sabato 26 marzo 2011

Clearstream n'est plus solvable...

Not Clear, suites...
By Denis Robert

Bon. Je vois que mon précédent commentaire suscite beaucoup de réactions.

Le but n'était pas de lancer une campagne de contre Clearstream, ni de faire suer le pauvre chargé de com de la firme. mais bon, vous êtes libre. Je voudrais préciser les choses concernant cette dette impayée à ce jour.

Clearstream a été condamnée par la Cour de cassation à une amende de 9000 euros.

soit 3000 euros par procédure. "Vu l’article 700 du code de procédure civile, rejette la demande de la société Clearstream banking ; la condamne à payer à M. Robert la somme de 3 000 euros"

Et à me rembourser les frais d'appel. Soit environ 11 000 euros.

Ces sommes sont des avant propos puisqu'un tribunal devra bientôt (j'espère avant l'été) estimer le montant de mon préjudice.

Normalement, la décision étant tombée le 3 février, ils auraient dû me régler 3 semaines plus tard.

Le délai est largement dépassé. D'où l'envoi d'huissier.

Ce comportement montre d'abord qu'ils sont mauvais perdants.

Mais je comprends, ça doit vraiment leur faire mal au portefeuille à tous ces branleurs en costume cravate...

La somme est ridicule mais hautement symbolique

Cette attitude montre qu'ils ont choisi de m'ignorer. Leur communiqué était éloquent à ce propos.

Ils sont comme les singes de l'omerta. Je en vois rien, je n'entends rien, je ne dis rien.

Sauf que... je serai là pour leur rappeler.

Tant que le scandale reste larvé ou ne fait des vagues que sur Internet ou les services juridiques, ils peuvent tenir. A partir du moment où les médias puis les politiques comprendront la portée de la décision de la Cour de cassation française, ça peut devenir cataclysmique pour eux.

Les allemands de DBC sont en train de se marier aux ricains du NYSE pour créer une nouvelle entité qui possédera Clearstream.

Je deviens un gros caillou dans leurs Weston.

Dès que je touche le chèque, j'en fais une copie et la publie sur ma page FB.

Et on en fait un poster.

Bonne journée à tous.


Studenti fanno irruzione alla Borsa di Milano

A Choice for States: Banks, Not Budget Crises

A Choice for States: Banks, Not Budget Crises

7 ways state-owned banks could help states overcome budget deficits and boost their local economies.


Money Flower, photo by kolix

Photo by kolix.

Cut spending, raise taxes, sell off public assets—these are the unsatisfactory solutions being debated across the nation, but the budget crises that nearly all the states are now suffering did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation. The crises arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street. In the wake of the 2009 financial market collapse, banks curtailed their lending more sharply than in any year since 1942, driving massive unemployment and causing local tax revenues to plummet.

The logical solution, then, is to restore credit to the local economy. But how? The Federal Reserve could provide the capital and liquidity necessary to create bank credit, in the same way that it provided $12.3 trillion in liquidity and short-term loans to the large money center banks. But Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke declared in January 2011 that the Fed had no intention of doing that—not because it would be too costly (the total deficit of all the states comes to less than two percent of the credit advanced for the bank bailout) but because it is not part of the Fed’s mandate. If Congress wants the Fed to advance credit to local governments, he said, it will have to change the law.

The budget crises that nearly all the states are now facing did not arise from too much spending or too little taxation. The crises arose from a credit freeze on Wall Street.

The states are on their own. Policymakers are therefore considering a variety of reforms designed to increase bank lending, particularly to small businesses, the hardest hit by tightening credit standards. One measure that is drawing increasing interest is the creation of a bank modeled on the Bank of North Dakota (BND), currently the only state-owned bank in the country. The BND has a 92-year history of safe, secure and highly profitable banking. North Dakota has the lowest unemployment rate in the country; and in 2009, when other states were floundering, it had the largest budget surplus it had ever had.

WI Capitol Protest by David HoeflerHow Wisconsin Could Turn Austerity Into Prosperity:
Own a Bank

An answer to state budget woes that doesn't need to involve sacrificing workers' rights.

Eight states now have bills pending either to form state-owned banks or to do feasibility studies to determine their potential. This year, bills were introduced in the Oregon State legislature on January 11; in Washington State on January 13; in Massachusetts on January 20 (following a 2010 bill that lapsed); and in the Maryland legislature on February 4. They join Illinois, Virginia, Hawaii, and Louisiana, which introduced similar bills in 2010. The Center for State Innovation, based in Madison, Wisconsin, was commissioned to do detailed analyses for Washington and Oregon. Their conclusion was that state-owned banks in those states would have a substantial positive impact on employment, new lending, and state and local government revenue.

State-owned banks could be a win-win for everyone interested in a thriving local economy. Objections are usually based on misconceptions or a lack of information. Proponents stress that:

  1. A state-owned bank on the BND model would not compete with community banks. Rather, it would partner with them and support them in making loans. The BND serves the role of a mini-Fed for the state. It provides correspondent banking services to virtually every financial institution in North Dakota and offers a Federal Funds program with daily volume of $330 million. It also provides check clearing, cash management services, and automated clearing house services. It leverages state funds into credit for local purposes, funds that would otherwise leave the state and be leveraged for investing abroad, drawing away jobs that could go to locals.
  2. The BND not only does not compete for loans but does not compete for commercial deposits. Less than two percent of its deposits come from consumers. Municipal government deposits are also reserved for local community banks, which are able to use these funds for loans specifically because the BND provides letters of credit guaranteeing them. Virtually all of the BND’s deposits come from the state itself. All state revenues are deposited in the BND by law.
  3. Although the BND is a member of the Federal Reserve system, it is insured by the state rather than by the FDIC. This does not, however, put depositors at risk. Rather, it helps avoid risk and unnecessary expense, since the BND’s chief depositor is the state, and the state has far more to deposit than $250,000, the maximum covered by FDIC insurance. FDIC insurance is not only very expensive but subjects members to FDIC regulation, making the state subservient to a semi-private national banking association. (The FDIC calls itself an independent agency of the federal government, but it receives no Congressional appropriations. Rather, it is funded by premiums that banks and thrift institutions pay for deposit insurance coverage and from earnings on investments in U.S. Treasury securities.) North Dakota prefers to maintain its financial independence.
  4. BND officials stress that the bank is run by bankers, not politicians bent on funding their favorite development projects or bestowing political favors. The bank is run very conservatively, doing only creditworthy deals and avoiding speculation in derivatives and risky subprime loans. By partnering with local banks, the BND actually shields itself from risk, since the local bank takes the initial loss if the borrower fails to pay.
  5. The BND does not imperil state funds or tax money but is self-funding and self-sustaining. It keeps federally-guaranteed funds in the state that would otherwise go elsewhere, including VA and FHA loans and low-income subsidies. Profits on these federally-guaranteed loans can then be used to build a capital surplus from which riskier loans can be made to local businesses. The BND has a return on equity of 25-26 percent and has contributed over $300 million to the state (its only shareholder) in the past decade—a notable achievement for a state with a population less than one-tenth the size of Los Angeles County. Compare California’s public pension funds, which entrust their money to Wall Street and are down more than $100 billion, or close to half the funds’ holdings, following the banking debacle of 2008.
  6. Partnering with the BND allows community banks to fund local projects in which Wall Street is not interested, leveraging municipal government funds that would otherwise not be available for loans. Further, infrastructure projects can be funded through the state bank at substantially less cost, since the state owns the bank and gets the interest back. Studies have shown that interest composes 30-50 percent of public projects.
  7. North Dakota has the most local banks per capita and the lowest default rate of any state. The North Dakota Bankers’ Association does not oppose the BND but rather endorses it.

Other states could realize similar benefits, if they were to form banks on the BND model.

Ellen BrownEllen Brown wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Ellen is an attorney and the author of eleven books, including Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. Her websites are and


venerdì 25 marzo 2011

Illegittimità della cartella esattoriale

Cassazione Sentenza n. 22997 depositata il 12 novembre 2010.

Con la sentenza n. 22997 depositata il 12 novembre 2010, la Corte di Cassazione ha stabilito l’illegittimità della cartella esattoriale che non contenga l’indicazione precisa della data di esecutività. La mancata indicazione nella cartella di pagamento della data in cui sono stati consegnati i ruoli al concessionario della riscossione rende l’atto illegittimo; tale omissione, infatti, non consente al contribuente di verificare l’esatta quantificazione degli interessi liquidati sull’atto e determina una carenza di motivazione della cartella notificata.

Il principio è stato emesso dalla Sezione Tributaria civile della Corte di Cassazione che ha spiegato la ragione sottesa alla decisione adducendo che la stessa è da individuarsi nell’art. 12 n.3 del d.p.r. n. 603/1973, così come modificato dal d. lgs. 46/1999, in cui viene stabilito che la cartella di pagamento deve contenere, tra le altre cose, anche la data in cui il ruolo diventa esecutivo.

In passato,vi era stato un contrasto giurisprudenziale tra le commissioni di merito; che, tra le varie interpretazioni giurisprudenziali, ritenevano che la consegna dei ruoli fosse un fatto interno tra ufficio finanziario e concessionario della riscossione e che, quindi, una sua eventuale omissione non avesse effetti sui rapporti fisco-contribuente. Ciò emergeva in particolare, dal 1 luglio 2005, data in cui è stato abrogato l’articolo 17 del dpr 602/73 (che prevedeva la procedura di riscossione divisa in fasi: iscrizione a ruolo, consegna al concessionario e notifica al contribuente). Dalla stessa data, l’art. 25 della stessa norma prevede che termini decadenziali siano limitati solo alla notifica della cartella al contribuente. Recentemente, con sentenza 487/14/10 del 20 luglio 2010 la Commissione Tributaria del Lazio, aveva stabilito che, in considerazione dell’art. 25 del dpr 602/73, la cartella di pagamento, oltre ai contenuti minimi obbligatori (tributo, periodo d’imposta, imponibile ed aliquota applicata), non necessitava di alcuna ulteriore motivazione particolare. Nello specifico si leggeva che «nella valutazione della tempestività dell’azione impositiva dell’amministrazione finanziaria e in seguito all’evoluzione normativa, non riveste più alcun significato la verifica della data di esecutività dei ruoli o di quella relativa alla consegna degli stessi ruoli al concessionario della riscossione, assumendo, per contro, rilevanza solo la data di “notifica” della cartella».

