Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


EdwardBernays's Journal
EdwardBernays's Journal
January 17, 2016

Rubio torpedoes his own campaign

Rubio: Law-abiding undocumented immigrants could stay
01/17/16 09:05 AM EST

Sen. Marco Rubio says people who immigrated to the U.S. illegally but haven't committed any major crimes could be allowed to stay.
In an interview airing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," the Florida Republican contender for the presidency said felons shouldn't be allowed to stay, but those who commit lesser crimes could still qualify. He didn't specify if the people allowed to stay would ever be able to become citizens.


Trump must be highfiving himself in the mirror.
January 17, 2016

Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia and Weapons Manufacturers.

I would like to preface this, by saying that I never intended to post it. Yes I posted about it frequently in comments, but few have noticed.

I changed my mind after Clinton's announcement that she wanted more sanctions on Iran. That was the straw that broke the camels back, so to speak.

So anyway, what connects Clinton to Saudi Arabia and Weapon's Manufacters?

Her Campaign Chairman, John Podesta.

The Podesta Group is a lobbying and public affairs firm based in Washington, D.C.. It was founded in 1988 by brothers John Podesta and Tony Podesta and has previously been known as Podesta Associates, podesta.com and PodestaMattoon.

The firm reported earning $27.4 million in lobbying fees in 2011.[6] In 2007, Chairman Tony Podesta was ranked by his peers as the third most influential lobbyist in Washington.

So John co-owns it with his brother, who is known as a super-lobbyist.

Their client list includes:

Wal-Mart, BP and Lockheed Martin."[5] Other clients include Abdisalam Omer, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, Amgen, Bank Of America, Cherokee Nation (Casinos), Cintas, Covidien, Duke Energy, Egypt, Genentech, General Dynamics, Harrah's Entertainment, Heineken, Merck, Michelin, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), National Public Radio (NPR), Nestle, Novartis, Orange County, Florida, Raytheon, Reed Elsevier, Republic of Albania, Republic of Georgia, Sallie Mae, Sunoco, Synthetic Genomics, TJX Companies, Tyco Electronics, Republic of Kenya and United Technologies.[8][9][10]

In addition, the Podesta Group acts as a lobbyist for Egypt on U.S. policies of concern, activities in Congress and the Executive branch, and developments on the U.S. political scene generally,' according to forms filed with the Justice Department in 2009."[5][11]

They also received revenue of $900,000 over the last two years from the "European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels-based organization sympathetic to Yanukovich and his political party".[12]

The Podesta Group also carries out public relations work for the government of Azerbaijan for a monthly fee of USD 60,000 plus expenses.[13] According to human rights watchdog organizations, the government of Azerbaijan in mid-2014 has "intensified its already authoritarian crackdown on independent political and other public voices" and has imprisoned at least 40 political activists, human rights defenders, journalists and others "on various trumped-up charges, including drug possession, tax evasion, and even treason".

They also represent Saudi Arabia.


"U.S. lobbying, PR firms give human rights abusers a friendly face"


From Azerbaijan to Saudi Arabia, countries with poor human rights records spend millions to polish public image


Hillary moneyman highlights new Saudi connection

"The Saudi government, under increasing criticism over civilian casualties from its airstrikes in Yemen and a harsh crackdown on political dissidents at home, has just hired a powerhouse Washington, D.C., lobbying firm headed by a top Hillary Clinton fundraiser — an arrangement that critics charge raises fresh questions about the influence that foreign government lobbyists could have on her campaign."


Here's just the most recent sale from Lockhead Martin to SA.

"Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday that it could seal a $11.25 billion deal to sell naval ships to Saudi Arabia as early as next year, countering the likely impact on domestic orders if the Pentagon is pressed into a prolonged stopgap budget."


General Dynamics:

"$15-billion deal ... under which ... General Dynamics Land Systems will sell armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia."



"The US Department of Defense announced on 24 July that it had awarded a USD180 million contract to Raytheon's Missile Systems division to produce 355 AGM-154C-1 Joint Stand-Off Weapons (JSOWs) for Saudi Arabia and another 200 for the US Navy."


Tell me more you say?

"A dozen lobbyists bundled $882,000 for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee during the first quarter, records show, while one organization bundled $18,500 for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Top lobbyist bundlers for the DSCC this year include Democratic super lobbyist Tony Podesta of the Podesta Group ($145,000),"

That's John Brother, donating 145,000 to the DSCC:


Podesta has also lobbied for Mubarak:


And what was John doing BEFORE he was the Chairman of Hillary's campaign? Well... this is the part that has made me very wary about posting this... you see: Podesta is one of the most common faces in the Democratic Party and has been for decade.

