Evidence that ALL Markets Are Rigged; Question is, Is there a Conspiracy?

Is EVERY Market Rigged?

Posted on May 19, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

European Union Launches Investigation Into Manipulation of Oil Prices Since 2002

CNN reports:

The European Commission raided the offices of Shell, BP and Norway’s Statoil this weekas part of an investigation into suspected attempts to manipulate global oil prices spanning more than a decade.

None of the companies have been accused of wrongdoing, but the controversy has brought back memories of the Libor rate-rigging scandal that rocked the financial world last year.

***

A review ordered by the British government last year in the wake of the Libor revelations cited “clear” parallels between the work of the oil-price-reporting agencies and Libor.

“[T]hey are both widely used benchmarks that are compiled by private organizations and that are subject to minimal regulation and oversight by regulatory authorities,” the review, led by former financial regulator Martin Wheatley, said in August . “To that extent they are also likely to be vulnerable to similar issues with regards to the motivation and opportunity for manipulation and distortion.”

***

In a report issued in October, the International Organization of Securities Commissions — an association of regulators — said the ability “to selectively report data on a voluntary basis creates an opportunity for manipulating the commodity market data” submitted to Platts and its competitors.
Responding to questions from IOSCO last year, French oil giant Total said the price-reporting agencies, or PRAs, sometimes “do not assure an accurate representation of the market and consequently deform the real price levels paid at every level of the price chain, including by the consumer.” But Total called Platts and its competitors “generally… conscientious and professional.”

***

“Even small distortions of assessed prices may have a huge impact on the prices of crude oil, refined oil products and biofuels purchases and sales, potentially harming final consumers,” the European Commission said this week.

USA Today notes:

The Commission … said, however, that its probe covers a wide range of oil products — crude oil, biofuels, and refined oil products, which include gasoline, heating oil, petrochemicals and others.

***

The EU said it has concerns that some companies may have tried to manipulate the pricing process by colluding to report distorted prices and by preventing other companies from submitting their own prices.

***

Unlike oil futures, which set prices for contracts, the data used in the MOC process is based on the physical sale and purchase of actual shipments of oil and oil products.

***

According to Statoil, the EU investigation stretches back to 2002, which is when Platts launched its MOC price system in Europe. The suspicion is that some companies may have provided inaccurate information to Platts to affect the oil products’ pricing, presumably for financial gain.

Fox points out:

At issue is whether there was collusion to distort prices of crude, refined oil products and ethanol traded during Platts’ market-on-close (MOC) system – a daily half-hour “window” in which it sets prices.

But the European Commission also is examining whether companies were prevented from taking part in the price assessment process.

The Guardian writes:

The commission said the alleged price collusion, which may have been going on since 2002, could have had a “huge impact” on the price of petrol at the pumps “potentially harming final consumers”.

Lord Oakeshott, former Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said the alleged rigging of oil prices was “as serious as rigging Libor” – which led to banks being fined hundreds of millions of pounds.

He demanded to know why the UK authorities had not taken action earlier and said he would ask questions of the British regulator in Parliament. “Why have we had to wait for Brussels to find out if British oil giants are ripping off British consumers?” he said. “The price of energy ripples right through our economy and really matters to every business and families.”

***

Shadow energy and climate change secretary Caroline Flint said: “These are very concerning reports, which if true, suggest shocking behaviour in the oil market that should be dealt with strongly.

“When the allegations of price fixing in the gas market were made, Labour warned that opaque over-the-counter deals and relying on price reporting agencies left the market vulnerable to abuse.

“These latest allegations of price fixing in the oil market raise very similar questions. Consumers need to know that the prices they pay for their energy or petrol are fair, transparent and not being manipulated by traders.”

Shadow financial secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie said: “If oil price fixing has taken place it would be a shocking scandal for our financial markets.

The Telegraph reports:

“97 per cent of all we eat, drink, wear or build has spent some time in a diesel lorry,” said a spokesman for FairFuel UK, the lobbyists. “If it is proved, they have beengambling with the very oxygen of our economy.”

***

Platts – to determine the benchmark price – examines just trades in the final 30 minutes of the trading day. A group of half a dozen analysts gather round a trading screen and decide on the final price. As with much that goes on in the City, it is a surprisingly old-fashioned method, reliant on gentlemanly conduct. Critics say it leaves the market open to abuse, and the price can suddenly spike or fall in the final minutes of the day.