Pertanto, la recente sentenza della Cassazione ribalta completamente l’ultimo orientamento della giurisprudenza di merito e della Commissione Tributaria del Lazio.

La Suprema Corte stabilisce così un principio di diritto innovativo in base al quale «La legittimità della cartella di pagamento è subordinata alla verifica degli interessi richiesti; il riferimento al calcolo degli interessi dovuti, infatti, non è in alcun modo prescritto dalla normativa di riferimento (art. 12 del dpr 602/73) e appare collegato alla data di esecutività del ruolo, unico dato che ne consente la verifica. È vero infatti che le procedure di formazione del ruolo sono determinate con decreto ministeriale (art. 12, n. 2 del dpr n. 602/1973) e che gli interessi, in base all’art. 2 della legge 29/61, si computano dal giorno in cui il tributo è divenuto esigibile; quindi, la certezza dell’inizio della esigibilità, si può verificare solo dalla precisa indicazione della data di esecutività del ruolo». Pertanto, con questo nuovo indirizzo giurisprudenziale ben delineato e decisamente innovativo, le cartelle esattoriali di pagamento notificate ai contribuenti prive della data di consegna dei ruoli saranno nulle per carenza di motivazione della pretesa creditoria e mancanza di uno degli elementi fondamentali ovvero la data di esecutività del ruolo circostanza che non consentirebbe al contribuente di quantificare e/o controllare esattamente il dovuto anche in base alle modalità di determinazione degli interessi.

Nella cartella esattoriale deve essere indicata in modo dettagliato la modalità di determinazione degli interessi, in modo che il contribuente abbia realmente la possibilità di verificare i calcoli effettuati dall’Agente della Riscossione.

Ciò è quanto emerge da una recente sentenza della Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Lecce (sentenza n. 206/02/10, liberamente scaricabile dal sito – sezione Documenti), la quale evidenzia la mancanza di trasparenza delle cartelle esattoriali.

In merito a tale questione, è bene far presente che da tempo molte associazioni oltre che vari gruppi spontanei a difesa dei contribuenti (si veda ad esempio il sito o il gruppo di facebook “SOS FISCO” ) sono in prima linea nel denunciare la totale mancanza di trasparenza delle cartelle esattoriali.

Recependo proprio questo grido di allarme, i Giudici di Lecce chiariscono che “Il contenuto della cartella non consente di poter operare qualsivoglia controllo dell’operato della Amministrazione Finanziaria. Non vi è dunque trasparenza dell’operato dell’Ufficio in violazione del diritto di difesa del contribuente. Ne segue che gli importi iscritti a ruolo potrebbero essere probabili ma non anche certi e dovuti”.

Ne deriva, pertanto, che solo un atto trasparente e facilmente leggibile (e controllabile) da parte del contribuente può rispettare i canoni di un atto legittimo, in quanto non crea alcun dubbio in merito alle somme richieste.

Infatti, proprio relativamente a questo aspetto i Giudici chiariscono che “A ben osservare, l’art. 12, comma 3 (l’ammontare dell’imposta dovuta nonché quello degli interessi, delle soprattasse e delle pene pecuniarie) e l’art. 25 nonché la ratio dell’abrogato art. 17 del D.P.R. n. 602/73 consente l’iscrizione a ruolo dell’importo dovuto e non anche di somme non dovute” e ancora si evidenzia che “Nel caso di specie l’Amministrazione Finanziaria aveva dunque l’obbligo di provare la legittimità del proprio operato in tema di interessi, esternando l’iter seguito nella determinazione degli stessi” (pagina 5 della sentenza).


Viene dunque accolta l’eccezione del contribuente, secondo il quale il comportamento adottato dall’Agente della Riscossione determina una grave lesione del diritto di difesa poiché “il contenuto della cartella non consente di operare alcun controllo”.

Oltre a quanto chiarito in sentenza, poi, si tiene ad evidenziare un ulteriore aspetto.

È importante sottolineare, infatti, che gli errori legati al calcolo degli interessi si ripercuotono anche sul calcolo dei compensi di riscossione (cd. aggio) che, come è noto, sono quantificati in base alle singole componenti del credito tributario (interessi compresi).

Appare lampante, quindi, come venga a mancare la certezza delle somme richieste dal Concessionario.

Mancando, dunque, il requisito della trasparenza e della certezza, si ritiene che ne derivi la caducazione del titolo esecutivo (non più certo, liquido ed esigibile) “che può essere rilevata anche d’ufficio in ogni stato e grado del giudizio ed anche per la prima volta nel giudizio di cassazione, trattandosi di presupposto dell’azione esecutiva” (sent. Cassaz., sez.III, nr. 9293/2001).

IMF Prepares For "Threat To International Monetary System"

IMF Prepares For "Threat To International Monetary System"

Tyler Durden's picture

Back in April 2010, before Waddell and Reed sold a few shares of ES, effectively destroying the market on news that Europe was insolvent, we made the following observation: "The IMF has just announced that it is expanding its New Arrangement to Borrow (NAB) multilateral facility from its existing $50 billion by a whopping $500 billion (SDR333.5 billion), to $550 billion." Little did we know that our conclusion "something big must be coming" would prove spot on just a month later after Greece, then Ireland, then Portgual, and soon Spain, Italy, Belgium, and pretty much all other European countries would topple like dominoes tethered together by a flawed monetary regime. Well, based on news from Dow Jones we can now safely predict the following: "something bigger must be coming." As if the IMF's trillions in open lending facilities (many of which have recently been adjusted to uncapped) were not enough, we now learn that the world lender of last resort (which in theory is the Fed, but apparently Bernanke has been getting a little shy lately so is offsetting his direct lending directives to secondary organizations like the IMF, leaving the Fed with only USD liquidity swaps) is about to activate a "Special Funding Pool" - Dow Jones explains: "The International Monetary Fund is expected to soon activate a special funding pool that will boost the fund's ability to prevent or resolve economic crises, two people familiar with the situation said Thursday. One of the people said the activation of the funding--which can only be made by a special request from the IMF managing director to the board--was in anticipation of an expected wave of new IMF programs, including the possible expansion of the Greek bailout package." Wonderful. Global financial cataclysm rinse repeat all over again...

More from Dow Jones:

Activating access to the funding pool could provide assurance to the market of the IMF's ability to backstop any major funding crisis amid ongoing fears that Europe's sovereign debt woes will worsen. The IMF board recently approved a boost to the so-called New Arrangements To Borrow, bringing the special pool of funding to around $580 billion, adding several hundred billion dollars to the total amount the fund has to tap. According to the IMF, the pool of supplementary resources are only to be activated when "needed to forestall or cope with a threat to the international monetary system."

Although no request has been made, markets, analysts and economists say rejection by the Portuguese parliament Wednesday of a belt-tightening budget all but sealed the likelihood Lisbon will request aid from the IMF and the European Union.

Bottom line: there is a new threat to the international monetary system which means Europe May 2010 redux is imminent.

US taxpayers: our condolences.

giovedì 24 marzo 2011



Revised 3/24/2011

PREFACE: This mathematical analysis shows how:

1. The present practice in the U.S. of creating book-entry money via T-securities (deficit spending) in the amount of the principal of the security, with a promise to repay the principal PLUS the interest, is impossible. The interest is never created; the debt is perpetual and must continually be increased or the economy will collapse from de-leveraging;

2. All other fiscal obligations of the nation must be curtailed while the growth in debt will escalate. The exponential growth of the interest and snow-balling debt will increase until the entire wealth of the nation, and of future generations, is inadequate to fund it;

3. ALL money created by Treasury securities goes into the pocket of the Fed ($8.4 trillion for 2010). Not only does the Fed receive the interest (if not sold), but also the value of the security upon maturity (or by sale). Congress has temporary benefit of $1.4 trillion deficit money (until maturity) during 2010;

4. The operation is, as in any Ponzi scheme, predestined for inherent national bankruptcy when buyers to roll over the debt cannot be found. As the scheme becomes visibly precarious, the interest rate will sky-rocket and accelerate the collapse.



The Federal Reserve uses euphemistic smoke and mirrors to obscure their scam. With full knowledge the following is not the way the Fed/government describes the system, allow me to offer a different analysis of their operation.

Congress can pay for federal expenses with funds collected from taxes, but Congress is never satisfied with this amount. The desire to buy votes/campaign contributions from special interest groups induces congress-critters to spend more, and this is identified as deficit spending. To create this make-believe money requires the assistance of the Federal Reserve.

Congress will give the Fed a T-security (bill, bond, or note) and the Fed will accept the document as an asset of one of the twelve FR Banks. The Fed will then establish a line of credit for the U.S. government (a book entry) in the same amount and list the liability as Federal Reserve Notes. Voila !! Fiat money has just been created for Congress to spend. Ref: 2009 Annual Report to Congress by the Board of Governors, page 448. The accumulated securities that are not redeemed add up to the national debt.

