here
Are the banks in trouble?By Mike WhitneyOnline Journal Contributing WriterSep 10, 2007, 01:25
“The new capitalist gods must love the poor -- they are making so many more of them.” Bill Bonner, “The Daily Reckoning”
“The hope of every central bank is that the real problem can be kept from public view. The truth is that the public -- even professionals on Wall Street -- have no clue what the real problem is. They know it has something to do with derivatives, but none of them realize that it’s more than a $20 trillion mountain of unfunded, unregulated paper that has just been discovered to not have a market and, therefore, no real value . . . When the dollar realizes the seriousness of the situation -- be that now or sometime soon -- the bottom will drop out.” --Jim Sinclair, Investment analyst
About a month ago, I wrote an article “Stock Market Brushfire: Will there be a run on the banks?” which showed how the collapse in the housing market and the deterioration in mortgage-backed bonds (CDOs) in the secondary market was creating difficulties for the banking system. Now these problems are becoming more apparent.
From the Wall Street Journal: “The rising interbank lending rates are a proxy of sorts for the increased risk that some banks, somewhere, may go belly up.” (Editorial; WSJ, 9-6-07)
Ironically, the WSJ editorial staff -- which normally defends deregulation and laissez faire economics "tooth-n-nail" -- is now calling for regulators to make sure they are “on top of the banks they are supposed to be regulating, so we don’t get any surprise bank failures that spook the markets and confirm the worst fears being whispered about.”
“Surprise bank failures?”
Henry Liu sums it up like this in his article, "The Rise of the non-bank system" -- required reading for anyone who wants to understand why a stock market crash is imminent: “Banks worldwide now reportedly face risk exposure of US$891 billion in asset-backed commercial paper facilities (ABCP) due to callable bank credit agreements with borrowers designed to ensure ABCP investors are paid back when the short-term debt matures, even if banks cannot sell new ABCP on behalf of the issuing companies to roll over the matured debt because the market views the assets behind the paper as of uncertain market value.
"This signifies that the crisis is no longer one of liquidity, but of deteriorating creditworthiness system-wide that restoring liquidity alone cannot cure. The liquidity crunch is a symptom, not the disease. The disease is a decade of permissive tolerance for credit abuse in which the banks, regulators and rating agencies were willing accomplices." (Henry Liu,”The Rise of the Non-bank System,” Asia Times)
That's right; nearly $1 trillion in worthless paper is clogging the system, putting the kibosh on the big private equity deals and spreading panic through the money markets. It's a slow-motion train wreck and there's not a thing the Fed can do about it.
This isn't a liquidity problem that can be fixed by lowering the Fed's fund rate and creating more easy credit. This is a solvency crisis; the underlying assets upon which this world of "structured finance" is built have no established market value, therefore -- as Jim Sinclair suggests -- they're worthless. That means that the trillions of dollars which have been leveraged against these shaky assets -- in the form of credit default swaps (CDSs) and numerous other bizarre-sounding derivatives -- will begin to cascade down wiping out trillions in market value.
How serious is it? Economist Liu puts it like this: "Even if the Fed bails out the banks by easing bank reserve and capital requirements to absorb that massive amount, the raging forest fire in the non-bank financial system will still present finance capitalism with its greatest test in eight decades."
Overview
Credit standards are tightening and banks are increasingly reluctant to lend money to each other not knowing who may be sitting on billions of dollars in toxic mortgage-backed debt. (Collateralized debt obligations) It makes no difference that the “underlying economy is sound” as Bernanke likes to say. When banks hesitate to lend money to each other; it shows that there is real uncertainty about the solvency of the other banks. It slows down commerce and the gears on the economic machine begin to rust in place.
The banks' woes have been exacerbated by the flight of investors from money market funds, many of which are backed by Mortgage-backed Securities (MBS). Wary investors are running for the safety of US Treasuries even though yields that have declined at a record pace. This is causing problems in the Commercial Paper market as well as for the lesser known SIVs and “conduits.” These abstruse sounding investment vehicles are the essential plumbing that maintains normalcy in the markets. Commercial paper is a $2.2 trillion market. When it shrinks by more than $200 billion -- as it has in the last three weeks -- the effects can be felt through the entire system.
The credit crunch has spread across the whole gamut of commercial paper and low-grade debt. Banks are hoarding cash and refusing loans to even creditworthy applicants. The collapse in subprime loans is just part of the story. More than 50 percent of all mortgages in the last two years have been unconventional loans -- no down payment, no verification of income, “no doc,” interest-only, negative amortization, piggyback, 2-28s, teaser rates, adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). All of these reflect the shoddy lending standards of the past few years and all are contributing to the unprecedented rate of defaults. Now the banks are holding $300 billion of these "unmarketable" mortgage-backed CDOs and another $200 billion in equally-suspect CLOs. (Collateralized loan obligations; the CDOs corporate-twin).
Even more worrisome, the large investment banks have myriad “off-book” operations which are in distress. This has forced the banks to circle the wagons and reduce their issuance of loans, which is accelerating the downturn in housing. Typically, housing bubbles unwind very slowly over a five- to 10-year period. That won’t be the case this time. The surge in inventory, the financial distress of many homeowners and the complete breakdown in loan-origination (due to the growing credit crunch) ensures that the housing market will crash-land sometime in late 2008 or early 2009. The banks are expected to write-off a considerable portion of their CDO-debt at the end of the 3rd quarter rather than keep the losses on their books. This will further hasten the decline in housing prices.
The banks are also suffering from the sudden sluggishness in leveraged buyouts (LBOs). Credit problems have slowed private equity deals to a dribble. In July, there were $579 billion in LBOs. In August, that number shrank to a paltry $222 billion. In September, those figures will deteriorate to double digits. The big deals aren’t getting done and debt is not rolling over. More than $1 trillion in debt will have to be refinanced in the next five weeks. In the present climate, that doesn’t look likely. Something’s has got to give. The market has frozen and the Fed’s $60 billion repo-lifeline has done nothing to help.
In the first seven months of 2007, LBOs accounted for “$37 of every $100 spent on deals in the US.”
Thirty-seven percent! How will the financial giants make up for the windfall profits that these deals generated?
