s seat during the entire AIG negotiation, and while Tim Geithner may not have been the responsible man for this, someone must have been – and for the record, our money is a double or nothing on recently promoted FRBNY Senior Vice President Sarah Dahlgren, who as of January 21st is in charge of the Fed’s Special Investments [AIG] Management Group. We sure hope Sarah gets the chance to recall her memories beginning in the fateful month of September 2008 when she became the person in charge of the FRBNY’s AIG relationship. But back to the letter – little did we know that our focus was on the right sentence… but on the wrong word. What should have struck us front and center, was Habayeb’s admission that contract “tear downs” had been evaluated. This means that someone, aside from AIG, must have expressed an interest in a tear down, which if true would have dramatic consequences for the entire AIG debacle. Today, the WSJ presented the missing piece of the puzzle.

In tonight’s Heard On The Street section, the WSJ notes:

As everybody knows, AIG got a huge government bailout in September 2008 to help make payments on derivatives contracts with banks, including Goldman. Yet in the previous month, Goldman approached AIG about “tearing up” its contracts, according to a November 2008 analysis by BlackRock, then an adviser to the New York Fed. So was Goldman prepared to offer AIG a haircut in the month before its rescue? A legitimate question, given that Goldman refused to accept such a cut when the New York Fed raised the idea after it bailed out AIG.

The implications of this discovery are huge as they essentially destroy all the arguments presented by the FRBNY about an inability to extract concession out of Goldman (which being the largest AIG CDO counterparty, was the critical negotiating factor). It also casts doubt on the veracity of any arguments presented in Congress by Goldman representatives discussing the potential to take a haircut on their AIG exposure. What this means in plain English is that, in the month before the Fed entered the scene, GOLDMAN SACHS ITSELF OFFERED TO TEAR DOWN THE CDS ON AIG’S CDO PORTFOLIO (we don’t use caps lock lightly). This is basically a smoking gun on the moral hazard issue perpetrated by the FRBNY when it got involved, and indicates that through their involvement, Tim Geithner, Sarah Dahlgren or whoever, not only did not save US taxpayers’ money, but in fact ended up costing money, when they funded the marginal difference between par (the make whole price given to all AIG counterparties after AIG was told to back off in its negotiations) and whatever discount would have been applicable to the contract tear down that had been proposed by Goldman a mere month earlier. This, more so than anything presented up to now, is the true scandal behind the New York Fed’s involvement.

If this November Blackrock report indeed exists, and if Goldman did in fact offer to tear down contracts, this is an act of near criminal implications and heads at the FRBNY must roll immediately.

We hope this is the number one question asked by Chairman Towns of Mr. Geithner. But as the latter will plead the fifth due to his lack of involvement, we kindly suggest that the correct person, the person who can not claim lack of knowledge on the AIG situation due to a prior recusal, and is therefore the right person to grill before a live studio audience, is the FRBNY’s Sarah Dahlgren: as it stands, Wednesday will merely be yet another spectacle, in which Geithner will claim stupidity, and this time very likely get away with it: is there any wonder why he agreed to provide testimony so promptly after his “invitation.” What about Goldman’s Stephen Friedman – did he accept the invitiation yet? How about Goldman’s Hank Paulson? It sure must be nice to have the luxury to kindly decline the privilege of providing sworn testimony, and avoid perjury.

Goldman representatives, Lloyd Blankfein among them preferably, have to be on the stand next to Geithner, as they are the people who have bee at the core of this whole problem from the start till bitter end.

Last but not least, was it not Mr. Blankfein who just two weeks ago, before the FCIC committee, noted he had never gotten a request to take less than 100 cents on the dollar on AIG CDS? So what happens if it was he who offered less than 100 cents? Should that maybe have been at least mentioned in passing? Is that some equivalent of perjury, or will the semantics lawyers come out in force?

View the original article at Zero Hedge