If the Fed retained all of the securities (assets), the public would quickly complain that interest payments (approximately $400 billion annually) are of no benefit and the inflationary pressure would also be obvious. The Fed therefore wants to sell a major portion of the securities so it has arranged with the Treasury department to act as auctioneer for selling to the Primary Dealers. The PD submit sealed bids. Since the security has a fixed face value and interest rate, the higher the bid, the lower the interest rate for the buyer.

The Fed recently obtained $700 billion bailout funds. Secretary Paulson begged Congress, on actual bended knee, to give the Fed money and Congress gave them $700 billion in securities and the Fed swapped the securities to GSE (Freddie and Fannie)/international bankers for toxic MBS‘s---and rescued Paulson’s $800 million in Goldman stock by bailing out AIG.

The Annual Report lists Assets of $776 billion securities and $908 billion Government Sponsored Enterprise Mortgage Backed securities out of $2.2 trillion total assets. Whether the bailout money was a quid pro quo with the PD to avoid lawsuits for fraud is beyond the scope of this writing. The International Bankers do not lightly suffer transgression. The continued mutual benefit of programs, paid for by taxpayers, should evidence Wall Street and the Fed/international bankers constitutes a Siamese twin.

The value of any securities not sold by the Fed is still in circulation and becomes the Reserves for commercial banks. Commercial banks, as an aggregate, have no other source of reserves. All money in circulation is originated from T-securities. The reserves, derived from Treasury checks deposited throughout the world, are then multiplied via loans by commercial banks utilizing the fractional reserve practice. The System Open Market Committee (SOMC) selling and buying of securities alters the reserves--with high leverage. Operation of this system was alleged to have deliberately caused the 1929 Depression. Ref. Raichle v FRB of New York, 34 F2d 910 (1929). The Fed currently holds about $750 billion of $12.5 trillion issued securities. Ref. Chart OFS-1.

Observe that the amount of money created by the security is the amount of the principal but the amount promised to be repaid is the principal AND the interest. The interest is never created but payment is required by the agreement. It is impossible. The linear expansion of base money via fractional reserves to create commercial loans does not change this. If, hypothetically, all money in circulation was used to pay off the securities issued by Congress, all bank reserves would be wiped out and the commercial loans would collapse---and every dollar of interest on the national debt accumulated from day one would still be due---but there would be no money outside of the Fed’s vaults to pay it.

There are esteemed economists who contend the fractional reserve multiplier is a major cause of inflation. The concept is questionable. Assuming the amount of base money and the multiplier factor remain constant, the creation of fractional reserve money reaches a ceiling that cannot be exceeded until more base money (from T-security issues) is added. The multiplier factor is a mere linear increase of the base money that the Fed can alter by SOMC transactions.

The debt created by usury based sovereign debt is perpetual; it can never be paid off. The contract cannot be culminated. Any contract that cannot be culminated is an act of fraud. A contract based upon fraud is invalid upon its inception. It would appear the national debt is not legally enforceable. (A debt incurred by a state or municipality is not a sovereign debt as used in this analysis. Such a debt is akin to a commercial loan and is completely repayable---but may be evidence of unwise administration and result in default.)

There is more skullduggery involved. Let us assume a newly established sovereign nation is setting up a usury based economy and will issue 100 unit securities, a five year maturity, and an annual interest rate of 20 percent over a span of five years. The identifications of Congress and the Fed will be used to convey the images.

Upon the issuance of the first security, Congress has 100 units to spend. At the end of the year, Congress/Treasury has to pay 20 units to the Fed for interest. If the nation had to pay off the security at the end of the first year, the bankruptcy is obvious. There have never been 120 units created. Twenty units could be removed from society but that would leave only 80 units in circulation, cause great financial hardships, and still leave an impossible obligation to redeem a 100 unit security. (This economic diminution would be akin to a contemporary balanced budget.) The solution is to put off the interest payment until the next issue of security for the second year. The interest is paid from the principal created by the second issue.

During the second year there are 200 units in circulation but the actual rate of interest on the second issue is not 20 percent. Since 20 units had to be paid to the security holders, congress only received 180 units to spend (100 + 80) but they are committed to pay 40 units of interest on the security at the end of the second year. The interest rate of 40 divided by 180 is 22.2 percent. Considering the second year alone, the interest is 20 divided by 80 or 25 percent.

When the security for the third year is issued, the interest of 40 units for the first two years securities will not be available for congress. Congress will receive only 60 units for public projects but will have to pay 20 units interest at the end of the year. The 240 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60) will require 60 units of interest at the end of the third year. The cumulative interest rate (60 divided by 240) is 25 percent. The interest rate for the third year alone (20 divided by 60) is 33.3 percent.

At the start of the fourth year, the security will have to cover the interest charge for the three prior years of 60 units. Congress will receive 40 units for government spending. The 280 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60 + 40) will demand 80 units of interest at the end of the fourth year. The cumulative interest rate (80 divided by 280) is 28.5 percent. The interest rate for the fourth year alone (20 divided by 40) is 50 percent.

The security issued for the fifth year will pay the 80-unit interest for the prior four years. Congress will have 20 units to splurge. The 300 units received by congress (100 + 80 + 60 + 40 + 20) will require 100 units of interest at the end of the fifth year. The cumulative interest rate (100 divided by 300) is 33.3 percent. The interest rate for the fifth year alone (20 units received--20 units in interest) is 100 percent.

At the end of the fifth year, 100 units must be found to redeem the maturing security issued the first year (that “loaned” 100 units to the government) in addition to 100 units of interest that must be paid. Congress has an obligation to pay 200 units. This factor alone makes it obvious that more debt must be incurred to continue the scheme. The inescapable whirlpool of usury debt can only avoid obvious default by increasing the value of future securities. Increasing the value of issued securities merely postpones the inevitable result.

As the sixth year approaches, the Fed holds 500 units of securities that must be redeemed by the Treasury before year eleven. The Fed has already received 200 units as interest while Congress retains 300 units from those securities. Before year eleven, the securities will accumulate an additional 300 units of interest payable to the Fed. That accounts for the entire 1000 units of securities and interest that have been involved over the five years. (Each of the five 100 unit securities involved 100 units of interest.)

Do not let the subtly of the numbers escape you. As the example demonstrates, the Fed receives the total value of the security and the interest if it does not sell the security. Only 500 units were created by the securities but 1000 units were somehow acquired by the Fed. The only way for Congress to get the funding is to issue a 200 unit security at the end of the fifth and subsequent years and ALL of the value will be instantly due to the Fed. The scheme is not only perpetual but it must increase in size to continue. And of course, when the 200 unit security matures, the value will belong to the Fed. And then a larger security must be issued to pay for the 200 unit security and the accruing interest further down the road. This is the methodology of any Ponzi scheme. The increase in the required size of deficit spending must be large enough to make the interest payment a relatively acceptable percentage to minimize public hostility. (In 2009, the 200 unit roll-over value reached $7.0 trillion with an additional $1.4 trillion debt for deficit spending. Ref. Post).

A government publication has noted the fiscal policy insecurity: “(T)his growing gap between (Government’s) receipts and total spending …cannot be sustained indefinitely.” page 3 of 12.

If the security is sold at auction, as approximately ninety percent of them are, the Fed receives the value of the security from the Primary Dealer and the ultimate purchaser is then reimbursed by the Treasury at maturity. Either way, the Fed eventually receives the value of the security. The value of all redeemed T-securities is a clear profit for the Fed, along with the value of all securities sold to/held by Primary Dealers, funds, nations, states, or financial institutes.

But 5 year securities are a slow game. If we shifted our attention to 13 week bills, or even four-week bills, each obligation will quickly mature and must repeatedly be rolled over. Each new issue is profit for the Fed. If time lapse between bid and issue dates are ignored, the roll-over of four week 100 unit securities can be repeated thirteen times within a year. The gain of 1300 units of profit for the Fed only involves 100 units of national debt.

Low interest rates will reduce gain for security investors but will provide cheap money for commercial banks to loan. Much of the interest from T-securities held by the Fed must be returned to the government as a result of 1970’s legislation, so the Fed has little motivation to raise rates to make more money--they receive the value of the security.

The total value of auctions in 2010 was $8.4 trillion. Approximately $6 trillion matured in less than one year. ; .

The handling of auction funds is the responsibility of the Fed. Ref. GAO FINANCIAL REPORT TO SECRETARY OF TREASURY, Nov 2010, page 17. The sales must be credited to an account of the Fed and not to an account of the Treasury. There is no inflation if it is otherwise.

The $8.4 trillion in income does not reveal itself in the ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS; Ref. Tables 10 and 11, pages 454 to 462 REPORT for 2009. Id. (Auctions are not Open Market transactions. Securities that are not sold are assigned to SOMC.) This $8.4 trillion is concealed from Congress and the public.

The NY Fed also handles redeeming the securities. Ref. ACCOUNTING FOR TREASURY SECURITIES AT THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK , GAO /AFMD-84-10, May 2, 1984, page 9 of 30, The report does not identify the account that is being used to redeem the securities. This writer concludes the payments are debited to an account of the Treasury and not to an account of the Fed.

Confirmation of the Fed’s handling is found in their ANNUAL REPORT: BUDGET REVIEW 2010, “The Reserve Banks auction, issue, maintain and redeem securities…(and handle) paper U.S. savings bonds and book-entry marketable Treasury securities.” p 5.

“Aha!” exclaims a disciple of the Fed. “The above analyze proves the fallacy of the theory. The $8.4 trillion is obviously being used to pay the redeemed securities and the sale and redemptions are off-setting.” And thus would the Fed beguile the naïve. Indeed, the Treasury’s receiving the value from auctions for that purpose is widely proclaimed in media publications. Treasury financial statements also claim “borrowing from the public” finances government operations. However, direct transfer of money from the public cannot, in any way, expand the monetary system or result in the creation of fiat money (i.e., inflation) any more than can the payment of taxes by a private entity. The label is deliberatively misleading. The confusion actually confirms the scenario developed herein.