Answer: They won’t. Just as they won’t make up for the enormous origination fees they made from “securitizing” mortgages and selling them off to credulous pension funds, insurance companies and foreign banks.
As Steven Rattner of DLJ Merchant Banking said, “It’s become nearly impossible to finance a private equity transaction of over $1 billion.” (WSJ) The Golden Era of Acquisitions and Mega-mergers is coming to an end. We can expect that the financial giants will probably follow the same trajectory as the dot-coms following the 2001 NASDAQ rout.
The investment banks are also facing enormous potential losses from liabilities that “operate off their balance sheets” In David Reilly’s article, “Conduit Risks are hovering over Citigroup” (WSJ 9-5-07), Reilly points out that “banks such as Citigroup Inc. could find themselves burdened by affiliated investment vehicles that issue tens of billions of dollars in short-term debt known as commercial paper . . . Citigroup, for example, owns about 25 percent of the market for SIVs, representing nearly $100 billion of assets under management. The largest Citigroup SIV is Centauri Corp., which had $21 billion in outstanding debt as of February 2007, according to a Citigroup research report. There is no mention of Centauri in its 2006 annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
"Yet some investors worry that if vehicles such as Centauri stumble, either failing to sell commercial paper or suffering severe losses in the assets it holds, Citibank could wind up having to help by lending funds to keep the vehicle operating or even taking on some losses."
So, many investors don’t know that Citigroup could be holding the bag for “$21 billion in outstanding debt”? Or, perhaps, the entire $100 billion is red ink; who knows? (Citigroup’s stock dropped by more than 2 percent after this report appeared in the WSJ.)
Another report, which appeared in CNN Money, further adds to the suspicion that the banks’ “brokerage affiliates” may be in trouble: “The Aug. 20 letters from the Fed to Citigroup and Bank of America state that the Fed, which regulates large parts of the U.S. financial system, has agreed to exempt both banks from rules that effectively limit the amount of lending that their federally-insured banks can do with their brokerage affiliates. The exemption, which is temporary, means, for example, that Citigroup's Citibank entity can substantially increase funding to Citigroup Global Markets, its brokerage subsidiary. Citigroup and Bank of America requested the exemptions, according to the letters, to provide liquidity to those holding mortgage loans, mortgage-backed securities, and other securities . . . This unusual move by the Fed shows that the largest Wall Street firms are continuing to have problems funding operations during the current market difficulties.” (CNN Money)
Does this mean that the other large banks are involved in the same type of “hide-n-seek” strategies? Sounds a lot like Enron’s “off-the-books” shenanigans, doesn’t it?
Wall Street Journal: “'Any off-balance-sheet issues are traditionally poorly disclosed, so to some extent, you're dependent on the insight that management is willing to provide you and that, frankly, is very limited,' says Mark Fitzgibbon, director of research at Sandler O'Neill & Partners. ' . . . Accounting rules don’t require banks to separately record anything related to the risk that they will have to loan the entities money to keep them functioning during a markets crisis. . . . The vehicles [SIVs and conduits] are often established in a tax haven and are run solely for investment purposes as opposed to typical corporate activities.'”
Still think the banks are on solid ground?
“Citigroup, the nation's largest bank as measured by market value and assets. Its latest financial results showed that it administers off-balance-sheet, conduit vehicles used to issue commercial paper that have assets of about $77 billion.
"Citigroup is also affiliated with structured investment vehicles, or SIVs that have 'nearly $100 billion' in assets, according to a letter Citigroup wrote to some investors in these vehicles last month.” (IBID)
Yes, and how many of these “assets” are in fact corporate debt, auto loans, credit card debt, and student loans that have been securitized and are now under extreme pressure in a slumping market?
In an “up market” loans can provide a valuable income stream that transforms someone else’s debt into a valuable asset. In a "down market," however, defaults can wipe out trillions in market capitalization overnight.
How did we get into this mess?
More than 20 years of dogged lobbying from the financial industry paid off with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed by Congress following the 1929 stock market crash. The bill was written to limit the conflicts of interest when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds.
The financial industry whittled away at Glass-Steagall for years before finally breaking down its regulatory restrictions in August 1987, when Alan Greenspan -- formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation -- became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
“In 1990, J.P. Morgan became the first bank to receive permission from the Federal Reserve to underwrite securities, so long as its underwriting business does not exceed the 10 percent limit. In December 1996, with the support of Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board issued a precedent-shattering decision permitting bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent).
"This expansion of the loophole created by the Fed's 1987 reinterpretation of Section 20 of Glass-Steagall effectively rendered Glass-Steagall obsolete.” (“The Long Demise of Glass Steagall, Frontline, PBS)
In 1999, after 25 years and $300 million of lobbying efforts, Congress, aided by President Bill Clinton, finally repealed Glass-Steagall. This paved the way for the problems we are now facing.
Another contributing factor to the current banking-muddle is the Basel rules. According to the BIS (Bank of International Settlements) website: “The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision provides a forum for regular cooperation on banking supervisory matters. Its objective is to enhance understanding of key supervisory issues and improve the quality of banking supervision worldwide. It seeks to do so by exchanging information on national supervisory issues, approaches and techniques, with a view to promoting common understanding. At times, the Committee uses this common understanding to develop guidelines and supervisory standards in areas where they are considered desirable. In this regard, the Committee is best known for its international standards on capital adequacy; the Core Principles for Effective Banking Supervision; and the Concordat on cross-border banking supervision.”
The Basel Committee on Banking (Basel 2) requires “banks to boost the capital they hold in reserve against the loans on their books.”
Sounds like a good thing, doesn’t it? This protects the overall financial system as well as the individual depositor. Unfortunately, the banks found a way to circumvent the rules for minimum reserves by “securitizing” pools of mortgages (MBS) rather than holding individual mortgages. (which called for more reserves) This provided lavish origination and distribution fees for banks, but shifted much of the risk of default to Wall Street investors. Now, the banks are saddled with roughly $300 billion in mortgage-backed debt (CDOs) that no one wants and it is uncertain whether they have sufficient reserves to cover their losses.
By October, we should know how this will all play out. As David Wessel points out in “New Bank Capital requirements helped to Spread Credit Woes”: “Banks now behave more like securities firms, more likely to mark down the value of assets when market prices fall -- even to distressed levels -- rather than sitting on bad loans for a decade and pretending they’ll be paid back.”