The New York Times notes of agencies like Platt and Argus Media:

Their influence is extensive. Total, the French oil giant, estimated last year that 75 to 80 percent of crude oil and refined product transactions were linked to the prices published by such agencies.

The Observer writes that manipulation of the oil markets has long been an open secret:

Robert Campbell, a former price reporter at another PRA, Argus – he is now a staffer at Thomson Reuters, which also competes with Platts and others on providing energy news and data – said this a few days ago in a little-noticed commentary: “The vulnerability of physical crude price assessments to manipulation is an open secret within the oil industry. The surprise is that it took regulators so long to open a formal probe.”

Reuters points out that the probe may be expanding to the U.S.:

In Washington, the chairman of the Senate energy committee asked the Justice Department to investigate whether alleged price manipulation has boosted fuel prices for U.S. consumers.

“Efforts to manipulate the European oil indices, if proven, may have already impacted U.S. consumers and businesses, because of the interrelationships among world oil markets and hedging practices,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

Wyden also asked Justice to investigate whether oil market manipulation was taking place in the United States.

Not only are petroleum products a multi-trillion dollar market on their own, but manipulation of petroleum prices would effect virtually every market in the world.

For example, the Cato Institute notes how many industries use oil:

U.S. industries use petroleum to produce the synthetic fiber used in textile mills making carpeting and fabric from polyester and nylon. U.S. tire plants use petroleum to make synthetic rubber. Other U.S. industries use petroleum to produce plastic, drugs, detergent, deodorant, fertilizer, pesticides, paint, eyeglasses, heart valves, crayons, bubble gum and Vaseline.

The India Times explains that:

The price variation in crude oil impacts the sentiments and hence the volatility in stock markets all over the world. The rise in crude oil prices is not good for the global economy. Price rise in crude oil virtually impacts industries and businesses across the board. Higher crude oil prices mean higher energy prices, which can cause a ripple effect on virtually all business aspects that are dependent on energy (directly or indirectly).

The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out:

When gasoline prices increase, a larger share of households’ budgets is likely to be spent on it, which leaves less to spend on other goods and services. The same goes for businesses whose goods must be shipped from place to place or that use fuel as a major input (such as the airline industry). Higher oil prices tend to make production more expensive for businesses, just as they make it more expensive for households to do the things they normally do.

***

Oil price increases are generally thought to increase inflation and reduce economic growth.

***

Oil prices indirectly affect costs such as transportation, manufacturing, and heating. The increase in these costs can in turn affect the prices of a variety of goods and services, as producers may pass production costs on to consumers.

***

Oil price increases can also stifle the growth of the economy through their effect on the supply and demand for goods other than oil. Increases in oil prices can depress the supply of other goods because they increase the costs of producing them. In economics terminology, high oil prices can shift up the supply curve for the goods and services for which oil is an input.

High oil prices also can reduce demand for other goods because they reduce wealth, as well as induce uncertainty about the future (Sill 2007). One way to analyze the effects of higher oil prices is to think about the higher prices as a tax on consumers (Fernald and Trehan 2005).

The Post Carbon Institute notes (via OilPrice.com) that high oil prices raise food prices as well:

The connection between food and oil is systemic, and the prices of both food and fuel have risen and fallen more or less in tandem in recent years (figure 1). Modern agriculture uses oil products to fuel farm machinery, to transport other inputs to the farm, and to transport farm output to the ultimate consumer. Oil is often also used as input in agricultural chemicals. Oil price increases therefore put pressure on all these aspects of commercial food systems.

Figure 1: Evolution of food and fuel prices, 2000 to 2009
Sources: US Energy Information Administration and FAO.

Economists Nouriel Roubini and Setser note that all recessions after 1973 were associated with oil shocks.

Interest Rates Are Manipulated

Unless you live under a rock, you know about the Libor scandal.

For those just now emerging from a coma, here’s a recap:

• The big banks have conspired for years to rig interest rates … upon which $800 trillion in assets are pegged

• This was the largest insider trading scandal ever … and the largest financial scam in world history

• Local governments got ripped off bigtime by the Libor manipulation

• Libor is still being manipulated

Derivatives Are Manipulated

The big banks have long manipulated derivatives … a $1,200 Trillion Dollar market.

Indeed, many trillions of dollars of derivatives are being manipulated in the exact same same way that interest rates are fixed: through gamed self-reporting.