He was:

Counsellor to President Obama

Head of the Obama/Biden transition team

Chief of staff, twice for Bill clinton

Counselor to Democratic Leader Senator Thomas Daschle

Podesta founded and is currently Chair of the Center for American Progress

"The president and chief executive officer of CAP is Neera Tanden, who worked for the Obama and Clinton administrations and for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns."


And it runs in the family. This is Heather Podesta:

In the 2012 federal election cycle, Podesta and her colleagues bundled more than $300,000 on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Senate Majority PAC, and individual Democratic candidates.[7]

The National Journal ranked Podesta as one of “Washington’s Most Influential Women,”[8] GQ named her one of the “50 Most Powerful People in Washington,”[9] and The Hill has repeatedly named her one of its “Top Lobbyists.”[10] In 2010, the National Law Journal ranked Podesta as one of “Washington's Most Influential Women Lawyers.”[11]



I wish Hillary wasn't trying to reinflame tensions with Iran, but when I look at who she has chosen to be her campaign chairman, I am in no way surprised.

EDIT: This article I just noticed has a pretty good overview of the direct relationship between Hillary and Saudi Arabia:

Under Hillary Clinton, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments had given millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region's fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing -- the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 -- contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.


January 12, 2016

Why I don't care about Bernie's position on guns - at all.

I know there's a LOT of talk - from Clinton, from Obama - on guns. Clinton is now - I think fairly laughably - campaigning on her belief in "common sense" gun control i.e. Obama's executive actions.

And Bernie is considered - and has been by many people, even his supporters - as weaker on gun control.

Here's a few reasons why I don't care.

- Neither of them is serious about gun control. Pretending that what Obama did is going to meaningfully lower gun deaths is IMO nonsense. That's part of the reason no one that supports it can or will state it's goals. How many people will be saved, how many less guns will reach criminals, etc., etc. It's an unserious approach to a serious problem and as such it isn't any better than Sanders position. Campaigning on it, like it's some huge leap forward is just politicking, and it's politicking on the back of tens of thousands of dead Americans. Gross. Oh yeah, and there's a pretty decent chance it will backfire. But that's a different conversation.

- If Hillary beats Sanders because of guns, then loses to the GOP candidate, which seems to be an increasingly likely outcome if she's the nominee, President Trump will just erase the new gun laws immediately. How is that a win for gun control?

- Sanders position is much more likely to win him middle of the road voters. They see Clinton and Obama demanding he sign up to Obama's executive action plan and him being cautious as a good thing.Wanna win the primary? Win independents. In this case - and in many others - Clinton positioning herself as the "Party favourite" is backfiring. 2016 is going to be about outsiders and Clintons pandering to the base is not a position that will help her in a GE.

Saying all of that, I do NOT think Bernie's position of guns is correct, at all. I do not support it, but considering no one is offering something better I just don't think it's a meaningful factor when deciding between the two of them. I also don't think that anyone serious about gun control should be praising their candidates positions, because neither will reduce gun violence in a meaningful way.

January 11, 2016

Saudi Arabia fatally bombs ANOTHER Yemeni hospital + 18 Billion in US weapons + Bowie

NOTE: I know this is probably going to be a depressing and/or angering read. I post these sorts of articles because I still genuinely believe that we CAN change our behaviour and fix our mistakes, but ONLY if we're informed and make decisions with our eyes wide open.

If you could share this, or links to any of the stories I've referenced, to help spread the word, that'd be great... We are - our country is - involved in war crimes right now - and I don't say that lightly. These decisions are the type that blow back and kill Americans. Protect yourself and future generations of Americans by standing up and demanding that your tax dollars no longer fund atrocities. You can close this page and forget what we're doing in Yemen, but the 2M children we're helping starve to death there do not have that option.

MSF hospital bombing amid Saudi-led airstrikes in Yemen prompts outrage over ‘worrying pattern of attacks to essential medical services’

The projectile dropped on the Shiara Hospital is thought to be the latest in a series attack on health facilities directly managed or supported by MSF


"It is the latest bombing in what is thought to be a series of attacks on a health facility directly managed or supported by MSF in the past three months.

In October, Haydan hospital was destroyed in an air-strike by the Saudi-led coalition (SLC). A mobile clinic in Taiz, south west Yemen, was also hit in December, which wounded nine people, where one later died."