The downside of this is that once that banks write off these toxic MBSs and CDOs; the hedge funds, insurance companies and pension funds will be forced to do the same -- dumping boatloads of this bond-sludge on the market, driving down prices and triggering a panic sell-off. This is what the Fed is trying to prevent through its $60 billion repo-bailout.
Regrettably, the Fed cannot hope to remove a half-trillion dollars of bad debt from the balance sheets of the banks or forestall the collapse of related financial institutions and funds which are loaded with these “unmarketable” time-bombs. Besides, most of the mortgage derivatives (CDOs) have been massively enhanced with low interest leverage from the “carry trade.” When the value of these CDOs is finally determined -- which we expect will happen sometime before the end of the 3rd quarter -- we can expect the stock market to fall sharply and the housing recession to turn into a full-blown economic crisis.
Alan Greenspan: The Fifth Horseman?
So, who’s to blame? The finger pointing has already begun and more and more people are beginning to see how this massive economy-busting equity bubble originated at the Federal Reserve -- it is the logical corollary of former Fed chief Alan Greenspan's “easy money” policies.
Henry C K Liu sums up Greenspan’s tenure at the Fed in his Asia Times article, “Why the Subprime Bust Will Spread”: “Greenspan presided over the greatest expansion of speculative finance in history, including a trillion-dollar hedge-fund industry, bloated Wall Street-firm balance sheets approaching $2 trillion, a $3.3 trillion repo (repurchase agreement) market, and a global derivatives market with notional values surpassing an unfathomable $220 trillion.
"On Greenspan's 18-year watch, assets of US government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) ballooned 830 percent, from $346 billion to $2.872 trillion. GSEs are financing entities created by the US Congress to fund subsidized loans to certain groups of borrowers such as middle- and low-income homeowners, farmers and students. Agency mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) surged 670 percent to $3.55 trillion. Outstanding asset-backed securities (ABSs) exploded from $75 billion to more than $2.7 trillion.”
"The greatest expansion of speculative finance in history." That says it all.
But no one makes the case against Greenspan better than Greenspan himself. Here are some of his comments at the Federal Reserve System’s Fourth Annual Community Affairs Research Conference, Washington, D.C., April 8, 2005. They show that Greenspan “rubber stamped” every one of the policies which have since metastasized and spread through the entire US economy.
Greenspan, Champion of Subprime loans: “Innovation has brought about a multitude of new products, such as subprime loans and niche credit programs for immigrants. Such developments are representative of the market responses that have driven the financial services industry throughout the history of our country. With these advance in technology, lenders have taken advantage of credit-scoring models and other techniques for efficiently extending credit to a broader spectrum of consumers.”
Greenspan, Main Proponent of Toxic CDOs: “The development of a broad-based secondary market for mortgage loans also greatly expanded consumer access to credit. By reducing the risk of making long-term, fixed-rate loans and ensuring liquidity for mortgage lenders, the secondary market helped stimulate widespread competition in the mortgage business. The mortgage-backed security helped create a national and even an international market for mortgages, and market support for a wider variety of home mortgage loan products became commonplace. This led to securitization of a variety of other consumer loan products, such as auto and credit card loans.”
Greenspan, Supporter of Loans to People with Bad Credit: “Where once more marginal applicants would simply have been denied credit, lenders are now able to quite efficiently judge the risk posed by individual applicants and to price that risk appropriately.
"These improvements have led to the rapid growth in subprime mortgage lending . . . fostering constructive innovation that is both responsive to market demand and beneficial to consumers.
“Improved access to credit for consumers, and especially these more-recent developments, has had significant benefits.
Unquestionably, innovation and deregulation have vastly expanded credit availability to virtually all income classes. Access to credit has enabled families to purchase homes, deal with emergencies, and obtain goods and services. Home ownership is at a record high, and the number of home mortgage loans to low- and moderate-income and minority families has risen rapidly over the past five years. Credit cards and installment loans are also available to the vast majority of households”
Greenspan, Big Fan of “Structural Changes” Which Increase Consumer Debt: "As we reflect on the evolution of consumer credit in the United States, we must conclude that innovation and structural change in the financial services industry have been critical in providing expanded access to credit for the vast majority of consumers, including those of limited means. Without these forces, it would have been impossible for lower-income consumers to have the degree of access to credit markets that they now have.
"This fact underscores the importance of our roles as policymakers, researchers, bankers, and consumer advocates in fostering constructive innovation that is both responsive to market demand and beneficial to consumers.”
Greenspan’s own words are the most powerful indictment against him. They show that he played a central role in our impending disaster. The effort on the part of media pundits, talking heads, and so-called experts to foist the blame on the rating agencies, predatory lenders or gullible mortgage applicants misses the point entirely. The problems began at the Federal Reserve and that’s where the responsibility lies.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Sunday, September 16, 2007
the all seeing eye
click here
Big Brother is watching us all
By Humphrey Hawksley BBC News, Washington
The US and UK governments are developing increasingly sophisticated gadgets to keep individuals under their surveillance. When it comes to technology, the US is determined to stay ahead of the game.
Humphrey Hawksley's data is captured by a camera in one second
"Five nine, five ten," said the research student, pushing down a laptop button to seal the measurement. "That's your height."
"Spot on," I said.
"OK, we're freezing you now," interjected another student, studying his computer screen. "So we have height and tracking and your gait DNA".
"Gait DNA?" I interrupted, raising my head, so inadvertently my full face was caught on a video camera.
"Have we got that?" asked their teacher Professor Rama Challapa. "We rely on just 30 frames - about one second - to get a picture we can work with," he explained.
Tracking individuals
I was at Maryland University just outside Washington DC, where Professor Challapa and his team are inventing the next generation of citizen surveillance.
They had pushed back furniture in the conference room for me to walk back and forth and set up cameras to feed my individual data back to their laptops.
Gait DNA, for example, is creating an individual code for the way I walk. Their goal is to invent a system whereby a facial image can be matched to your gait, your height, your weight and other elements, so a computer will be able to identify instantly who you are.
How you walk could be used to identify you in a crowd
"As you walk through a crowd, we'll be able to track you," said Professor Challapa. "These are all things that don't need the cooperation of the individual."