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated

The Guardian and Telegraph report that gold and silver prices are “fixed” in the same way as interest rates and derivatives – in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be.

Everything Can Be Manipulated through High-Frequency Trading

Traders with high-tech computers can manipulate stocks,  bonds, options, currencies and commodities. And see this.

Manipulating Numerous Markets In Myriad Ways

The big banks and other giants manipulate numerous markets in myriad ways, for example:

• Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this

• Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here,here, here, here, here, here, here and here

• Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold . And raiding allocated gold accounts

• Committing massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this)

• Pledging the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers.  See this, this, this, this and this.  This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car

• Cheating homeowners by gaming laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure

• Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this, this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this

• Otherwise manipulating markets. And see this

• Participating in various Ponzi schemes. See this, this and this

• Charging veterans unlawful mortgage fees

• Cooking their books (and see this)

• Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

Can you help me debunk this economic conspiracy theory? Rare Carroll Quigley interview - 1974

Can you help me debunk this economic conspiracy theory?  Rare Carroll Quigley interview - 1974: http://youtu.be/bbFXJrmoElM

Get to minute 25 and listen to him speak about how an elite group of godfathers at the roundtable group worked to federate the english speaking world, international bankers, were working to establish a THREE POWER WORLD ORDER.  

Its a balance of power military strategy, stateless dynasties in control of the world powers playing the 99% off each other while organizing a multi bloc world.  World domination.  Very interesting social engineering game that leads to violence, bankruptcy and death in some cases.  While the power elite, the superclass, get ultra wealthy and consolidate power.

This was Cecil Rhodes idea and his followers continue to this day.

Sure seems like some of these people ought to go to court and prison before things get out of hand.  A hot war with Syria and Iran appears possible and imminent.

Whether you are TeaParty oriented or Occupy oriented, or still a faithful Democratic or Republican party members, you are part of the 99%, not the 1%.  

So therefore you should help expose their lies by sharing this "conspiracy theory".  Believe it or Not. Let the reader do his own research and make up his own mind.

Clinton Knows Who is IN and Who is OUT. Google: Bilderberg WTC7 #PeaceRevolution #NWO

Peace Revolution episode 073: First Principles of an Autonomous Philosophy peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2013-05-… #PeaceRevolution #TragedyandHope
— Tragedy and Hope (@tragedyandhope) May 27, 2013

Carroll Quigley's research is alive and well.  The R&D is happening at the Tragedy and Hope community.

Join tragedyandhope.com and Join the #PeaceRevolution


To learn more READ the BEST BOOK on the SUBJECT of TWISTED POLITICS, that never made the New York Times Best Seller list!  or

LISTEN to the best podcast, voted number one in higher education on podomatic.

Convergence of Adversaries, Fighting a One World Power #NWO

Globalization Creates a New Worry: Enemy Convergence - NYTimes.com

Convergence.

"That is the new term of choice in national security circles for the coming together of previously unrelated adversaries, who not only might combine in operations, but also share resources, know-how, weapons and technology and personnel.

This is really the dark end of the spectrum of globalization."

You see, the only thing that allows the few to rule the many is divide and conquer. We must be ideologically divided to fall. That means Republican, Democrat, Independent, TeaParty, Occupy, and the greatest threat to mankind, the apathetic. They care of nothing more than their own portfolio. They are the working middle class that can't be bothered to learn what's really going on in the world.  They vote for whomever seems like the least evil, they feed strictly on mass media news, they scoff at the suggestion of conspiracy.

The National Security Council dominated by Council on Foreign Relations members will continue to control the White House and NATO, along with their RIIA brethren; powerhouses of the global elite, manipulating the 99%.

Citizens Brainwashed By Government Controlled Corporate Media

You are being brainwashed by government controlled corporate media.  Do your own research instead of listening to the nonsense of mainstream media (left or right).

Just do a few searches for these incidents and include the word "false flag" or "cover-up"

• Lincoln assassination
• USS Maine
• Lusitania
• Pearl Harbor
• USS Liberty
• Operation Northwoods
• Kennedy assassination
• Gulf of Tonkin
• Oklahoma City FBI building bombing
• 9/11 - WTC1, WTC2, WTC7, Pentagon, Shanksville
• Newtown CT school massacre
• Boston Marathon bombing

More Reason to Support the Restoration of #GlassSteagall - Derivitives, FDIC, and Cyprus

From Paul Craig Robert's blog:

According to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency’s fourth quarter report for 2011, about 95% of the $230 trillion in US derivative exposure was held by four US financial institutions: JP Morgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, and Goldman Sachs.