When $8.4 trillion in securities is transferred from the Treasury to the Fed, there is a credit on the account of the Treasury (but is considered a liability in a Fed account titled federal reserve notes) and an asset entry in an account of the Fed (titled T-securities). The Treasury’s $8.4 trillion book-entry is used to pay the $7 trillion redeemed securities with $1.4 trillion being available for deficit spending by Congress. The T-securities possessed as an asset by the Fed are sold at auction and the $8.4 trillion belongs to the Fed. Where the value from the auctions is entered into the books of the Fed, and to where the $8.4 trillion goes, is not available information. This is how the fiat money of inflation is created as detailed earlier. It is assured that the IRS knows nothing of this income.

Similar historic banking operations declared they loaned the value of the security to the king and therefore they should receive interest from the loan. The pretense is a sham. Congress and the Fed have agreed they are going to rip-off the public by devaluating the currency. Each party acquired purchasing power from the scheme. Congress gave a promise to pay (a security) which was quickly sold by the Fed and the Fed gave a promise to pay the government’s checks with fiat book-entry money (printing press money, i.e., FRN‘s, a legal tender.). It is an acknowledgement of debt that can never be paid because there is no lawful money available; there is only more debt of an under-capitalized federal corporation.

To get the scheme started and financed by third parties, it must have the appearance that interest is their source of profit and a gain must be made from the brokerage difference. A prime concern for the Fed under these conditions would be the difference in the value credited to the Treasury account and the value received from the auction. If the value of securities purchased by the public is transmitted directly to the Treasury, there cannot be any inflation, but then there is no gain to the Fed from book-entry money. The percentage taken by the Fed for profit can even be variable but is hidden without an audit.

Perhaps we are catching a glimpse of how the Fed may have been started. If the Fed was created by Congress as a brokerage firm to sell government bonds to the public, it would be a simple arrangement with minimal investment or risk. The currency in circulation in 1913 was non-interest bearing U.S. Notes. After the operation has been set up and the New York Federal Bank is handling the accounting, it would be a simple shift of accounting procedures to have the T-securities accepted by the FR Bank as owner instead of as a broker. The difference allows the Bank to create fiat money (inflation or Federal Reserve Notes) as a profit for the Bank. Whether this falls within the parameters of embezzlement depends upon many conditions.

The 1913 congressional report of objects of the legislation by Senator Glass included the statement “(3) Furnishing an elastic currency…of bank notes…” Perhaps the enumerated powers of the Federal Reserve Banks at 12 USC section 341, paragraph Eighth, might be stretched to authorize such practice. However, the courts have repeatedly concluded the profits of the Fed belong to the United States. Ref. Scott v FRB of Kansas City, 405 F3d 532, 535; In Re Hoag Ranches, 846 F2d 1227. The fact that the income is not reported is suggestive of subterfuge.

To put $8.4 trillion in perspective, the 2010 operation of the U.S. government involved $3.4 trillion and that includes the $1.3 trillion deficit. The entire amount of taxes collected by the U.S. government was only $2.1 trillion.

Good luck on trying to follow this sequence in the accounting records. Even Enron, World Com, and Bernie were able to cook the books---and they were audited. The annual audit of the Fed follows accounting guidelines established by the Fed. It is assured the receipts and disbursements for T-security auctions are not examined. But the methodology of the Fed may be identified: the accounting records do not reflect “securities purchased under agreements to resell.” Ref. Table 9A, note 4, Annual Report.

If asked “Who owns the T-securities that are sold at the auctions--the Fed or the U.S. government?” a Fed representative will respond “The securities are a liability of the government.” An astute observer will note the inquiry was avoided; it was not answered.

A high rate of interest has been selected for the example to minimize repetitive calculations. A ten percent interest rate will return 100 percent of the security value in ten years; a five percent interest rate will take twenty years. Lower rates of interest merely require more years to reach the same inherent bankruptcy. (Actually, bankruptcy occurs the first year irrespective of the interest rate, but then again, since the debt can never be paid off, the entire scheme is based upon fraud. A contract based upon fraud is void from its inception.)

An economic scheme that utilizes later investors to pay the interest due earlier investors is identified as a Ponzi scheme. This is precisely the scheme that has been presented above.

A newspaper article a couple of years ago informed us the annual increase in interest to be 15 percent while the budget only grew 7 percent. That reflects the exponential growth of interest. More recently the deficit has been increasing much faster to fund/conceal the rapid growth in interest requirement---and to rescue financial institutes from default. Professor Bob Blain, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville has graphed the exponential growth in debt from 1915 to be irregular only during the 1930’s.

In 1790 during Congress’ consideration of Alexander Hamilton’s proposal to pay the national debt with a usury based obligation placed upon the citizens, congressman James Jackson, after lengthy reflection on the devastation similar plans had imposed on European countries and cities, included the following observation to Congress:

“Let us take warning by the errors of Europe, and guard against the introduction of a system followed by calamities so universal…The funding of the debt will occasion enormous taxes for the payment of the interest…(such a system) must hereafter settle upon our posterity a burthen (sic) which they can neither bear nor relieve themselves from.” Ref. ANNALS OF CONGRESS, Vol. 1, 1790, pp. 1141-2.

In actual practice within the United States, a collection of taxes for part of the government spending is well known. Payment of part of the government expenses by taxation does not alter the government’s usury program; for analytical analysis they can stand alone. The current pattern of increasingly larger deficit spending is the escalation as the climax of chaos beyond description approaches.

The Creature from Jekyll Island


The Creature from Jekyll Island

by G. Edward Griffin

On Friday 2011 March 25, the entire Glenn Beck show will be devoted to an exposé of the Federal Reserve. I was invited to be a guest on the program and, when it was taped last Tuesday, I was amazed to find that Beck, not only has read the book but praised it highly. In fact, almost his entire opening monologue was based on the information and, in some cases, the very same phrases used in the book and in my lectures. I was delighted to know that someone, either Beck or his researchers, had spent a great deal of time studying The Creature from Jekyll Island. But what is even more encouraging is that several million viewers will be exposed to an hour of economic and monetary truth. This will bring us a giant step closer to actually slaying the Creature.

The reason I am writing to you is that this media exposure will open up many minds that previously were closed on this topic. Now is the time to reach out to friends, neighbors, and leaders with an invitation to read the book. We must strike while the iron is hot. So I am putting the book on special sale for the next week to encourage you to acquire a few extra copies either to give away or sell. Through the rest of March, the book, which retails at $24.50 alone or $19.60 with any additional purchase, will be on sale for $19.50 alone or $15.60 with additional purchase. We still have about 50 copies left of the previous 4th edition, and those will be on sale this week as long as they last for $14 in any quantity.

Click here to order

Capitalism may have ended life on Mars

Capitalism may have ended life on Mars: Chavez

ABC News, Mar 23, 2011

'Capitalism may be to blame': Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez

'Capitalism may be to blame': Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez (Reuters: Jorge Silva)

Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on Mars, Venezuela's socialist president Hugo Chavez says.

"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilisation on Mars, but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Mr Chavez said in a speech to mark World Water Day.

Mr Chavez, who also holds capitalism responsible for many of the world's problems, warned water supplies on Earth were drying up.

"Careful. Here on planet Earth, where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Mr Chavez said, sipping from a glass of water.

He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves.

Earlier this month, the US National Research Council recommended NASA's top priority should be a robot to help determine whether Mars ever supported life and offer insight on its geological and climatic history.

It would also be the first step in an effort to get samples from Mars back to Earth.

A NASA team recently tested a space suit in a setting with extreme conditions akin to some of those found on Mars - an Argentine base in Antarctica - for possible use on a visit to the red planet.

- Reuters





Vi informiamo che a seguito della denuncia depositata il 21.01.2010 dal Presidente del Forum Antiusura Bancaria On. Dott. Domenico Scilipoti, nella quale venivano rappresentati fatti riconducibili a possibili accordi di cartello posti in essere dalle Banche che non avrebbero mai rinegoziato i contratti "uso piazza", diverse Procure della Repubblica hanno avviato indagini per accertare la sussistenza del reato di associazione per delinquere. Ai fini delle indagini, dette Procure hanno chiesto idonea documentazione.

Pertanto, chiediamo a TUTTI QUELLI CHE HANNO I PROPRI CONTI CORRENTE DETERMINATI DALLE CONDIZIONI "uso piazza" ai quali non fu notificata la rinegoziazione ai sensi della L. 154/92, trasfusa nel T.U.B. n. 385/93 (cioè a TUTTI), che volessero presentare prova del presunto reato, di CONTATTARE con URGENZA I SEGUENTI REFERENTI :

- Candotti Giuseppe -Coordinatore Forum Nord Italia 338.8573587 -

- Gennaro Baccile - Coordinatore C/sud 085.9066235 - ;

- Emidio Orsini - Coordinatore C/nord 327/8565876 - ;

- Bruno De Ciccio - Coordinatore Sud 335/ 7959222 - ;

- Leonardo Carpinteri - Coordinatore Isole 0923/29754 -

Sono necessari :

- Copia dei contratti di conto corrente "uso piazza";

- Consenso all'utilizzo per fini giudiziari.

Orsini Emidio

The Law for Big Bankers Is Different

comments_image 9 COMMENTS

The Law for Big Bankers Is Different than for the Rest of Us

The new House leadership may not have much success reopening loopholes closed by the Dodd-Frank law. So their new game is simply to leave the reforms underfunded.
AlterNet, March 22, 2011

Work your heart out,

Get no thanks;

Wages scarfed up

By the banks.