Since 9/11, some of the best scientific minds in the defence industry have switched their concentration from tracking nuclear missiles to tracking individuals such as suicide bombers.
Surveillance society
My next stop was a Pentagon agency whose headquarters is a drab suburban building in Virginia. The Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) had one specific mission - to ensure that when it comes to technology America is always ahead of the game.
Its track record is impressive. Back in the 70s, while we were working with typewriters and carbon paper, Darpa was developing the internet. In the 90s, while we pored over maps, Darpa invented satellite navigation that many of us now have in our cars.
"We ask the top people what keeps them awake at night," said its enthusiastic and forthright director Dr Tony Tether, "what problems they see long after they have left their posts."
"And what are they?" I asked.
He paused, hand on chin. "I'd prefer not to say. It's classified."
"All right then, can you say what you're actually working on now."
"Oh, language," he answered enthusiastically, clasping his fingers together. "Unless we're going to train every American citizen and soldier in 16 different languages we have to develop a technology that allows them to understand - whatever country they are in - what's going on around them.
"I hope in the future we'll be able to have conversations, if say you're speaking in French and I'm speaking in English, and it will be natural."
"And the computer will do the translation?"
Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance
"Yep. All by computer," he said.
"And this idea about a total surveillance society," I asked. "Is that science fiction?"
"No, that's not science fiction. We're developing an unmanned airplane - a UAV - which may be able to stay up five years with cameras on it, constantly being cued to look here and there. This is done today to a limited amount in Baghdad. But it's the way to go."
In Britain we are monitored 24/7 by four million CCTV cameras
Smarter technology
Interestingly, we, the public, don't seem to mind. Opinion polls, both in the US and Britain, say that about 75% of us want more, not less, surveillance. Some American cities like New York and Chicago are thinking of taking a lead from Britain where our movements are monitored round the clock by four million CCTV cameras.
So far there is no gadget that can actually see inside our houses, but even that's about to change.
Ian Kitajima flew to Washington from his laboratories in Hawaii to show me sense-through-the-wall technology.
"Each individual has a characteristic profile," explained Ian, holding a green rectangular box that looked like a TV remote control.
Using radio waves, you point it a wall and it tells you if anyone is on the other side. His company, Oceanit, is due to test it with the Hawaiian National Guard in Iraq next year, and it turns out that the human body gives off such sensitive radio signals, that it can even pick up breathing and heart rates.
"First, you can tell whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield," said Ian.
"But it will also show whether someone inside a house is looking to harm you, because if they are, their heart rate will be raised. And 10 years from now, the technology will be much smarter. We'll scan a person with one of these things and tell what they're actually thinking."
He glanced at me quizzically, noticing my apprehension.
"Yeah, I know," he said. "It sounds very Star Trekkish, but that's what's ahead."
greenspan and death tolls
clickhere
Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m
Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters in New YorkSunday September 16, 2007The Observer
The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.
In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'
In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.
Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.
More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.
Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.
Although the household survey was carried out by a polling organisation, rather than researchers, it has again raised the spectre that the 2003 invasion has caused a far more substantial death toll than officially acknowledged.
The ORB survey follows an earlier report by the organisation which suggested that one in four Iraqi adults had lost a family member to violence. The latest survey suggests that in Baghdad that number is as high as one in two. If true, these latest figures would suggest the death toll in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000 died.
The Lancet survey was criticised by some experts and by George Bush and British officials. In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'.
Greenspan admits Iraq was about oil, as deaths put at 1.2m
Peter Beaumont and Joanna Walters in New YorkSunday September 16, 2007The Observer
The man once regarded as the world's most powerful banker has bluntly declared that the Iraq war was 'largely' about oil.
Appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1987 and retired last year after serving four presidents, Alan Greenspan has been the leading Republican economist for a generation and his utterings instantly moved world markets.
In his long-awaited memoir - out tomorrow in the US - Greenspan, 81, who served as chairman of the US Federal Reserve for almost two decades, writes: 'I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.'
In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.
Greenspan's damning comments about the war come as a survey of Iraqis, which was released last week, claims that up to 1.2 million people may have died because of the conflict in Iraq - lending weight to a 2006 survey in the Lancet that reported similarly high levels.
More than one million deaths were already being suggested by anti-war campaigners, but such high counts have consistently been rejected by US and UK officials. The estimates, extrapolated from a sample of 1,461 adults around the country, were collected by a British polling agency, ORB, which asked a random selection of Iraqis how many people living in their household had died as a result of the violence rather than from natural causes.
Previous estimates gave a range between 390,000 and 940,000, the most prominent of which - collected by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and reported in the Lancet in October 2006 - suggested 654,965 deaths.
Although the household survey was carried out by a polling organisation, rather than researchers, it has again raised the spectre that the 2003 invasion has caused a far more substantial death toll than officially acknowledged.
The ORB survey follows an earlier report by the organisation which suggested that one in four Iraqi adults had lost a family member to violence. The latest survey suggests that in Baghdad that number is as high as one in two. If true, these latest figures would suggest the death toll in Iraq now exceeds that of the Rwandan genocide in which about 800,000 died.
The Lancet survey was criticised by some experts and by George Bush and British officials. In private, however, the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser Sir Roy Anderson described it as 'close to best practice'.
9/11 victims' families
here
9/11 Families Slam Government Over AnniversaryAttempt to "force a non-existent connection" via Petraeus Testimony called "abuse" to the memory of loved ones, lack of government accountability and secretive 9/11 reports also criticized
reddit_url='http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/110907Families.htm'
reddit_title='9/11 Families Slam Government Over Anniversary'
digg_title = '9/11 Families Slam Government Over Anniversary';
digg_bodytext = ' The decision to hold Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus testimony to the Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been condemned by families of the victims of the attacks as another crude attempt by government officials to link the event to the war in Iraq despite the fact prior intelligence reports have dismissed any such notion.';
digg_topic = 'politics';
Steve WatsonInfowars.netTuesday, Sept 11, 2007
The decision to hold Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to the Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been condemned by families of the victims of the attacks as another crude attempt by government officials to link the event to the war in Iraq despite the fact prior intelligence reports have dismissed any such notion.