Prior to financial deregulation, essentially the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the non-regulation of derivatives–a joint achievement of the Clinton administration and the Republican Party–Chase, Bank of America, and Citibank were commercial banks that took depositors’ deposits and made loans to businesses and consumers and purchased Treasury bonds with any extra reserves.

With the repeal of Glass-Steagall these honest commercial banks became gambling casinos, like the investment bank, Goldman Sachs, betting not only their own money but also depositors money on uncovered bets on interest rates, currency exchange rates, mortgages, and prices of commodities and equities.

These bets soon exceeded many times not only US GDP but world GDP. Indeed, the gambling bets of JP Morgan Chase Bank alone are equal to world Gross Domestic Product.

Bloomberg reports that Bank of America (BAC) has shifted about $22 trillion worth of derivative obligations from Merrill Lynch and the BAC holding company to the FDIC insured retail deposit division. Along with this information came the revelation that the FDIC insured unit was already stuffed with $53 trillion worth of these potentially toxic obligations, making a total of $75 trillion.

Derivatives are highly volatile financial instruments that are occasionally used to hedge risk, but mostly used for speculation. They are bets upon the value of stocks, bonds, mortgages, other loans, currencies, commodities, volatility of financial indexes, and even weather changes. Many big banks, including Bank of America, issue derivatives because, if they are not triggered, they are highly profitable to the issuer, and result in big bonus payments to the executives who administer them. If they are triggered, of course, the obligations fall upon the corporate entity, not the executives involved. Ultimately, by allowing existing gambling bets to remain in insured retail banks, and endorsing the shift of additional bets into the insured retail division, the obligation falls upon the U.S. taxpayers and dollar-denominated savers.

Imagine the exposure to the FDIC? Do you think your savings will be used to bail out the banks like in Cyprus?

Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and the Hope of #GlassSteagall

Listen to this podcast. Paul Craig Roberts talks about his new book and the failure of Keynesian economics. He talks about the need for #GlassSteagall to be restored, and at this very moment bills are sitting in the house (hr129) and senate (sb985).

From the Corbett Report website:

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts joins us once again to discuss his latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West. We talk about the failure of outdated macroeconomic theories to describe the current economic context. We also debate the role of deregulation in the current economic crisis and discuss the political and social dissolution that American society is experiencing.

Here is a link to the new book on kindle.

President Obama’s National Security Speech Marks a Shift to Homegrown Terrorism

Once you watch this video, then read Obama's latest security and terrorism speech.  Understand what "false flags" are and you will know that Obama's shoft to defend us against homegrown terrorism means the war of terror is coming here!  Our own government have been responsible for the greatest acts of terror we've seen in the 21st century.  There is ample proof.  You just have to be willing to hear the facts, learn their tactics, and look past the propaganda.

President Obama’s May 23 speech on national security

President Obama delivered remarks on national security on May 23, 2013, at National Defense University in Washington, D.C. Below are excerpts from his speech.

...

Finally, we face a real threat from radicalized individuals here in the United States. Whether it’s a shooter at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin; a plane flying into a building in Texas; or the extremists who killed 168 people at the Federal Building in Oklahoma City (this was a false flag - watch a Noble Lie) ...That pull towards extremism appears to have led to the shooting at Fort Hood (US military involved were on psychotropic drugs), and the bombing of the Boston Marathon (veterans were used, and the so called perpetrators had connections to the CIA and FBI YEARS before the event).

Lethal yet less capable al Qaeda affiliates. Threats to diplomatic facilities and businesses abroad. Homegrown extremists. This is the future of terrorism. We must take these threats seriously, and do all that we can to confront them. But as we shape our response, we have to recognize that the scale of this threat closely resembles the types of attacks we faced before 9/11. ...

Nevertheless, this ideology persists, and in an age in which ideas and images can travel the globe in an instant, our response to terrorism cannot depend on military or law enforcement alone. We need all elements of national power to win a battle of wills and ideas. So let me discuss the components of such a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy.

First, we must finish the work of defeating al Qaeda and its associated forces.

In Afghanistan, we will complete our transition to Afghan responsibility for security. Our troops will come home (but not our contractors). ..