You may have noticed that laws governing you and me tend to be rather rigidly enforced, whereas laws governing banking and finance are more loosey-goosey. Word is this has something to do with us little guys not putting enough money into political campaigns, which the big guys do. Is that too cynical?

At any rate, the officials anointed to run the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and White House advisory panels all seem to be from Wall Street, not groups out to make the industry more accountable to us consumers. It makes little difference whether a Democrat or Republican occupies the White House.

As a result, wealthy citizens get treated with kid gloves while the rest of us have to toe the mark. Even among banks, the big players get bailed out while the small ones get closed out. In one example of that special care, for our benefit Congress passed a law capping credit card interest rates, but left plenty of time for the big banks to jack them up before it takes effect. Thanks a lot.

Similarly, Congress restricted cash bonuses for Wall Street, so now brokerages simply reward their employees with stock. New rules also require the behemoths to meet stricter home foreclosure standards, yet few inspectors are hired to enforce them.

One clue as to what still lies in wait for us hapless consumers was recently divulged by Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. In a moment of careless candor, he observed, "Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

The Republicans' primary tactic has been prohibiting the use of any funds to enforce existing reforms. This scheme is an especially hot topic in health care, and now looms grimly over financial controls as well.

Many recent reforms were the product of last year's much-publicized Dodd-Frank law. It plugged up numerous banking loopholes but still left plenty unfilled. Since the Democrats still control a Senate majority, the new House leadership may not have much success reopening those recent plugs. So their new game is simply to leave them underfunded.

Some of those remaining loopholes protect local car dealers and community banks. These were purposely left out of the law so that they could keep on swindling us with fine print. I suppose it should be comforting to know that it's not only the national players who get to do that.

Meanwhile, at the higher echelons of business, there are other disturbing changes. More and more major corporations, including some banks, are no longer even publicly owned. Vast private pots of cash from hedge funds and oil sheikdoms have scooped them up, thus lowering their disclosure requirements. Losing this big chunk of publicly traded business might be one reason why a German company is buying out the New York Stock Exchange. There just aren't as many transactions to take a percentage of anymore.

So as the United States, like Great Britain before us, gradually abandons its manufacturing and service sectors, it focuses more on big finance. That's where the fancy business school grads go nowadays. The big money lurks in schemes and scams -- and in lobbying, making sure they stay protected from government meddling. These big guys are so malicious they even have the nerve to overcharge our soldiers. Banks are now bought and sold like Monopoly properties with a few slick folks at the top siphoning off millions while laying off workers. Better we should all join a credit union.

William A. Collins, an OtherWords columnist, is a former Connecticut State lawmaker and the former mayor of Norwalk.

16 per cent of Americans want to abolish the central bank

FT notices gold's rise in favor, Fed's fall, if ever patronizingly


Utah Raises Standard in Anti-Fed Campaign

By Robin Harding and James Politi
Financial Times, London
Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Shops in Salt Lake City will soon be able to accept gold Buffalo and Eagle coins (no foreign-minted Napoleons or Krugerrands allowed) after a bill to make gold and silver legal tender passed Utah's House and Senate.

The state does not trust the US Federal Reserve. However, visitors need not weigh down their pockets just yet.

The bill, which is under review by the governor, ends state taxes on the transfer of gold -- they currently treat it as an asset and not as money -- but until the federal government does the same, its green paper will have the edge.

This proto-gold standard in the American west is a rebuke and challenge to the Fed, and a reminder that easy monetary policy since 2007 has won the central bank many more enemies than friends.

"They’ve been a disaster," says Jeff Bell, policy director of the American Principles Project, a conservative lobby group that has helped the Utah legislators and favours a return to the gold standard. "Mr [Ben] Bernanke, ever since he got on to the Fed, has been a force for fighting deflation and bringing interest rates down to the disappearing point."

Some conservatives believe this has devalued the dollar.

The Fed is unpopular with the US public, and several other states have recently been considering -- with varying degrees of seriousness -- legislation similar to Utah's.

From 2003 to 2009 the percentage of people saying the Fed does a "good" or "excellent" job fell from 53 to 30 per cent, according to Gallup. A Bloomberg opinion poll last year found that 16 per cent of Americans want to abolish the central bank outright -- although it did ask a leading question.

The Fed's popularity is unlikely to increase any time soon. Rising fuel and food prices make inflation feel high to the public. At some point it will have to sell the extra bonds on its balance sheet and in the process it may suffer accounting losses. Such losses have little real meaning but the disgust of opponents will be no less heartfelt.

"There is a lot of public anger at the Fed and politicians are trying to channel that anger, though they don't always do it in a coherent way," says Vincent Reinhart, a former Fed official at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

"The Fed is seen as a vehicle for unfairness. When people see 'too big to fail' they see 'I'm too little to be helped.'" In addition, Mr Reinhart says in reference to the disproportionate impact on poor and middle-class Americans, "quantitative easing as a design principle is generating some inflation. It's an unfortunate fact that the prices that are most sensitive have some uneven incidence."

The question is whether Fed unpopularity matters. One reason that politicians created an independent central bank was to soak up the blame for economic pain. Fed officials sigh and shrug about public opinion but say their duty is to the bank's dual mandate on employment and inflation.

They have, however, been trying to become more engaged and communicative about monetary policy than in the past. But that outreach does not always turn out as intended.

This month Bill Dudley, president of the New York Fed, travelled to Queens, a borough of New York City, to discuss the economy and the workings of the central bank. But the audience was unimpressed with his assurances that, even as food and energy costs were rising, "today you can buy an iPad 2 that costs the same as an iPad 1 and is twice as powerful." One attendee quipped: "I can't eat an iPad."

Nevertheless, the Republican leadership seems to have rethought the value of an "end the Fed" crusade by U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, an outspoken critic of US foreign and monetary policy, now that they have won the House of Representatives. Stirring up libertarian votes while in the minority was helpful; calling secessionists to testify to Congress is not the message they want to send. It appears that Mr Paul's subcommittee on monetary policy will not be allowed to summon Mr Bernanke to testify.

But even if public dislike does not affect immediate monetary policy decisions, unpopularity leads to politicisation, which is a greater danger to the Fed. That is shown by Republican Sen. Richard Shelby's determined effort to block the appointment of Nobel-prize winning economist Peter Diamond to the Fed Board of Governors.

And the wave of discontent with the Fed may have its limits. In the American west, Jay Kaplan, an economics instructor at the University of Colorado at Boulder, says he is not witnessing much anti-Fed fervour in his money and banking class of 160 students.

"There's no big discussion of the evils of central banking," Mr Kaplan says.

Currency market rigging

Currency market rigging on a vaster scale than ever


Yen Action Sets Scene for Return of Carry Trade

By Peter Garnham and Lindsay Whipp
Financial Times, London
Wednesday, March 23, 2011

The billions of dollars in yen sold by the world's most powerful central banks have sent a strong message to speculative investors. Those daring to bet that the Japanese currency will again test Y76.25, the record high against the dollar it hit last week before the G7's intervention, better have deep pockets.

Indeed, now that the world's richest nations have pledged to back Tokyo in its efforts to halt the yen's appreciation, some strategists are predicting a new set of trading patterns in foreign exchange markets. The yen, they say, could make a return as investors' currency of choice for making so-called "carry trades."

The carry trade, in which the purchase of riskier, higher-yielding assets is funded by selling low-yielding currencies, is a popular investment employed by investors to take advantage of rising asset markets.

Before the financial crisis, the low-yielding yen was widely used to fund investments in a wide range of risky assets such as equities, commodities, property, and higher-yielding currencies such as the Australian dollar. This sent the yen down to multi-year lows against a raft of currencies.

But the wave of deleveraging that followed the credit crunch saw the yen rally sharply as asset prices tumbled. Investors abandoned carry trades funded in the Japanese currency. The yen has risen more than 30 per cent against the dollar since Lehman Brothers’ collapse in 2008.

All that, though, could be about to change if the belief that central banks have imposed a ceiling on the yen gains traction. And a return of the carry trade would have the potential to lift prices of risky assets -- equities and commodities are already well into a bull run -- even further, analysts say.

"There is another wave of global liquidity in the making, this time coming out of Japan. This liquidity will not stay in Japan and will boost asset prices elsewhere," says Hans Redeker at BNP Paribas

The impact of currency intervention, if sustained, could have a similar effect to the US Federal Reserve's preparations in the summer of 2010 for a second round of "quantitative easing," its huge bond-buying programme to kick-start recovery. The Fed's action lifted shares and weakened the dollar.

"This time it will be the yen funding another rush into global assets," says Mr Redeker. "We buy aggressively into risk and see the yen moving lower."

Mansoor Mohi-uddin at UBS says yen-funded carry trades are likely to make a comeback as other central banks outside Japan prepare to tighten monetary policy while Tokyo keeps conditions ultra-loose to deal with the effects of this month’s earthquake and hold the yen in check.

The Fed is due to end its "QE2" programme in June and the European Central Bank is expected to raise interest rates as early as next month, while the Bank of England is forecast to tighten policy later this year. The success of a carry trade investment strategy requires not just stability in asset markets but a steadily weakening funding currency. The joint action from leading central banks to intervene to stem strength in the yen could help to provide both.

Traders cite a range of factors that led to last week's spike. These include expectations that Japanese institutions would repatriate funds to pay for post-earthquake reconstruction costs and speculative momentum as traders taking advantage of the move upwards forced buying by investors squaring bets against the yen. "Should it have continued, it risked a significant destabilisation in the financial and economic foundation of Japan," says Camilla Sutton at Scotia Capital.

Ms Sutton says the G7 stepped in to weaken the yen not so much because the value of the Japanese currency had become extreme but because the yen-dollar trading pattern had become disorderly and threatened global economic and financial stability.