Of course - as awful as it sounds - dying instantly in a bomb attack might be a welcome relief if you've been staving for months on end:

Yemen conflict has pushed six million people to the brink of starvation, Oxfam warns

That includes two million children


And what horrible dictator is staving 2 million children? Why, it's not a dictator at all, it's the US and UK, helping their wonderful ally Saudi Arabia.

Aid agencies say embargo imposed by US and UK-backed Arab coalition has had dramatic effect, with almost 80% of population in urgent need of food, water and medical supplies

"Despite western and UN entreaties, Riyadh has also failed to disburse any of the $274m it promised in funding for humanitarian relief. According to UN estimates due to be released next week 78% of the population is in need of emergency aid, an increase of 4 million over the past three months."


"Fuel and vital medical supplies will run out in a matter of weeks in some of the hardest-hit areas of Yemen, aid agencies have warned, amid a blockade by the Saudi-led coalition that has been conducting bombing raids over the country for months.

Since the coalition – which has been conducting airstrikes across the country since March in an attempt to oust Houthi rebel forces – imposed a “de facto” blockade, very few vessels have made their way to the country. Even before the conflict, Yemen depended on imports for 70 per cent of its fuel and 100 per cent of its medicine.

“At the moment we only have enough fuel in the north and centre of the country for the next six weeks,” Mark Kaye, the acting director of advocacy for Save the Children in Yemen, told The Independent on Sunday. As well as providing electricity for households and petrol for vehicles, “that means no fuel for hospitals, who rely on generators for their work”.

In recent days, the main paediatric hospital in the north was forced to close because of damage from the strikes and a lack of fuel and medical resources. The World Health Organisation warned this week that the country’s biggest blood-transfusion centre in the capital, Sanaa, could also be forced to close in as little as two weeks. Meanwhile, near-daily airstrikes continue to cause injuries among the civilian population."


In the middle of all of this, with the coalition bombing civilians and hospitals and starving the population - collective punishment the war crimes prosecutors call it - what has the US done to help stem the violence and help restore peace?

Sell them another 18B in weapons, that's what.

U.S. approves $1.29 billion sale of smart bombs to Saudi Arabia

The proposed sale includes 22,000 smart and general purpose bombs, including 1,000 GBU-10 Paveway II Laser Guided Bombs, and over 5,000 Joint Direct Attack Munitions kits to turn older bombs into precision-guided weapons using GPS signals.

The weapons are made by Boeing Co (BA.N) and Raytheon Co (RTN.N), but the agency told lawmakers the prime contractors would be selected in a competition.

Saudi Arabia, one of the largest buyers of U.S. weapons, was approved in September for a potential second sale of 600 Patriot-PAC-3 air defense missiles made by Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N), a deal valued at $5.4 billion.

Last month, the U.S. government also approved the sale to Saudi Arabia of up to four Littoral Combat Ships made by Lockheed for $11.25 billion.


So while the US sees SA using US made and provided weapons to attack hospitals and civilians populations, it sells it 18 BILLION more in weapons?

They must just need to top up after the 60 BILLION in weapons we sold them 6 years ago.

US secures record $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia


And when the international community notices?

Last week, a U.N. panel of experts responsible for tracking human rights violations and enforcing sanctions against individuals who threaten Yemen’s peace concluded that the Saudi-led coalition, Houthi insurgents, and fighters loyal to Yemen’s former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, all have routinely violated civilians’ human rights, according to a copy of a confidential report documenting the panel’s findings.

The panel singled out the coalition for committing “grave violations” of civilians’ rights, citing reports of indiscriminate airstrikes, as well as the targeting of markets, aid warehouses, and a camp for displaced Yemenis. It also raised concern that coalition forces may have intentionally obstructed the delivery of humanitarian aid to needy civilians.

"Behind closed doors, the United States has sought to limit international scrutiny of rights abuses in Yemen. Last Friday, the United States blocked a proposal in a U.N. Security Council sanctions committee to have the committee’s chair, Lithuanian U.N. Ambassador Raimonda Murmokaite, approach “all relevant parties to the conflict and stress their responsibility to respect and uphold international humanitarian law and human rights law,” according to Security Council diplomats. The committee also recommended that Murmokaite ask the key players to cooperate with its investigations into potential human rights abuses in Yemen."


And Bowie - as every thread should have some Bowie today.

January 8, 2016

The truth about the stock market - that you probably already know.

First, what is the stock market? Surely that's an easy question to answer, yes?