Beyond Afghanistan, we must define our effort not as a boundless ‘global war on terror’ – but rather as a series of persistent, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America. In many cases, this will involve partnerships with other countries. ...In Somalia, we helped a coalition of African nations push al Shabaab out of its strongholds. In Mali, we are providing military aid to a French-led intervention to push back al Qaeda in the Maghreb, and help the people of Mali reclaim their future (by taking their access to oil).

...But despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed. Al Qaeda and its affiliates try to gain a foothold in some of the most distant and unforgiving places on Earth. They take refuge in remote tribal regions. They hide in caves and walled compounds (yet they escape our constant bombing and the most sophisticated military the world has ever seen). They train in empty deserts and rugged mountains.

In some of these places – such as parts of Somalia and Yemen – the state has only the most tenuous reach into the territory. In other cases, the state lacks the capacity or will to take action. It is also not possible for America to simply deploy a team of Special Forces to capture every terrorist. And even when such an approach may be possible, there are places where it would pose profound risks to our troops and local civilians– where a terrorist compound cannot be breached without triggering a firefight with surrounding tribal communities that pose no threat to us, or when putting U.S. boots on the ground may trigger a major international crisis.

To put it another way, our operation in Pakistan against Osama bin Laden cannot be the norm. The risks in that case were immense; the likelihood of capture, although our preference, was remote given the certainty of resistance; the fact that we did not find ourselves confronted with civilian casualties, or embroiled in an extended firefight, was a testament to the meticulous planning and professionalism of our Special Forces – but also depended on some luck. And even then, the cost to our relationship with Pakistan – and the backlash among the Pakistani public over encroachment on their territory – was so severe that we are just now beginning to rebuild this important partnership.

It is in this context that the United States has taken lethal, targeted action against al Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft commonly referred to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions – about who is targeted, and why; about civilian casualties, and the risk of creating new enemies; about the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law; about accountability and morality.

Let me address these questions. To begin with, our actions are effective. Don’t take my word for it. In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, “we could lose the reserves to the enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.” Other communications from al Qaeda operatives confirm this as well. Dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb makers, and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would have targeted international aviation, U.S. transit systems, European cities and our troops in Afghanistan. Simply put, these strikes have saved lives.

Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war – a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense.

And yet as our fight enters a new phase, America’s legitimate claim of self-defense cannot be the end of the discussion. To say a military tactic is legal, or even effective, is not to say it is wise or moral in every instance. For the same human progress that gives us the technology to strike half a world away also demands the discipline to constrain that power – or risk abusing it. That’s why, over the last four years, my Administration has worked vigorously to establish a framework that governs our use of force against terrorists – insisting upon clear guidelines, oversight and accountability that is now codified in Presidential Policy Guidance that I signed yesterday.

...

Beyond the Afghan theater, we only target al Qaeda and its associated forces. Even then, the use of drones is heavily constrained. America does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists - our preference is always to detain, interrogate, and prosecute them. America cannot take strikes wherever we choose – our actions are bound by consultations with partners, and respect for state sovereignty. America does not take strikes to punish individuals – we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat. And before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured – the highest standard we can set.

This last point is critical, because much of the criticism about drone strikes – at home and abroad – understandably centers on reports of civilian casualties. There is a wide gap between U.S. assessments of such casualties, and non-governmental reports. Nevertheless, it is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars. For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss. For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live, just as we are haunted by the civilian casualties that have occurred through conventional fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But as Commander-in-Chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties – not just in our cities at home and facilities abroad, but also in the very places –like Sana’a and Kabul and Mogadishu – where terrorists seek a foothold. Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians, and the death toll from their acts of terrorism against Muslims dwarfs any estimate of civilian casualties from drone strikes.

Where foreign governments cannot or will not effectively stop terrorism in their territory, the primary alternative to targeted, lethal action is the use of conventional military options. As I’ve said, even small Special Operations carry enormous risks. Conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage. And invasions of these territories lead us to be viewed as occupying armies; unleash a torrent of unintended consequences; are difficult to contain; and ultimately empower those who thrive on violent conflict. So it is false to assert that putting boots on the ground is less likely to result in civilian deaths, or to create enemies in the Muslim world. The result would be more U.S. deaths, more Blackhawks down, more confrontations with local populations, and an inevitable mission creep in support of such raids that could easily escalate into new wars.

...