Petraeus' testimony, throughout which he has advocated a continuation of the so called surge in Iraq, has been running side by side all day on news networks with the 9/11 memorials and tributes taking place in New York.
The 9/11 family group September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has released a statement which slams the timing of the hearing:
"The timing of this testimony is another attempt by government officials to force a non-existent connection between the events of 9-11 and this administration's disastrous policy of invasion and war in Iraq. The 9-11 Commission found there was no operational or cooperative relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq. It is widely understood today that this administration's actions in Iraq have in fact created a terrorist sanctuary where none previously existed, at a cost of more American lives than were lost on 9-11, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, and over 100,000 Iraqi dead. Six years after September 11, 2001, politicians, from the White House to the halls of Congress, continue to abuse the memory of our loved ones who died in that attack by attempting to invoke their and our suffering to further this administration's political goals. As we have stated on previous occasions, we ask any and all politicians and candidates for office to respect the memory of the innocent lives lost on 9-11 by refraining from using the 9-11 sites, memorials, and anniversaries for political ends, either explicitly or as political 'backdrop.'"
Senior officials including Bush, Rumsfeld and particularly Dick Cheney have repeatedly asserted that the U.S. needed to go to war with Iraq because U.S. intelligence had evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda.
As reported by the NY Times, "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein" [6/27/03]. Similarly, even the 9/11 commission report undercuts claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.
Even the Pentagon dismissed any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
In addition to condemning the use of 9/11 to launch preemptive war, September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has also slammed the use of 9/11 by the Neocon White House to engage in domestic repression of civil rights, stating on their website:
"We have witnessed the use of 9/11 to justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of our own soldiers have been killed. Two million refugees in Syria and Jordan languish in poverty and desperation. And we have witnessed as well the suppression of our constitutional rights at home. We have been unable to stop any of it."
The group has also been vocal in calling for an end to secrecy surrounding the events of 9/11 and has dispelled the myth, often leveled at 9/11 truth groups, that the families are insulted by questioning of the official version of events:
"And so we come to the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11th. There has been too little introspection concerning those attacks, no accountability from our government, and reports more secretive than revealing about what happened in the immediate aftermath of those attacks. Six years later, we have more questions than answers, more dead to mourn, and a thing with feathers still perches in our souls, yearning for peaceful tomorrows."
We have reported many times previously that some of the largest 9/11 family groups are, like 9/11 truth groups, seriously concerned over the government's account of the events and are themselves vocally active in demanding answers to the many questions that still remain unanswered and uninvestigated six years later.
9/11 Families Slam Government Over AnniversaryAttempt to "force a non-existent connection" via Petraeus Testimony called "abuse" to the memory of loved ones, lack of government accountability and secretive 9/11 reports also criticized
reddit_url='http://www.infowars.net/articles/september2007/110907Families.htm'
reddit_title='9/11 Families Slam Government Over Anniversary'
digg_title = '9/11 Families Slam Government Over Anniversary';
digg_bodytext = ' The decision to hold Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus testimony to the Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been condemned by families of the victims of the attacks as another crude attempt by government officials to link the event to the war in Iraq despite the fact prior intelligence reports have dismissed any such notion.';
digg_topic = 'politics';
Steve WatsonInfowars.netTuesday, Sept 11, 2007
The decision to hold Iraq war commander Gen. David Petraeus' testimony to the Congress on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 has been condemned by families of the victims of the attacks as another crude attempt by government officials to link the event to the war in Iraq despite the fact prior intelligence reports have dismissed any such notion.
Petraeus' testimony, throughout which he has advocated a continuation of the so called surge in Iraq, has been running side by side all day on news networks with the 9/11 memorials and tributes taking place in New York.
The 9/11 family group September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has released a statement which slams the timing of the hearing:
"The timing of this testimony is another attempt by government officials to force a non-existent connection between the events of 9-11 and this administration's disastrous policy of invasion and war in Iraq. The 9-11 Commission found there was no operational or cooperative relationship between Al Qaida and Iraq. It is widely understood today that this administration's actions in Iraq have in fact created a terrorist sanctuary where none previously existed, at a cost of more American lives than were lost on 9-11, tens of thousands maimed and wounded, and over 100,000 Iraqi dead. Six years after September 11, 2001, politicians, from the White House to the halls of Congress, continue to abuse the memory of our loved ones who died in that attack by attempting to invoke their and our suffering to further this administration's political goals. As we have stated on previous occasions, we ask any and all politicians and candidates for office to respect the memory of the innocent lives lost on 9-11 by refraining from using the 9-11 sites, memorials, and anniversaries for political ends, either explicitly or as political 'backdrop.'"
Senior officials including Bush, Rumsfeld and particularly Dick Cheney have repeatedly asserted that the U.S. needed to go to war with Iraq because U.S. intelligence had evidence that Saddam Hussein was working with Al Qaeda.
As reported by the NY Times, "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein" [6/27/03]. Similarly, even the 9/11 commission report undercuts claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.
Even the Pentagon dismissed any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
In addition to condemning the use of 9/11 to launch preemptive war, September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows has also slammed the use of 9/11 by the Neocon White House to engage in domestic repression of civil rights, stating on their website:
"We have witnessed the use of 9/11 to justify the slaughter of tens of thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of our own soldiers have been killed. Two million refugees in Syria and Jordan languish in poverty and desperation. And we have witnessed as well the suppression of our constitutional rights at home. We have been unable to stop any of it."
The group has also been vocal in calling for an end to secrecy surrounding the events of 9/11 and has dispelled the myth, often leveled at 9/11 truth groups, that the families are insulted by questioning of the official version of events:
"And so we come to the sixth anniversary of the attacks of September 11th. There has been too little introspection concerning those attacks, no accountability from our government, and reports more secretive than revealing about what happened in the immediate aftermath of those attacks. Six years later, we have more questions than answers, more dead to mourn, and a thing with feathers still perches in our souls, yearning for peaceful tomorrows."
We have reported many times previously that some of the largest 9/11 family groups are, like 9/11 truth groups, seriously concerned over the government's account of the events and are themselves vocally active in demanding answers to the many questions that still remain unanswered and uninvestigated six years later.
bin laden dies his beard in a cave
bin laden dies his beard in a cave?
click here
Bin Laden's beard baffles chief US spy
Published: Monday September 10, 2007
Osama bin Laden's beard seen in a new video tape featuring the Al-Qaeda supremo has baffled the top US spy.