"This type of volatility in currencies threatens much more than the economic recovery of the world's third-largest economy. Above all the G7's role was to stabilise global markets," she says. The action, which drove the yen down to Y81, where it has stayed, helped shares recover their poise after a volatile week.

Expectations of further currency intervention to come, combined with the Y40,000 billion asset purchase programme announced by the Bank of Japan, means yen liquidity can only grow in coming months. Thus the G7 has stabilised not only the asset side of the yen carry trade but the funding side too.

Mr Mohi-uddin says the G7's efforts to weaken the yen are also likely to succeed because they are consistent with the expectations for future interest rate changes outside Japan. "So investors should should forget about yen strength," he says. "Instead carry trades are clearly making a comeback as reduced investor risk aversion following the G7 intervention allows hawkish central banks to consider raising interest rates."

Of course, any evidence of widespread yen repatriation by Japanese institutions may yet trigger renewed yen strength. For now, though, a return of the carry trade should come as welcome news in Tokyo as Japan tries to rebuild.

UBS is charging storage for imaginary silver

Class-action suit accuses UBS of charging storage for imaginary silver


2:26p ET Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Dear Friend of GATA and Gold (and Silver):

A class-action lawsuit filed in federal court in New York accuses UBS Financial Services of misleading investors in silver and charging them storage fees for metal that was never actually purchased, segregated, and stored for them.

The lawsuit resembles one against Morgan Stanley that the investment house settled for $4.4 million three years ago:

The lead plaintiff in the suit against UBS is Ramsey Personal Trust, which is represented by the law firm of Schoengold & Sporn, P.C., 19 Fulton St., New York, N.Y., 10038. Handling the case is lawyer Samuel P. Sporn. Precious metals investors who are concerned about storage fees they have paid to UBS and seek more information about the lawsuit can telephone Sporn at 212-964-0046.

The lawsuit can be found here:

CHRIS POWELL, Secretary/Treasurer
Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee Inc.

Mystique of the Marshall Plan

The Enduring Mystique of the Marshall Plan


Amidst all the stirring political upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East the name "Marshall Plan" keeps being repeated by political figures and media around the world as the key to rebuilding the economies of those societies to complement the political advances, which hopefully will be somewhat progressive. But caveat emptor. Let the buyer beware.
During my years of writing and speaking about the harm and injustice inflicted upon the world by unending United States interventions, I've often been met with resentment from those who accuse me of chronicling only the negative side of US foreign policy and ignoring the many positive sides. When I ask the person to give me some examples of what s/he thinks show the virtuous face of America's dealings with the world in modern times, one of the things mentioned — almost without exception — is The Marshall Plan. This is usually described along the lines of: "After World War II, the United States unselfishly built up Europe economically, including our wartime enemies, and allowed them to compete with us." Even those today who are very cynical about US foreign policy, who are quick to question the White House's motives in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere, have little problem in accepting this picture of an altruistic America of the period 1948-1952. But let's have a look at the Marshall Plan outside the official and popular versions.
After World War II, the United States, triumphant abroad and undamaged at home, saw a door wide open for world supremacy. Only the thing called "communism" stood in the way, politically, militarily, and ideologically. The entire US foreign policy establishment was mobilized to confront this "enemy", and the Marshall Plan was an integral part of this campaign. How could it be otherwise? Anti-communism had been the principal pillar of US foreign policy from the Russian Revolution up to World War II, pausing for the war until the closing months of the Pacific campaign, when Washington put challenging communism ahead of fighting the Japanese. This return to anti-communism included the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan as a warning to the Soviets. (1)
After the war, anti-communism continued as the leitmotif of American foreign policy as naturally as if World War II and the alliance with the Soviet Union had not happened. Along with the CIA, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, the Council on Foreign Relations, certain corporations, and a few other private institutions, the Marshall Plan was one more arrow in the quiver of those striving to remake Europe to suit Washington's desires:
1. Spreading the capitalist gospel — to counter strong postwar tendencies towards socialism.
2. Opening markets to provide new customers for US corporations — a major reason for helping to rebuild the European economies; e.g., a billion dollars of tobacco at today's prices, spurred by US tobacco interests.
3. Pushing for the creation of the Common Market and NATO as integral parts of the West European bulwark against the alleged Soviet threat.
4. Suppressing the left all over Western Europe, most notably sabotaging the Communist Parties in France and Italy in their bids for legal, non-violent, electoral victory. Marshall Plan funds were secretly siphoned off to finance this endeavour, and the promise of aid to a country, or the threat of its cutoff, was used as a bullying club; indeed, France and Italy would certainly have been exempted from receiving aid if they had not gone along with the plots to exclude the communists from any kind of influential role.
The CIA also skimmed large amounts of Marshall Plan funds to covertly maintain cultural institutions, journalists, and publishers, at home and abroad, for the heated and omnipresent propaganda of the Cold War; the selling of the Marshall Plan to the American public and elsewhere was entwined with fighting "the red menace". Moreover, in its covert operations, CIA personnel at times used the Marshall Plan as cover, and one of the Plan's chief architects, Richard Bissell, then moved to the CIA, stopping off briefly at the Ford Foundation, a long time conduit for CIA covert funds. One big happy family.
The Marshall Plan imposed all kinds of restrictions on the recipient countries, all manner of economic and fiscal criteria which had to be met, designed for a wide open return to free enterprise. The US had the right to control not only how Marshall Plan dollars were spent, but also to approve the expenditure of an equivalent amount of the local currency, giving Washington substantial power over the internal plans and programs of the European states; welfare programs for the needy survivors of the war were looked upon with disfavour by the United States; even rationing smelled too much like socialism and had to go or be scaled down; nationalization of industry was even more vehemently opposed by Washington. The great bulk of Marshall Plan funds returned to the United States, or never left, to purchase American goods, making American corporations among the chief beneficiaries.
The program could be seen as more a joint business operation between governments than an American "handout"; often it was a business arrangement between American and European ruling classes, many of the latter fresh from their service to the Third Reich, some of the former as well; or it was an arrangement between Congressmen and their favourite corporations to export certain commodities, including a lot of military goods. Thus did the Marshall Plan help lay the foundation for the military industrial complex as a permanent feature of American life.
It is very difficult to find, or put together, a clear, credible description of how the Marshall Plan played a pivotal or indispensable role in the recovery in each of the sixteen recipient nations. The opposing view, at least as clear, is that the Europeans — highly educated, skilled and experienced — could have recovered from the war on their own without an extensive master plan and aid program from abroad, and indeed had already made significant strides in this direction before the Plan's funds began flowing. Marshall Plan funds were not directed primarily toward the urgently needed feeding of individuals or rebuilding their homes, schools, or factories, but at strengthening the economic superstructure, particularly the iron, steel and power industries. The period was in fact marked by deflationary policies, unemployment and recession. The one unambiguous outcome was the full restoration of the propertied class. (2)
The rising up of the people ... and the conservative mind
James Baker served as the Chief of Staff in President Ronald Reagan's first administration and in the final year of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. He was also Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and Secretary of State under Bush. Thus, by establishment standards and values, inside marble-columned institutions, Baker is a man to be taken seriously when it comes to affairs of state. Here he is on February 3, during an interview by our favourite TV station, our very own shining beacon of truth, Fox News:
"We want to see the people in the Middle East have a chance at democracy and free markets ... I'm sorry, democracy and human rights." (3)
Baker has a record of speaking his mind, whether Freudian-slip-like or not. When he was Secretary of State, on an occasion when the Middle East was being discussed at a government meeting, and Jewish-American influence was mentioned, Baker was reported to have said "Fuck the Jews! They don't vote for us anyway."( 4)
They couldn't resist, could they?
News flash: "Judge Mustafa Abdel Jallil, the Libyan justice minister who resigned last week in protest over the use of force against unarmed civilians, said he has proof that Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland on Dec. 21, 1988. He would not disclose details of the alleged evidence." (5)
Hmmm, let me guess now why he wouldn't disclose details of the alleged evidence ... hmmm ... Ah, I know — because it doesn't exist! How could Gadhafi's many enemies in Libya resist kicking him like this when he's down? Or perhaps the honourable judge is simply protecting himself from a future international criminal tribunal for his years of service to the Libyan state? If you read any more of such nonsense — and you will — reach for some of the antidote I've been providing for more than twenty years. (6)
The empire's deep dark secret
"In my opinion, any future defence secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should have his head examined," declared US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates on February 25.
Remarkable. Every one of the many wars the United States has engaged in since the end of World War II has been presented to the American people, explicitly or implicitly, as a war of necessity, not a war of choice; a war urgently needed to protect American citizens, American allies, vital American "interests", freedom, or democracy. Here is President Obama speaking of Afghanistan: "But we must never forget this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity." (7)
This being the case, how can a future administration say it will not go to war if any of these noble causes is seriously threatened? The answer is that these noble causes are irrelevant. The United States goes to war where and when it wants, and if a noble cause is not self-evident, the government, with indispensable help from the American media, will manufacture it. Secretary Gates is now admitting that there is choice involved. Well, Bob, thanks for telling us. You were Bush's Secretary of Defence as well, and before that 26 years in the CIA and the National Security Council. You sure know how to keep a secret.

William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
Portions of the books can be read, and signed copies purchased, from the website Killing . The photograph shows General George Catlett Marshall entering Harvard University on 5 June 1947 to give the speech that launched the Marshall Plan.