This is not to say that the risks are not real. Any U.S. military action in foreign lands risks creating more enemies, and impacts public opinion overseas. Our laws constrain the power of the President, even during wartime, and I have taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. The very precision of drones strikes, and the necessary secrecy involved in such actions can end up shielding our government from the public scrutiny that a troop deployment invites. It can also lead a President and his team to view drone strikes as a cure-all for terrorism.

For this reason, I’ve insisted on strong oversight of all lethal action. After I took office, my Administration began briefing all strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan to the appropriate committees of Congress. Let me repeat that – not only did Congress authorize the use of force, it is briefed on every strike that America takes. That includes the one instance when we targeted an American citizen: Anwar Awlaki, the chief of external operations for AQAP.

This week, I authorized the declassification of this action, and the deaths of three other Americans in drone strikes, to facilitate transparency and debate on this issue, and to dismiss some of the more outlandish claims. For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any U.S. citizen – with a drone, or a shotgun – without due process. Nor should any President deploy armed drones over U.S. soil.

But when a U.S. citizen goes abroad to wage war against America – and is actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens; and when neither the United States, nor our partners are in a position to capture him before he carries out a plot – his citizenship should no more serve as a shield than a sniper shooting down on an innocent crowd should be protected from a swat team

...

Going forward, I have asked my Administration to review proposals to extend oversight of lethal actions outside of warzones that go beyond our reporting to Congress. ...

I believe, however, that the use of force must be seen as part of a larger discussion about a comprehensive counter-terrorism strategy. Because for all the focus on the use of force, force alone cannot make us safe. We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root; and in the absence of a strategy that reduces the well-spring of extremism, a perpetual war – through drones or Special Forces or troop deployments – will prove self-defeating, and alter our country in troubling ways.

So the next element of our strategy involves addressing the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism, from North Africa to South Asia. ..

This means patiently supporting transitions to democracy in places like Egypt, Tunisia and Libya – because the peaceful realization of individual aspirations will serve as a rebuke to violent extremists. We must strengthen the opposition in Syria, while isolating extremist elements – because the end of a tyrant must not give way to the tyranny of terrorism. We are working to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians – because it is right, and because such a peace could help reshape attitudes in the region. And we must help countries modernize economies, upgrade education, and encourage entrepreneurship ...

Success on these fronts requires sustained engagement, but it will also require resources. I know that foreign aid is one of the least popular expenditures ... is fundamental to our national security, and any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism. 

...Over the past decade, we have strengthened security at our Embassies, and I am implementing every recommendation of the Accountability Review Board which found unacceptable failures in Benghazi. I have called on Congress to fully fund these efforts to bolster security, harden facilities, improve intelligence, and facilitate a quicker response time from our military if a crisis emerges.

...And in balancing the trade-offs between security and active diplomacy, I firmly believe that any retreat from challenging regions will only increase the dangers we face in the long run.

Targeted action against terrorists. Effective partnerships. Diplomatic engagement and assistance. Through such a comprehensive strategy we can significantly reduce the chances of large scale attacks on the homeland and mitigate threats to Americans overseas. As we guard against dangers from abroad, however, we cannot neglect the daunting challenge of terrorism from within our borders.

...But technology and the Internet increase its frequency and lethality. Today, a person can consume hateful propaganda, commit themselves to a violent agenda, and learn how to kill without leaving their home. To address this threat, ...

Indeed, thwarting homegrown plots presents particular challenges in part because of our proud commitment to civil liberties for all who call America home. That’s why, in the years to come, we will have to keep working hard to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are. That means reviewing the authorities of law enforcement, so we can intercept new types of communication, and build in privacy protections to prevent abuse. That means that – even after Boston – we do not deport someone or throw someone in prison in the absence of evidence. That means putting careful constraints on the tools the government uses to protect sensitive information, such as the State Secrets doctrine. ... I believe we must keep information secret that protects our operations and our people in the field. To do so, we must enforce consequences for those who break the law and breach their commitment to protect classified information. But a free press is also essential for our democracy. I am troubled by the possibility that leak investigations may chill the investigative journalism that holds government accountable.

Journalists should not be at legal risk for doing their jobs. Our focus must be on those who break the law. That is why I have called on Congress to pass a media shield law to guard against government over-reach. ... And that is why I intend to engage Congress about the existing Authorization to Use Military Force, or AUMF, to determine how we can continue to fight terrorists without keeping America on a perpetual war-time footing.

...Unless we discipline our thinking and our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers more suited for traditional armed conflicts between nation states. ...