The traditional gray beard of the terror mastermind looked trimmed and dyed in black in the video released last week, his first of appearance since October 2004.
Questions over the elusive Saudi extremist's beard cropped up at a Congressional hearing Monday featuring top US security experts, including Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell.
"First, is this his beard?" Republican Senator Norm Coleman asked the spy chief. "Do we expect that -- is it a signal?"
McConnell swiftly rejected any possibility that the hair in his chin was intended to send any signal to his Al-Qaeda members.
"So far, we do not think there's been a signal. He's done this periodically, as has (Ayman al-) Zawahiri (the group's second-in-command), and there has not been a correlation necessarily between one of these tapes or a public statement and a particular event," McConnell said.
But he wondered whether Bin Laden's beard was genuine.
"The big question in the community this morning, 'Is that beard real,' because as you know, just a few years ago, the last time he appeared, it was very different," he said.
"So we don't know if it's dyed and trimmed or real, but that's one of the things we're looking at. But no specific message."
click here
Bin Laden's beard baffles chief US spy
Published: Monday September 10, 2007
Osama bin Laden's beard seen in a new video tape featuring the Al-Qaeda supremo has baffled the top US spy.
The traditional gray beard of the terror mastermind looked trimmed and dyed in black in the video released last week, his first of appearance since October 2004.
Questions over the elusive Saudi extremist's beard cropped up at a Congressional hearing Monday featuring top US security experts, including Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell.
"First, is this his beard?" Republican Senator Norm Coleman asked the spy chief. "Do we expect that -- is it a signal?"
McConnell swiftly rejected any possibility that the hair in his chin was intended to send any signal to his Al-Qaeda members.
"So far, we do not think there's been a signal. He's done this periodically, as has (Ayman al-) Zawahiri (the group's second-in-command), and there has not been a correlation necessarily between one of these tapes or a public statement and a particular event," McConnell said.
But he wondered whether Bin Laden's beard was genuine.
"The big question in the community this morning, 'Is that beard real,' because as you know, just a few years ago, the last time he appeared, it was very different," he said.
"So we don't know if it's dyed and trimmed or real, but that's one of the things we're looking at. But no specific message."
nafta highway
here
Bush administration allocates $66M to 'NAFTA highways'
The Business Journal of Phoenix - 1:39 PM MST Monday, September 10, 2007
by Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
The U.S. Department of Transportation is allocating the money so it can work with state and local governments and the private sector on six interstate highways, with projects including the addition of bypasses and trucks-only lanes. Five of those highways connect to or run near the Mexican or Canadian borders:
§ Interstate 15, which runs from San Diego through part of northwest Arizona all the way to the Canadian border.
§ Interstate 10, which runs near the Mexican border from California through Arizona to Florida.
§ Intestates 95, which runs from Florida through the northeastern U.S. to Canada.
§ Interstate 5, which runs from the California-Mexico border through Oregon to the Washington-Canada border.
§ Interstate 69, which free-trade backers hope to turn into a NAFTA superhighway, connecting an existing freeway between Indianapolis and Canada to a proposed highway running south into Texas and splitting to connect with Mexican border crossings at Laredo, Brownsville and McAllen.
The only nonborder highway getting grant money from the Bush administration is Interstate 70, which runs mostly through the Midwest.
The USDOT said Monday the money will be used to study transport options, such as bypasses of major cities and trucks-only lanes.
Supporters say improving such routes will enhance North American trade and commerce. Critics worry that such border-to-border corridors will make it easier for foreign goods to get into the U.S. unchecked and that increased truck traffic will damage animal habitats and air quality.
"These routes are unlikely to alleviate congestion for the long term and will result in further habitat fragmentation and degradation, as well as increased air pollution in areas in or near the proposed expansions and especially where they propose new roads," said Sandy Bahr, state coordinator for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.
Bush administration allocates $66M to 'NAFTA highways'
The Business Journal of Phoenix - 1:39 PM MST Monday, September 10, 2007
by Mike Sunnucks
The Business Journal
The U.S. Department of Transportation is allocating the money so it can work with state and local governments and the private sector on six interstate highways, with projects including the addition of bypasses and trucks-only lanes. Five of those highways connect to or run near the Mexican or Canadian borders:
§ Interstate 15, which runs from San Diego through part of northwest Arizona all the way to the Canadian border.
§ Interstate 10, which runs near the Mexican border from California through Arizona to Florida.
§ Intestates 95, which runs from Florida through the northeastern U.S. to Canada.
§ Interstate 5, which runs from the California-Mexico border through Oregon to the Washington-Canada border.
§ Interstate 69, which free-trade backers hope to turn into a NAFTA superhighway, connecting an existing freeway between Indianapolis and Canada to a proposed highway running south into Texas and splitting to connect with Mexican border crossings at Laredo, Brownsville and McAllen.
The only nonborder highway getting grant money from the Bush administration is Interstate 70, which runs mostly through the Midwest.
The USDOT said Monday the money will be used to study transport options, such as bypasses of major cities and trucks-only lanes.
Supporters say improving such routes will enhance North American trade and commerce. Critics worry that such border-to-border corridors will make it easier for foreign goods to get into the U.S. unchecked and that increased truck traffic will damage animal habitats and air quality.
"These routes are unlikely to alleviate congestion for the long term and will result in further habitat fragmentation and degradation, as well as increased air pollution in areas in or near the proposed expansions and especially where they propose new roads," said Sandy Bahr, state coordinator for the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.
most see iraq as a failure
here
AP Poll: Most see Iraq war as failure
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress and voters for more time.
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['w6NKBkSOxI8-']='&U=13b2d27jp%2fN%3dw6NKBkSOxI8-%2fC%3d603911.11354406.11885981.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d3996539';
The pessimism expressed by most people — including significant minorities of Republicans — contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq is telling Congress this week that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he conceded there has been scant political progress.
By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success. Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed — ominous numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for a withdrawal.
"It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and presidential candidate Joseph Biden, D-Del., told Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as they testified to his panel Tuesday. "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home."