1. See William Blum's essay on the use of the atomic bomb
2. For discussion of various aspects of the Marshall Plan see, for example, Joyce & Gabriel Kolko, The Limits of Power: The World and US Foreign Policy 1945-1954 (1972), chapters 13, 16, 17; Sallie Pisani, The CIA and the Marshall Plan (1991) passim; Frances Stoner Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the world of arts and letters (2000) passim
3. Crisis in Egypt - James A. Baker III on Middle East Political Change
4. The Guardian (London), December 12, 2000; Haaretz (Israel), November 14, 2008
5. McClatchy Newspapers, February 26, 2011
6. The Bombing of PanAm Flight 103: Case Not Closed
7. Veterans of Foreign Wars convention, August 17, 2009

mercoledì 23 marzo 2011

News stories related to the World Bank and IMF

A selection of news stories related to the World Bank and IMF, brought to you by the Bretton Woods Project:

World Bank to rethink Middle East but not sure when or how,,14935744,00.html
Deutsche Welle, 22 March 2011

World Bank could back Kremlin fund
Moscow Times, 21 March 2011

Cambodia: Botched World Bank project leads to thousands of evictions
IPS, 17 March 2011

VII Convegno sul denaro-debito a Bergamo

VII Convegno sul denaro-debito a Bergamo

un libro di Rossano Orlando
Il caffè Letterario
Via S. Bernardino, 53
24126 Bergamo

Convegno ispirato agli studi
Prof. Giacinto Auriti
venerdì 25 marzo 2011
ore 20.45
Il caffè Letterario
Via S. Bernardino, 53
24122 Bergamo

20.45 – 20.50 Pierantonio Locatelli
Segretario di Giustizia Monetaria

20.50 – 21.20 Matteo Mazzariol
Presidente di Giustizia Monetaria

21.00 – 22.00 Rossano Orlando
Autore di “Debitori dalla nascita”

22.00 – 22.45
Discussione aperta al pubblico

22.45 – 23.00


“Debitori dalla nascita”: questa frase non è
solo il titolo del nuovo libro del giornalista
Rossano Orlando, ma la fotografia di una
condizione cui tutti siamo soggetti.
Ogni cittadino, dal neonato al pensionato, è
infatti oggi gravato da un debito di 30.000
euro. Questa somma incontestabile deriva
dalla divisione del debito pubblico, che a
gennaio 2011 ha toccato il record di 1879,9
miliardi di euro, per il numero della
popolazione della nostra penisola.
Si tratta di un fenomeno tutto e solo
italiano? Certamente no! Basta, infatti,
prendere in considerazione i dati
sull’indebitamento pubblico e privato di
paesi quali l’Inghilterra, la Germania, la
Francia, la Spagna, gli Stati Uniti per
rendersi conto immediatamente che il
debito non è una realtà italiana ma
pressoché ubiquitaria: tutte le nazioni, sia
quelle del mondo industrializzato sia quelle
del terzo mondo, sono affette da questo
grave male sociale, che colpisce
indistintamente i conti pubblici degli Stati, i
privati cittadini, le aziende.
A questo punto una domanda si impone:
come è possibile che siamo tutti indebitati?
Indebitati verso chi? Se c’è un debito di
norma deve esistere anche un credito. Chi
sono allora i creditori verso cui siamo
Il libro di Rossano Orlando cerca di dare
una risposta a queste domande, sulla base
dei dati e delle informazioni oggi in nostro
possesso, guidandoci con la bussola del
senso comune all’interno di un mondo che
a primo acchito sembra complicato ma in
realtà non lo è: il mondo del denaro.
L’apparente complessità della questione
monetaria si semplifica infatti non appena
venga posta la questione centrale: chi è il
proprietario del denaro al momento della
sua emissione e quali sono le conseguenze
economico-sociali di ciò?

Scopriremo così che oggi la moneta viene
creata dal nulla (fiat money) dal sistema
bancario, che poi lo impresta a terzi, Stati e
Scopriremo che il debito pubblico non è un
incidente di percorso di un sistema per il
resto perfettamente congegnato, ma
l’ineluttabile e nefasta conseguenza del
fatto che tutto il denaro nasce come debito
e pertanto gli Stati devono chiedere in
prestito la moneta che gli spetterebbe di
Scopriremo ancora che tasse e debito
pubblico sono due fattori strettamente
correlati, perché là dove lo Stato è
costretto ad indebitarsi non potendo
disporre della propria moneta, sarà anche
costretto ad imporre tasse per pagare i
debiti contratti con chi ha il monopolio di
creare il denaro, e cioè il sistema bancario.
Il libro di Rossano Orlando però non ci aiuta
solo a capire le radici e le cause profonde
dell’indebitamento generalizzato; seguendo
il pensiero del Prof Giacinto Auriti, ci indica
anche la via per una possibile soluzione al
problema, quella stessa via che il Prof
Irving Fisher, dell’Università’ di Yale, Stati
Uniti, tracciò nel lontano 1934 durante la
“Grande Depressione”: restituire allo Stato
ed ai cittadini la proprietà della moneta al
momento dell’emissione ed impedire al
sistema bancario di creare denaro, come
invece succede ora.
In un momento di così grave crisi
economico-sociale pensiamo sia opera
quanto mai utile riflettere insieme su questi
temi e invitiamo pertanto la cittadinanza
bergamasca a partecipare numerosa.

martedì 22 marzo 2011

Bankenstein's War On Libya

Imperial War On Libya
By Stephen Lendman

On March 19, ironically on the eighth anniversary of "Operation Iraqi Freedom," a White House Office of the Press Secretary quoted Obama saying:

"Today I authorized the Armed Forces of the United States to (attack) Libya in support of an international effort to protect Libyan civilians," he, in fact, doesn't give a damn about. "That action has now begun," he added, claiming military action was a last resort.

In fact, it was long-planned. All military interventions require months of preparation, including target selections, strategy, enlisting political and public support, troop deployments, and post-conflict plans.

Weeks, maybe months in advance, Special Forces, CIA agents, and UK SAS operatives were in Libya, enlisting, inciting, funding, and arming so-called anti-Gaddafi opposition forces, ahead of Western aggression for imperial control. More on it below.

A March 19 Department of Defense (DOD) Armed Forces Press Service release announced America's led "Operation Odyssey Dawn," saying:

"Coalition (of the willing) forces launched "Operation Odyssey Dawn" today to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to protect the Libyan people from the country's ruler....Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people."

False! In fact, Washington-led naked aggression was launched to replace one despot with another, perhaps assassinate Gaddafi, his sons and top officials, colonize Libya, control its oil, gas and other resources, exploit its people, private state industries under Western (mainly US) control, establish new Pentagon bases, use them for greater regional dominance, perhaps balkanize the country like Yugoslavia and Iraq, and prevent any democratic spark from emerging.

According to DODspeak, Libya is being attacked, its people killed, civilian targets destroyed, and a humanitarian disaster created to save it. In other words, "destroying the village to save it" on a nationwide scale like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Southeast Asia in the 1960s and 70s, and Korea in the 1950s since WW II alone. Besides numerous proxy wars in Central America, Africa and elsewhere. Wherever America shows up, blood spills followed by horrific human suffering, what Libyans can now expect.

Military and government targets include:

-- command-and-control centers;

-- air defense systems;

-- Gaddafi, his sons and senior officials;

-- communications systems;

-- government buildings and other facilities; and

-- military air fields, tanks, artillery, other weapons, munitions, fuel depots, mobile and other targets.

About 25 US, UK, French, Canadian and Italian ships are involved, 11 from America, including three nuclear submarines. The Pentagon is providing command, control and logistics support. Air and surface-launched munitions are being used, including against Tripoli, the capital and Gaddafi stronghold.

Moreover, invasion and perhaps occupation may follow, despite official denials.

Either way, widespread death and destruction is likely. Surgical war is an oxymoron. Expect considerable "collateral damage," the Orwellian designation for war crimes against noncombatants and civilian targets.

In his 1992 book titled, "Beyond Hypocrisy," Edward Herman referred to "nuclear chicken analysis," defining "collateral casualties" as "civilians killed as a regrettable 'spillover effect' of a nuclear attack on a military target' more generally, allegedly unintended casualties" of any type attack.

In other words, "inadvertent and tragic errors" that, in fact, constitute wanton murder and destruction of schools, hospitals, vital infrastructure and other non-military targets.

Pack Journalism Promotes War

A previous article explained how it enlists public support for imperial war, accessed through the following link:

Western media, including BBC and Al Jazeera incite it, no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive and counterproductive. Smell it. It arrived again because inflammatory journalism stoked reasons to attack. As a result, America, Britain and France primarily readied strikes. Ground and submarine-launced cruise missiles inflicted widespread destruction. In addition, French jets struck "targets of opportunity," preceded by exaggerated/unverified/inflammatory reports like the following:

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Reports Say Attacks by Regime Against Rebels Continue," saying:

Unverified "(r)eports indicated that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces were continuing to press their attacks despite warnings that such moves would provoke military action."

On March 19, Financial Times writer Tobias Buck headlined, "Gaddafi launches assault on Benghazi," saying:

Forces loyal to Gaddafi attacked "in violation of the regime's promise of a ceasefire."

Libyan state TV channel, Al Jamahiriya, reported it differently, saying "the people of Benghazi have risen up against the rebels and raised the flag of Libya over the government building in the middle of the city."

On March 19, New York Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:

"American, European and Arab leaders began the largest international intervention" since 2003 against Iraq, omitting the illegality of both aggressions.

On March 19, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrich and Elisabeth Musmiller headlined, "France Sends Military Flights Over Libya," saying:

Flying reconnaissance missions, it's "the first sign" of premeditated war, launching new hostilities against a war-torn region, without explanation why.

On March 19, Times writers Steven Erlanger and David Kirkpatrick headlined, "Allies Open Push in Libya to Block Qaddafi Assaults," saying:

Hostilities began to stop "Qaddafi's war on the Libyan opposition," after a no-fly zone was established.