And that brings me to my final topic: the detention of terrorist suspects.

To repeat, as a matter of policy, the preference of the United States is to capture terrorist suspects. When we do detain a suspect, we interrogate them. And if the suspect can be prosecuted, we decide whether to try him in a civilian court or a Military Commission. ...

The original premise for opening GTMO – that detainees would not be able to challenge their detention – was found unconstitutional five years ago. ...

As President, I have tried to close GTMO. I transferred 67 detainees to other countries before Congress imposed restrictions to effectively prevent us from either transferring detainees to other countries, or imprisoning them in the United States. ...

I have asked the Department of Defense to designate a site in the United States where we can hold military commissions. ...

Even after we take these steps, one issue will remain: how to deal with those GTMO detainees who we know have participated in dangerous plots or attacks, but who cannot be prosecuted – for example because the evidence against them has been compromised or is inadmissible in a court of law. 

...by using our constitutional compass, we have overcome slavery and Civil War; fascism and communism. 

...And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small-town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. And that flag will still stand for freedom.

Thank you. God Bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.

While Most Distrust Mass Media, Few Know Who CONTROLS It and WHY

The secret lies in the top of the pyramid, not the minions that work the streets trying to write good stories.  Look at the Council on Foreign Relations for a CONSISTANT media stories across the so called left and right spectrum.

The CFR is an organization sister to the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Britain), both founded in 1921 right after World War I when the League of Nations idea failed. The sole purpose of such organizations is to condition the public to accept a Global Governance which today is the United Nations. This is the true face of the so-called Globalists, and Centralized Power is what they are really after.

From 1989 to 1993, during the administration of Skull & Bones George H.W. Bush, with the exception of Vice President Dan Quayle, Secretary of State James A. Baker III, and Health Human Services Secretary Louis W. Sullivan, ALL Cabinet members were of the ultra-secretive CFR. 

From 1993 to 2000, in the Bill Clinton administration, with the exception of Secretary of Defense William Perry, ALL Cabinet members were of the CFR.

From 2001 to 2009, in the George W. Bush administration, ALL CABINET MEMBERS were CFR operatives:
Vice President Dick Cheney
Sec. of State Collin Powell (2001-2005)
Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice (2005-2006)
Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001-2006)
Sec. of Defense Robert Gates (2006-2009)
Sec. of Labor Elaine Chao (2001-2009)
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman

From 2009 on, in the Barack Obama administration, we see the following:
Sec. of State Hillary Clinton - Bilderberg Group (a step up from, but just as bad as the CFR)
Sec. of Defense Robert Gates - CFR
Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano - CFR
Sec. of Commerce Bill Richardson - CFR
UN Ambassador Susan Rice - CFR
National Security Advisor James Jones - CFR
Sec. of Treasury Timothy Geithner - CFR
Director of National Economic Council L.H.Summers - CFR
Economic Advisor Paul Volcker - CFR

This is a video on NEWS FABRiCATiON and also about the powers that REALLY run the big media. 
A closer look at what the CFR is all about.

More Hope than Tragedy Awaits Us All if Glass-Steagall is Passed

Mine is signature 113,188 on this Petition to Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act http://t.co/WfxCB9q1as via @moveon #GlassSteagall
— Sarah Reynolds (@Sarah__Reynolds) July 7, 2013

Background

Despite all the tragedy filling the airwaves these days, there is a glimmer of hope.  After many years of obvious deception, fraud, and blatant theft both by investment and commercial bankers, lawyers, and accountants, there could be a restoration of the banking sector to its original purpose and scale.

Paving the Way for Economic Crises

The Glass-Steagall Act was repealed in 1999 under pressure from Wall Streetbankers trafficking in bundled subprime mortgages, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and the like. Inventing evermore exotic investment vehicles, the money movers pumped up a global financial bubble that eventually burst.

Officially it was blandly named the Banking Act of 1933 but around the world it is better known as Glass-Steagall, the ground-breaking piece of legislation that prevented commercial banks which took deposits from embarking on risky trading activities.

Carter Glass and Henry Steagall were the revolutionaries of the time. The years after the Great Depression sparked a debate in the US about how to prevent such devastation hitting the economy again, after nearly 5,000 banks collapsed.

Glass-Steagall forced commercial and investment banks to separate. Commercial banks were not allowed to underwrite the sales of stocks and bonds, while investment banks could not take in deposits from customers.