Let's ask wikipedia for some basic definitions:

Stock Market: "A stock market or equity market or share market is the aggregation of buyers and sellers (a loose network of economic transactions, not a physical facility or discrete entity) of stocks (also called shares); these may include securities listed on a stock exchange as well as those only traded privately."

Stocks/Shares: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental to the company's creditors.

Securities: a security is a tradable financial asset of any kind.[1] Securities are broadly categorized into:

- debt securities, (e.g., banknotes, bonds and debentures)
- equity securities, (e.g., common stocks)
- derivatives, (e.g., forwards, futures, options and swaps)

Debenture: A debenture is ... like a certificate of loan or a loan bond evidencing the fact that the company is liable to pay a specified amount with interest and although the money raised by the debentures becomes a part of the company's capital structure, it does not become share capital.

Derivatives: In finance, a derivative is a contract that derives its value from the performance of an underlying entity. This underlying entity can be an asset, index, or interest rate, and is often called the "underlying".[1][2] Derivatives can be used for a number of purposes, including insuring against price movements (hedging), increasing exposure to price movements for speculation or getting access to otherwise hard-to-trade assets or markets.[3] Some of the more common derivatives include forwards, futures, options, swaps, and variations of these such as synthetic collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.

Got it?

So, basically, all the stock market is, is people that invest in chunks of a company - the price of those chunks is based on the VALUE of the comapny. Or people place bets on the VALUE of things changing. It can also be things like buying debt when the comapny is in trouble with the plan of selling it when it's not, or vice versa, or other forms of derivatives, which are, again, based on the VALUE of a company.

You see, at the end of the day all of this - the price you pay for stock, the price you pay for debt or of how much people guess something will rise or fall - all of these figures go back to one simple idea: the value of a company.


How are companies valued? Is there a rational way to do such a thing, so that you know the value is meaningful?

Turns out, not so much:

"According to one interpretation of the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH), only changes in fundamental factors, such as the outlook for margins, profits or dividends, ought to affect share prices beyond the short term, where random 'noise' in the system may prevail. (But this largely theoretic academic viewpoint—known as 'hard' EMH—also predicts that little or no trading should take place, contrary to fact, since prices are already at or near equilibrium, having priced in all public knowledge.*) The 'hard' efficient-market hypothesis is sorely tested and does not explain the cause of events such as the crash in 1987, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted 22.6 percent—the largest-ever one-day fall in the United States.


*It's worth pointing out that Hard EMH - if true, which basically says that the true value of a company is based purely on it's tangible assets and all publicly available financial metrics, would mean that the closer we are to understanding a companies true value, the less people will trade it's stocks, as it's price can't change, because no underlying information has changed. Compare that to reality, and all that that implies.


This event demonstrated that share prices can fall dramatically even though, to this day, it is impossible to fix a generally agreed upon definite cause: a thorough search failed to detect any 'reasonable' development that might have accounted for the crash. (But note that such events are predicted to occur strictly by chance, although very rarely.) It seems also to be the case more generally that many price movements (beyond that which are predicted to occur 'randomly') are not occasioned by new information; a study of the fifty largest one-day share price movements in the United States in the post-war period seems to confirm this."

Other research has shown that psychological factors may result in exaggerated (statistically anomalous) stock price movements (contrary to EMH which assumes such behaviors 'cancel out'). Psychological research has demonstrated that people are predisposed to 'seeing' patterns, and often will perceive a pattern in what is, in fact, just noise. (Something like seeing familiar shapes in clouds or ink blots.) In the present context this means that a succession of good news items about a company may lead investors to overreact positively (unjustifiably driving the price up). A period of good returns also boosts the investors' self-confidence, reducing their (psychological) risk threshold.[36]

Another phenomenon—also from psychology—that works against an objective assessment is group thinking. As social animals, it is not easy to stick to an opinion that differs markedly from that of a majority of the group. An example with which one may be familiar is the reluctance to enter a restaurant that is empty; people generally prefer to have their opinion validated by those of others in the group.

In one paper the authors draw an analogy with gambling. In normal times the market behaves like a game of roulette; the probabilities are known and largely independent of the investment decisions of the different players. In times of market stress, however, the game becomes more like poker (herding behavior takes over). The players now must give heavy weight to the psychology of other investors and how they are likely to react psychologically.

I'll just c+p that again, to make sure you caught it:

"It seems also to be the case more generally that many price movements (beyond that which are predicted to occur 'randomly') are not occasioned by new information; a study of the fifty largest one-day share price movements in the United States in the post-war period seems to confirm this."