As a result, war arrived preemptively. French President Sarkozy said it's to stop Gaddafi's "murderous madness," no matter that he responded to violence. He didn't instigate it. So would Sarkozy, Obama or any leader against armed insurrection.

Love or hate him, Gaddafi said:

"Libya is not yours. Libya is for all Libyans. This is injustice, it is clear aggression, and it is uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and Europe. You will regret it if you take a step toward intervening in our internal affairs."

Hours earlier, he pledged a ceasefire. Conflicting reports disagree if he honored it. Is he or Western intervention stoking violence? US media reports point fingers one way.

Washington, Britain, France, other NATO allies, and complicit Arab States back armed anti-Gaddafi insurrection. They're promoting it, inciting it, funding it, arming it, with clear imperial aims. A previous article explained, accessed through the following link:

On March 19, ahead of intervention, Al Jazeera headlined, "Gaddafi forces encroaching on Benghazi," saying:

Gaddafi unleashed "a fresh act of defiance even as the United States and its allies prepared to launch military attacks on Libya."

Unverified "(r)eports from Libya say pro-government forces have entered the western outskirts of the opposition stronghold of Benghazi, with the city also coming under attack from the coast and the south."

Unnamed "(w)itnesses....said they heard large explosions....Government troops reportedly bombed the southern Benghazi suburb of Goreshi among other places."

No verification was given, except to quote Mustafa Abdel Jalil, opposition National Libyan Council leader. More on him below. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley reported "a lot of jittery people...a lot of activity and a lot of firing going on."

In contrast, Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim told the BBC that "the ceasefire is real, credible and solid. We are willing to receive (international and NGO) observers as soon as possible." He insisted no air strikes were launched.

Hours later Al Jazeera headlined, "Airstrikes begin on Libya targets," saying:

"French warplanes hit four tanks....on a day when opposition fighters in (Benghazi) reported coming under constant artillery and mortar fire." Expect sustained strikes to follow.

Al Jazeera and other media reports don't explain that "opposition" officials from organizations like the National Libyan Council and National Front for the Salvation of Libya have close Western ties, pretending they're credible. More about them below.

Headquartered in Qatar, moreover, Al Jazeera noticeably abstains from criticizing its government, now part of Washington's anti-Gaddafi coalition-of-the-willing, complicit in illegal aggression.

On March 18, Obama stopped short of declaring war, announcing "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi without full compliance with UN Resolution terms, including an immediate ceasefire, withdrawing his forces, reestablishing essential services to all parts of the country, and letting in "humanitarian assistance," including foreign imperial forces opposed to his leadership.

In other words, impossible terms to accept to be followed by others likely demanding he step down, permit balkanization, predatory Western investment, US bases, and free exploitation of his resources and people. Imagine comparable demands made on America - non-negtiable to be followed by military action for non-compliance.

On March 18, NATO Secretary-General Anders Rogh Rasmussen signaled war, saying the alliance was "completing its planning to be ready to take appropriate action in support of the UN resolution as part of the broad international effort."

Launched the next day, the resources of another resource-rich Arab state will be divided among Western belligerents, to benefit Libyans, they claim.

On March 20, New York Times writers David Kirkpatrick, Steven Erlanger and Elisabeth Busmiller headlined, "Qaddafi Pledges 'Long War' as Allies Pursue Air Assault," saying:

"On Sunday, American (stealth) B-2 bombers were reported to have struck a major Libyan airfield," following initial attacks against Libya's air defense systems, "missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli," Misurata and Surt.

Reuters said "US fighter planes backed by electronic warfare aircraft" attacked Gaddafi's ground troops and air defenses. A Pentagon statement stated:

"US Navy Growlers provided electronic warfare support over Libya while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted strikes...."

Parliamentary secretary Muhammad Zweid said attacks "caused some real harm against civilians and buildings." According to an unnamed US official, Libya's air defenses are now "severely disabled."

As of Sunday morning, visible destruction also included 14 tanks, 20 armored personnel carriers, two or more trucks, rocket launchers, dozens of pick-ups, and exploding munitions. Ahead of cruise missile attacks, France initiated reconnaissance flights and aggression.

On March 19, Middle East/Central Asian analyst Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya's Global article headlined, "Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed," saying:

Regime change-planned naked aggression was launched. "The war criminals are back at it again," Washington, of course, in the lead. On March 19, "sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded. Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic. These were civilian facilities."

Targets attacked included Al-Tajura and Saladin hospitals as well as a clinic near Tripoli, unrelated to military necessity, distant from combat areas. Moreover, civilian air facilities were struck as well as "all Libyan military bases" - air, naval and ground. In addition, "a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed," America the lead belligerent.

Further, Libyan sources report "two French jets were also shot down....near Janzour" plus another "near Anjile." Washington and co-belligerents "are creating a real humanitarian disaster," waging war for peace, killing civilians to save them, and destroying Libya by "humanitarian intervention."

Moreover, Washington enlisted Egypt and Saudi Arabia to supply "opposition forces" with weapons, in violation of Resolution 1973 prohibiting any sent. Of course, international and US law forbid aggressive war, but that never deterred imperial America from preemptively attacking, invading, occupying and colonizing nations illegally, Libya its latest target.

Libya's So-Called "Opposition"

Included are the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, its officials with ties to the CIA and Saudi Arabia. Also, Muhammad as-Senussi, Libya's so-called heir to the Senussi Crown, concerned only for his own self-interest.

Central is the National Libyan Council (NLC), announced on February 26, established officially on March 5, led by former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, a Western-allied opportunist.

NLC is an umbrella group of local so-called opposition leaders headquartered in Benghazi. Bogusly, it claims to represent all Libyans. Abdel-Jalil calls it a "transitional government" ahead of future elections after Gaddafi is deposed.

At the same time, Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga, a Benghazi lawyer, refuted his leadership, calling himself NLC's official spokesman. Both men, however, have similar aspirations, including controlling Libya by ousting Gaddafi.

As of now, Abdel-Jalil remains NLC's official head, Ghoga its spokesman, and Omar El-Hariri in charge of military operations. General Abdel Fattah Younis may be another key member, his status, however, not confirmed. In total, NLC has about 30 members. Most aren't named. Two known include, Mahmoud Jebril and Ali al-Essawi, former Libyan ambassador to India in charge of foreign affairs.

On March 5, Reuters headlined, "Rebel National Libya Council sets up (a three-member) crisis committee," saying:

In charge of military and foreign affairs, members include Omar El-Hariri, Ali al-Essawi, and Mahmoud Jebril as leader.

Western Hypocrisy - Denouncing Violence While Backing It

At Obama's behest, about 1,000 Saudi troops invaded Bahrain guns blazing, attacking peaceful protesters, arresting opposition leaders and activists, occupying the country, denying wounded men and women medical treatment, and imposing police state control in support of the hated monarchy.

Not an angry Western demand was heard to stop hostilities and leave. Nor against similar Egyptian army attacks or on civilians in Tunisia, Jordan, Algeria, Oman, Iraq, and Yemen, let alone daily against Palestinians.

On March 18, in fact, dozens of Yemenese were killed, scores more wounded in Sanaa, the capital, when security forces attacked thousands, demanding President Ali Abdullah Saleh step down.

Ally turned bete noire Gaddafi was targeted for removal. In contrast, Saleh is supported because of Yemen's strategic location near the Horn of Africa on Saudi Arabia's southern border, the Red Sea, its Bab el-Mandeb strait (a key chokepoint separating Yemen from Eritrea through which three million barrels of oil pass daily), and the Gulf of Aden connection to the Indian Ocean.

Instead of denouncing his brutality, Obama endorsed it, calling on "all sides (to pursue) a peaceful, orderly and democratic path to a stronger and more prosperous nation."

Friday's massacre was the bloodiest since resistance erupted in mid-February. Security forces and plainclothes police opened fire on demonstrators, shooting to kill, hitting some in the back of the head as they fled. Afterward, Saleh imposed a state of emergency and nationwide curfew.

Demonstrations, nonetheless, persist, Yemenese wanting his 32-year dictatorship ended. Achieving it, however, entails overcoming Washington's imperial grip on regional client states, all run by favored despots.

A Final Comment

On March 19, Professor As'ad AbuKhalil's Angry headlined, "Bush Doctrine revised: Obama puts his stamp," saying:

"Western/Saudi/Qarari military intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent." Under Bush, ousting regimes for democracy "was a bloody farce...." Obama's model may be installing puppets "without having 'boots on the ground,' " but don't discount them. He expanded Bush's Afghan war, began his own in Pakistan as well as in Somalia, Yemen and Bahrain, backing favored despots besides the Saudi monarchy.

AbuKhalil calls NLC's Abdel-Jalil "a useful idiot." Moreover, "Western enthusiasm for (Libyan) intervention" was never properly explained beyond nonsensical platitudes about "humanitarian intervention" to protect civilians.

In contrast, "why (didn't) the hundreds of deaths in Egypt or Tunisia....warrant" similar outrage, let alone Israel's Cast Lead, occupation and daily aggression against defenseless Palestinians.

Intervening militarily is Libya "is far more dangerous: it is intended to legitimize the return of colonial powers, (and) abort democratic uprisings all over the region. Bahrain (Yemen and Saudi Arabia) of today (are) the vision for Libya for tomorrow," Western-dominated, of course.

Will it work? Love or hate Gaddafi, Libyans know what Iraqis, Afghans and Palestinians endure. Moreover, its society is fractious, divided by tribal loyalties, suspicious of Western intervention, and long-governed locally as well as nationally.

Against them is America's military might under leaders not shy about using it. As a result, Libyans are experiencing firsthand what's ahead under Western control, what makes Iraqis yearn for Saddam, almost saintly compared to Washington.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.