It remained in place for half a century before it was repealed in 1999 through the Financial Services Modernisation Act, again better known by the names of the politicians who promoted the legislation – Gramm, Leach and Bliley.

Since 1999, banks have been allowed to use commercial deposits and assets as fuel for securities trading on the derivatives market. Because commercial and speculative assets are so heavily comingled, the government is forced to protect the assets of banks making risky bets through near perpetual bailouts and purchasing of toxic debt.  It was the derivatives bubble that blew up the system and bankrupted the US banks in the 2007-2008 crash. 

Restoring Proper Financial Regulation 

Glass-Steagall forces separation of commercial from investment banks, it ends Too Big To Fail, bars government bailouts, and will stop the onset of hyperinflation.

On Friday Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) introduced Senate Bill 985 (#SB985) to reinstate Glass Steagall. While the full text of the Harkin bill has not yet been posted by the Library of Congress, the fact that there is now a Senate bill to reinstate full separation of commercial banking from all other brokerage and speculative activities is a dramatic development. The fight for Glass Steagall has now moved to a new level.

This comes at a very precise and fortunate time.  Earlier this year, Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, introduced HR 129 to restore Glass-Steagall, saying, “The response of Congress to the 2008 financial crisis has been completely inadequate.”  Currently #HR129 – The Return to Prudent Banking Act– has 60 bipartisan co-sponsors in the House.  Four states have passed resolutions calling for reimplementation of Glass-Steagall, and a dozen other legislatures, including Virginia’s, are considering similar measures.


Specifically, the draft legislation has four components:

1. Commercial Banking institutions have one year to divest themselves of all non-commercial banking units, with no cross management or ownership between commercial and non-commercial units.

2. Commercial Banks are barred from using more than 2% of its capital for the creation, sale, or distribution of securities (certain bank-qualified securities are exempted)

3. Prevents Commercial Banks from loaning their commercial deposits into such vehicals as would support the creation and circulation of securities.

4. No securities of low or potentially low value can be placed by a bank into its insured commercial bank units. * Adds provision stating Glass-Steagall is the preeminant regulator of the banks, limiting banks from putting its depositors and shareholders at risk.

What is important about this legislation over all others is that there would be absolutely no room for loopholes.  There can be no accidental oversight or negligence.  Investment banking would be completely separated from commercial banking.   

This is NOT to be confused with the red herring that Obama supported earlier in his first term, known as the "Volcker rule" named after former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker .  That was a more complicated piece of legislation meant to stall real effective rules.  There is a reason for that.  Obama has received millions of dollars from investment banks, just like Romney, Bush, and all other presidential candidates.  The banks always hedge their bets and play both sides against the other.  DO NOT BE DECEIVED THIS TIME!

Additional Commentary

If you need more details on the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and why it is important to restore, watch this video.  Max Keiser is an excellent financial news reporter that does not hold back any punches for any banker fraud and conspiracy.

And in case you need still more reason to support restoring Glass-Steagall, hear what Elizabeth Warren has to say about it.  Remember she was warning us all of the impending doom from 2005-2008 as the housing bubble and financial crisis was bubbling.

If you want to know more about who was responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall, watch this video and look to Alan Greenspan.

More Reasons to Support the Restoration of Glass-Steagall

Whether you identify with the Democrats, the Republicans, the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, the Green Party, or none at all, you are the 99% like the rest of us, and therefore, you should consider the restoration of Glass-Steagall as a way to restore some sense of balance of power to the country, and the world for that matter.

Barack Obama - The Case for Impeachment [SCG News 5.15.2013]

If this was a Republican, Liberals Democrats would be up in arms, but still not do anything.  Republicans and Conservatives, are you so weak you won't step up to the plate? Isn't it time American so-called "representative" government be held accountable for the crimes they are committing?

If so, DO SOMETHING about it! Something positive that will capture attention and get the point across.  Non-violent of course.  Remember, he's got drones and a license to kill.

One World Trade Center, 1776 Feet, A Stamp of the Illuminati

First watch this video.  It is nearly a 40 year old recording but an excellent description and connection of key groups, events, and people that have manipulated the world into debt and wars.  Reflect on what is happening now since 9/11.

Following the holocaust of the World Trade Center attack of September 11, 2001, a new tower has been erected.

Now circle back to what you learned in the first video and take a second look at the new One World Trade Center, inaugurated May 10, 2013 at 1776 feet.