In normal times the market behaves like a game of roulette; the probabilities are known and largely independent of the investment decisions of the different players. In times of market stress, however, the game becomes more like poker (herding behavior takes over). The players now must give heavy weight to the psychology of other investors and how they are likely to react psychologically.

So putting aside the random stuff, prices change all the time based on ----- nothing. Literally no one has ANY IDEA WHY. In fact - in case you missed it - the single largest one day stock market fall in US history is STILL UNEXPLAINED.

And guess what, it's only getting worse.

LOTS of people think we're living through another tech bubble. Many times in a stock bubble prices are based PURELY on predictions of FUTURE VALUE of a company.

Look at a RELATIVELY mature company like Facebook. It makes BILLIONS in profits - apparently - and is valued at between 200 and 300 BILLION dollars, but why?

Last year it 4 Billion in revenue - remember it's "worth" 50-75x more than that, but 99% of it's profits came from... selling ads. And in fact "net income declined by almost 10% to $719 million".

Some people are saying that FB is WILDLY overvalued... a pretty calm version of that is this:

"Having now re-assessed Facebook, I see my gut was right. Unless and until FB asserts itself with some new revenue streams, I’m not comfortable buying into a narrowly-diverse pure-play advertiser.

As far as valuation, I can’t say it’s unreasonably valued. I give FB a 10% premium for its brand name, and free cash flow — all on analyst estimates of 27% long-term growth. However, fair value is about $66 — about 30% lower than current prices."

So there's a investor, not a scaremonger saying that Facebook is probably worth about 30% less than the market thinks.

That's 30% of aprox 270 Billion dollars. That's the kind nonsensical margin or error the stock market works on.

And that's because there is NO REAL WAY TO VALUE COMPANIES ACCURATELY. And VALUE is based PURELY on what people THINK it's worth.

Chinese investors have been hearing doom about their market for years now, and are finally believing it. Particularily the hyper rich, who are dumping Chinese stocks as fast as possible. It seems the more you know about Chinese stocks, the less you want to have your money in them.

But that behaviour - selling based on fear - or optimism - is the MOST COMMON reason HUMANS move their money around in the stock market.

However, the US stock market is not really run by humans any more at all.

Some estimates say that almost 9/10 trades on the US and UK market are now done automatically by computers, based on some clever algorithms.

That's right, humans barely trades stocks at all any more. The floor of the NYSE is largely just a TV set.

But these robot traders aren't cold and logical, they're actually frequently used to cheat and distort the market:

"Eric Hunsader from US data firm Nanex believes robot traders fiddle the market, ordering then cancelling trades just before the critical buying moment. “If the regulator fully understood what the computerised trader was doing, it wouldn’t be legal,” he told World Finance."

You see, companies use their robotic traders to help them squeeze extra money out of the market. The regulators have LITERALLY no idea how most of these companies use this technology and as such, the market is, largely rigged.

I said you probably already know this, because Americans can EASILY see the Stock Market has fully decoupled from every other economic indicator. Stock prices drop 10% on the same day the US government announces 300K new jobs being added to the economy. Why?

Because some American computer software somewhere based decisions on something happening - which was based on fear and government manipulation - in China, because the stock valuations there - like here - are completely fictional.

Aren't you glad so many American's have their pensions invested in the market?

"Last week's wild gyrations in global financial markets almost certainly exposed the vulnerability of U.S. state and local authority public pension funds which have piled into riskier assets in recent years, according to actuaries and other pension experts.

Based on data from the Federal Reserve, the funds are sitting on nearly $4 trillion in assets that are more than 70 percent exposed to equities and other riskier assets, such as commodities and hedge funds. And some states with massive pension funding deficits, such as Illinois, are likely most in danger of suffering big losses given their risk profiles.

Since the financial crisis, many public pension funds have increased their exposure to hedge funds and other higher-risk assets to meet ambitious investment return targets. Most funds assume a rate of return of 7-8 percent a year, according to a May report by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators. Those assets can also take a big hit when equity and related markets plunge.

At the same time, they have cut back on safer assets, such as U.S. government debt and other lower-risk fixed income investments, which are not expected to provide big returns in the next few years."