Underscoring the public's negativity, four times as many predicted the war in Iraq would be judged as a complete U.S. failure as the number who see a complete success, 28 percent to 7 percent.
When the Gallup Poll asked the same question in September 2006, 52 percent said the war will be judged as a partial or complete failure, seven points fewer than the AP-Ipsos survey.
"The enemy was in Afghanistan, and I believe going into Iraq we took our eye off the ball," said Ann Bock, 66, a retired teacher and Democratic-leaning voter from Edmond, Okla., who participated in the survey.
In the poll — taken in the days just before Petraeus' long-awaited appearance — more people rated the troop increase a flop than a success by 58 percent to 36 percent, with three in 10 Republicans joining majorities of Democrats and independents in foreseeing failure.
Positive reviews of the troop increase were at about the same level as they were in mid-January, just after Bush announced the buildup.
That didn't match Petraeus' appraisal.
"In the face of tough enemies in the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena," he told House lawmakers Monday. He later added, "I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. There are no easy answers or quick solutions."
In the new survey, people calling it a mistake to go to war in March 2003 outnumbered those calling it the right decision by 57 percent to 37 percent, numbers that have stayed about level for more than a year. About a quarter of Republicans, along with most Democrats and independents, labeled the war an error.
Among those in the poll supporting the conflict is Ronald Shaul, 62, a Republican and retired military intelligence officer.
"It was a logical outgrowth of the war on terror, started long ago by Islamic extremists," said Shaul, who lives in Hopkinsville, Ky.
Overall, those viewing the war and the troop buildup most negatively tended to be groups that often lean Democratic: females, minorities, those with lower incomes and those with less education.
For example, about two-thirds of women and half of men said the troop increase had not worked, while more minorities than whites said going to war was a mistake by about a seven-to-five margin.
But the war remains unpopular with another group crucial to both political parties: moderates. Nearly two-thirds of them said the war and troop increase were failing and that the conflict was a mistake from the start.
Two groups that normally support the Bush administration — white evangelical voters and conservatives — remained largely behind its war strategy.
Just over half of the white evangelicals who attend church at least weekly said the war was the right decision and the extra troops were helping, while about four in 10 said the war is a success — well more than Catholics and Protestants measured in the survey.
Slight majorities of conservatives saw success in Iraq, a troop increase that is working and a war that was the right choice, though a third or more answered each question negatively.
In another indication of how uncertainty over the conflict is felt even by its supporters, of those who said going to war was the right decision, fully one-fifth said it will be viewed as a failure and about a quarter said the troop increase has not worked.
The poll was conducted Sept. 6-9 and involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
AP Poll: Most see Iraq war as failure
By ALAN FRAM, Associated Press Writer 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The public sees the Iraq war as a failure and thinks the U.S. troop buildup there has not worked, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll suggesting the tough sell President Bush faces in asking Congress and voters for more time.
if(window.yzq_d==null)window.yzq_d=new Object();
window.yzq_d['w6NKBkSOxI8-']='&U=13b2d27jp%2fN%3dw6NKBkSOxI8-%2fC%3d603911.11354406.11885981.1442997%2fD%3dLREC%2fB%3d3996539';
The pessimism expressed by most people — including significant minorities of Republicans — contrasted with the brighter picture offered by Gen. David Petraeus. The chief U.S. commander in Iraq is telling Congress this week that the added 30,000 troops have largely achieved their military goals and could probably leave by next summer, though he conceded there has been scant political progress.
By 59 percent to 34 percent, more people said they believe history will judge the Iraq war a complete or partial failure than a success. Those calling it a failure included eight in 10 Democrats, three in 10 Republicans and about six in 10 independents, the poll showed — ominous numbers for a president who hopes to use a nationally televised address later this week to keep GOP lawmakers from joining Democratic calls for a withdrawal.
"It's time to turn the corner in my view, gentlemen," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman and presidential candidate Joseph Biden, D-Del., told Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, as they testified to his panel Tuesday. "We should stop the surge and start bringing our troops home."
Underscoring the public's negativity, four times as many predicted the war in Iraq would be judged as a complete U.S. failure as the number who see a complete success, 28 percent to 7 percent.
When the Gallup Poll asked the same question in September 2006, 52 percent said the war will be judged as a partial or complete failure, seven points fewer than the AP-Ipsos survey.
"The enemy was in Afghanistan, and I believe going into Iraq we took our eye off the ball," said Ann Bock, 66, a retired teacher and Democratic-leaning voter from Edmond, Okla., who participated in the survey.
In the poll — taken in the days just before Petraeus' long-awaited appearance — more people rated the troop increase a flop than a success by 58 percent to 36 percent, with three in 10 Republicans joining majorities of Democrats and independents in foreseeing failure.
Positive reviews of the troop increase were at about the same level as they were in mid-January, just after Bush announced the buildup.
That didn't match Petraeus' appraisal.
"In the face of tough enemies in the brutal summer heat of Iraq, coalition and Iraqi security forces have achieved progress in the security arena," he told House lawmakers Monday. He later added, "I believe Iraq's problems will require a long-term effort. There are no easy answers or quick solutions."
In the new survey, people calling it a mistake to go to war in March 2003 outnumbered those calling it the right decision by 57 percent to 37 percent, numbers that have stayed about level for more than a year. About a quarter of Republicans, along with most Democrats and independents, labeled the war an error.
Among those in the poll supporting the conflict is Ronald Shaul, 62, a Republican and retired military intelligence officer.
"It was a logical outgrowth of the war on terror, started long ago by Islamic extremists," said Shaul, who lives in Hopkinsville, Ky.
Overall, those viewing the war and the troop buildup most negatively tended to be groups that often lean Democratic: females, minorities, those with lower incomes and those with less education.
For example, about two-thirds of women and half of men said the troop increase had not worked, while more minorities than whites said going to war was a mistake by about a seven-to-five margin.
But the war remains unpopular with another group crucial to both political parties: moderates. Nearly two-thirds of them said the war and troop increase were failing and that the conflict was a mistake from the start.
Two groups that normally support the Bush administration — white evangelical voters and conservatives — remained largely behind its war strategy.
Just over half of the white evangelicals who attend church at least weekly said the war was the right decision and the extra troops were helping, while about four in 10 said the war is a success — well more than Catholics and Protestants measured in the survey.