More on Pensions:

Robots on Wall St info:

Some FB info:

Links to most of the wiki quotes - and some of the quoted text in this post - can be found here:

January 7, 2016

Why the French bombed Libya - according to Sydney Blumenthal

France was one of the main driving forces behind the 2011 bombing on Libya, they also flew the greatest number of air strikes.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Proposal_for_the_no-fly_zone

Why? Well according to "Sid":

"On April 2, 2011 sources with access to advisors to Salt al-Islam Qaddafi stated in strictest confidence that while the freezing of Libya's foreign bank accounts presents Muammar Qaddafi with serious challenges, his ability to equip and maintain his armed forces and intelligence services remains intact. According to sensitive information available to this these individuals, Qaddafi's government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver. During late March, 2011 these stocks were moved to SABHA (south west in the direction of the Libyan border with Niger and Chad); taken from the vaults of the Libyan Central Bank in Tripoli.

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French.franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy's plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi's long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa"


More here: http://levantreport.com/tag/sidney-blumenthal/

January 5, 2016

Trump supporter: Fuck Obama! Trump: good job...that's beautiful...

30 mins in.

No chance he misunderstood.

And the crowd loves it.

Will the networks have to allow the word fuck on national tv now?

Supporter: FUCK Obama!

- Crowd cheers and laughs -
- Trump laughs and points a the supporter, smiling -

Trump: You see, I'm not allowed to say that...so, good ... good job. Ohh that's beautiful... that's beautiful.
January 4, 2016

The US is wrecking the Middle East again - in ways you don't even realise

As you know - maybe - the US has a long history of installing dictators, overthrowing democratically elected leaders, training torturous secret police, bombing civilians, helping dictators bomb civilians, arming terrorists, etc., etc., etc., in the Middle East. Many people assume that the US is better behaved under Obama, but sadly - very sadly - this is not really the case.

A great example of lousy and illegal foreign policy activity is happening now - not that the US media would tell you - and most Americans, as always, are clueless about it.

Saudi Arabia is bombing Yemen, with US made weapons and US military "assistance". The US has also repeatedly blockaded the main port of Yemen - supposedly to stop Iranian arms, but also stopping food shipments. The Yemini population is starving to death due to this. This is all over the international news, well it has popped up repeatedly for months, and the US roll is not a secret. In fact many international organisations are calling the US roll a war crime. Sure how else could you describe collective punishment and bombing civilian populations?


Another wonderful thing the US is doing, is propping up Saudi Arabia, with promises of defence against enemies and trillions in weapons, which it then helps them use against civilians.

In November alone it sold SA over a billion dollars of "smart bombs". This support allows Saudi Arabia to act however they like, knowing that no one can challenge them without challenging the US.

This means that all of mass executions are facilitated by US weaponry and US promises and basically paid for with US taxpayer dollars.

Iran, which is one of the most abused countries in the regions - abused by the US that is - is again suffering at the hands of the US, with multiple Sunni nations now cutting ties with it, after it promised revenge for the Saudi execution of a top Shia cleric... a hate crime by any definition.

Instead of standing up against endless Saudi crimes the US - you - helps them in every possible way. Even after they used oil revenue form the US to fund religious schools, which trained up people like Osama bin Ladin and other 9/11 actors. That's right, you funded 9/11 in many ways. Feels great right?

You shouldn't be surprised though, as you also funded the founding of Al Qaeda, back in 1979, under Jimmy Carter. Carter was told that funding radical Muslims in Afghanistan would lead to a Soviet invasion and war, but he just ignored that. That invasion led to hundreds of thousands of women and children being killed, and many many many other tragedies, and gave al Qaeda a base to plan 9/11 - after being trained in hate - again with US tax money - in Saudi schools.

Good times.

Of course compared to Iran SA is blessed. The favourite child of America in the ME.

When it does finally hit the media, the fact that the US is helping starve an entire country, and bombing civilian populations, to help the worst country in the ME, don't be surprised. When more Saudi trained terrorists attack America don't be surprised. No one else is surprised. The rest of the world knows EXACTLY what is happening. It would be embarrassing after all to be the last people on the planet to know what their government is doing.

December 24, 2015

CNN ORC: Clinton losing to Cruz, Rubio


"The poll, however, suggests Clinton faces a stiff challenge from each of three Republicans at the top of the field. She narrowly tops Donald Trump within the poll's margin of sampling error, 49% to 47%, in a hypothetical general election matchup. But she falls behind Ted Cruz by 2 points (Cruz 48% to Clinton 46%, a shift since last month when Cruz trailed Clinton 50% to 47%) and 3 points behind Marco Rubio (49% Rubio to 46% Clinton). Among independent voters, Clinton trails Rubio and Cruz by 12 points each, while running even with Trump."

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Oct 5, 2015, 03:03 AM
Number of posts: 3,343

About EdwardBernays


Journal Entries

Latest Discussions»EdwardBernays's Journal