Slight majorities of conservatives saw success in Iraq, a troop increase that is working and a war that was the right choice, though a third or more answered each question negatively.
In another indication of how uncertainty over the conflict is felt even by its supporters, of those who said going to war was the right decision, fully one-fifth said it will be viewed as a failure and about a quarter said the troop increase has not worked.
The poll was conducted Sept. 6-9 and involved telephone interviews with 1,000 adults. It had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
___
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
black balled
here
How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America
Date Posted: Tuesday 11-Sep-2007
[I received this from an American. He was flabberghasted by this article by a black American. I too wish that Blacks would be more OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT THEMSELVES. If they want to truly combat "racism", then openness and honesty would go a very long way to gaining white sympathy and brotherly-co-operation - which I'm all for.But, if blacks wish to attack whites and blame whites for everything that is wrong with their lives, then they're just getting our backs up. I would be ok with them if they blamed us for valid things we did wrong - but I completely disagree with heaping the blame on us whites FOR THINGS WE DID NOT DO! In Africa, that has happened a lot. Jan]Carefully read the whole article. You'll be amazed at this guy!!! I read it with my mouth hanging open. This black man says things here that no white man could ever write and keep his job as a writer. New Orleans Went Under--A Black Man's Comments By Jesse Lee PetersonSay a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions: What would you do? What would you do if you were black? Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer. To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like. For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you. This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in. No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results. Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America , "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up. Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city." One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin? Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining new Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out. About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder. President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans ' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves. All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated for they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."Posted By: JanAfricanCrisis WebmasterAuthor of: Government by Deception
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD, I DO BLAME THE FED TOO, ON SOME LEVEL- A GREATER LEVEL.- REGGIE
How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America
Date Posted: Tuesday 11-Sep-2007
[I received this from an American. He was flabberghasted by this article by a black American. I too wish that Blacks would be more OPEN AND HONEST ABOUT THEMSELVES. If they want to truly combat "racism", then openness and honesty would go a very long way to gaining white sympathy and brotherly-co-operation - which I'm all for.But, if blacks wish to attack whites and blame whites for everything that is wrong with their lives, then they're just getting our backs up. I would be ok with them if they blamed us for valid things we did wrong - but I completely disagree with heaping the blame on us whites FOR THINGS WE DID NOT DO! In Africa, that has happened a lot. Jan]Carefully read the whole article. You'll be amazed at this guy!!! I read it with my mouth hanging open. This black man says things here that no white man could ever write and keep his job as a writer. New Orleans Went Under--A Black Man's Comments By Jesse Lee PetersonSay a hurricane is about to destroy the city you live in. Two questions: What would you do? What would you do if you were black? Sadly, the two questions don't have the same answer. To the first: Most of us would take our families out of that city quickly to protect them from danger. Then, able-bodied men would return to help others in need, as wives and others cared for children, elderly, infirm and the like. For better or worse, Hurricane Katrina has told us the answer to the second question. If you're black and a hurricane is about to destroy your city, you'll probably wait for the government to save you. This was not always the case. Prior to 40 years ago, such a pathetic performance by the black community in a time of crisis would have been inconceivable. The first response would have come from black men. They would take care of their families, bring them to safety, and then help the rest of the community. Then local government would come in. No longer. When 75 percent of New Orleans residents had left the city, it was primarily immoral, welfare-pampered blacks that stayed behind and waited for the government to bail them out. This, as we know, did not turn out good results. Enter Jesse Jackson and Louis Farrakhan. Jackson and Farrakhan laid blame on "racist" President Bush. Farrakhan actually proposed the idea that the government blew up a levee so as to kill blacks and save whites. The two demanded massive governmental spending to rebuild New Orleans, above and beyond the federal government's proposed $60 billion. Not only that, these two were positioning themselves as the gatekeepers to supervise the dispersion of funds. Perfect: Two of the most dishonest elite blacks in America , "overseeing" billions of dollars. I wonder where that money will end up. Of course, if these two were really serious about laying blame on government, they should blame the local one. Responsibility to perform legally and practically fell first on the mayor of New Orleans. We are now all familiar with Mayor Ray Nagin the black who likes to yell at President Bush for failing to do Nagin's job. The facts, unfortunately, do not support Nagin's wailing. As the Washington Times puts it, "recent reports show [Nagin] failed to follow through on his own city's emergency-response plan, which acknowledged that thousands of the city's poorest residents would have no way to evacuate the city." One wonders how there was "no way" for these people to evacuate the city. We have photographic evidence telling us otherwise. You've probably seen it by now the photo showing 2,000 parked school buses, unused and underwater. How much planning does it require to put people on a bus and leave town, Mayor Nagin? Instead of doing the obvious, Mayor Nagin (with no positive contribution from Gov. Kathleen Blanco, the other major leader vested with responsibility to address the hurricane disaster) loaded remaining new Orleans residents into the Superdome and the city's convention center. We know how that plan turned out. About five years ago, in a debate before the National Association of Black Journalists, I stated that if whites were to just leave the United States and let blacks run the country, they would turn America into a ghetto within 10 years. The audience, shall we say, disagreed with me strongly. Now I have to disagree with me. I gave blacks too much credit. It took a mere three days for blacks to turn the Superdome and the convention center into ghettos, rampant with theft, rape and murder. President Bush is not to blame for the rampant immorality of blacks. Had New Orleans ' black community taken action, most would have been out of harm's way. But most were too lazy, immoral and trifling to do anything productive for themselves. All Americans must tell blacks this truth. It was blacks' moral poverty not their material poverty that cost them dearly in New Orleans. Farrakhan, Jackson, and other race hustlers are to be repudiated for they will only perpetuate this problem by stirring up hatred and applauding moral corruption. New Orleans, to the extent it is to be rebuilt, should be remade into a dependency-free, morally strong city where corruption is opposed and success is applauded. Blacks are obligated to help themselves and not depend on the government to care for them. We are all obligated to tell them so. The Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson is founder and president of BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, and author of "Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America."Posted By: JanAfricanCrisis WebmasterAuthor of: Government by Deception
------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD, I DO BLAME THE FED TOO, ON SOME LEVEL- A GREATER LEVEL.- REGGIE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
