Alistair Dawber
London Independent
Goldman Sachs managed to lose nearly all of the money it had been given to invest by the Libyan government, which eventually led the giant Wall Street bank to offer shares as compensation that would have effectively made Colonel Gaddafi one of its largest single investors.
The Libyan Investment Authority, a sovereign wealth fund worth tens of billions of dollars into which the Gaddafi administration poured the money it made from oil sales, handed over $1.3bn to the bank in 2008 with a mandate to invest in foreign currency markets and other structured products.
The deal was struck months before the onset of the financial crisis, and sources close to the bank yesterday claimed that the LIA had initially been uninterested when Goldman told it that the value of the investment had lost several hundreds of millions of dollars.
But by early 2009 Goldman Sachs had lost 98 per cent of what it had been given, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. It is believed that senior Goldman Sachs officials were then summoned to Tripoli, and were told that, after losing the cash in just a handful of complex trades, the bank would need to offer some sort of compensation. The bank alleges that its officials were physically threatened during meetings in Tripoli, but denies that it hired bodyguards for its staff.
Full article here
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Rep. Paul to Fed "Tell Us Everything, Or Else..", June 1 2011
Peter Barnes
Fox Business
The chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve demanded Tuesday that the Fed fully disclose details of billions — perhaps trillions — in secret emergency loans it made to almost every major bank in the U.S. and overseas during the financial crisis or face a congressional subpoena for the information.
In an interview with Fox Business, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, said he wants to know “how much, when, where and why” from Fed officials when they testify about the loans at a subcommittee hearing Wednesday.
“We’re going to get to the bottom of what the Fed did during the big bailout a couple of years ago,” Paul said. “We have some precise questions. I imagine we won’t get all of them answered tomorrow because they’ll do a little bit of stonewalling, I’m sure.”
“If they don’t answer, they’ll hear from us,” he said. “We can use the subpoena power and say, ‘Look, you have to bring us the records.’ ”
Full article here
Fox Business
The chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees the Federal Reserve demanded Tuesday that the Fed fully disclose details of billions — perhaps trillions — in secret emergency loans it made to almost every major bank in the U.S. and overseas during the financial crisis or face a congressional subpoena for the information.
In an interview with Fox Business, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, said he wants to know “how much, when, where and why” from Fed officials when they testify about the loans at a subcommittee hearing Wednesday.
“We’re going to get to the bottom of what the Fed did during the big bailout a couple of years ago,” Paul said. “We have some precise questions. I imagine we won’t get all of them answered tomorrow because they’ll do a little bit of stonewalling, I’m sure.”
“If they don’t answer, they’ll hear from us,” he said. “We can use the subpoena power and say, ‘Look, you have to bring us the records.’ ”
Full article here
House Rejects Debt Ceiling Bill, June 1 2011
AFP
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers voted against raising the US borrowing cap without making cuts in spending, in a Republican ploy Democrats branded a “charade” unworthy of a vital economic issue.
The Treasury says that unless Congress votes to raise the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling by August 2, Washington could be forced to default on its obligations, in a move that would send shockwaves through the global economy.
Republicans, who won the House of Representatives last November amid a mood of steep anxiety over the ballooning size of government debt, will only back raising the debt limit in return for steep cuts in the deficit.
But they set up a vote on a bill they knew would lose — on raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion without a corresponding trim in spending — to show they were serious about getting the budget shortfall under control.
Full article here
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers voted against raising the US borrowing cap without making cuts in spending, in a Republican ploy Democrats branded a “charade” unworthy of a vital economic issue.
The Treasury says that unless Congress votes to raise the $14.29 trillion debt ceiling by August 2, Washington could be forced to default on its obligations, in a move that would send shockwaves through the global economy.
Republicans, who won the House of Representatives last November amid a mood of steep anxiety over the ballooning size of government debt, will only back raising the debt limit in return for steep cuts in the deficit.
But they set up a vote on a bill they knew would lose — on raising the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion without a corresponding trim in spending — to show they were serious about getting the budget shortfall under control.
Full article here
"U.S. Reaction to WikiLeaks", June 1 2011
Why prisonplanet.com regards WikiLeaks as a provider of information is beyond me, after watching several videos where Alex Jones interviews Webster Tarpley concerning how Assange is an MK-ULTRA agent and WikiLeaks is...well...look for the (pp) vids, or the blog here on RL.
Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story
In an interview produced by Millar Grattan Media, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that the United State’s response to his organization’s activities has been the most severe reaction since the McCarthy era.
“The United States has brought out to the public an extremely aggressive response,” he said. “In private, it is also doing other things. That response has been the most aggressive response to an international publisher ever.”
“I think there is a perception that the public rhetoric went too far,” Assange added. “But under the surface these investigations continue.”
Watch video, courtesy of Millar Grattan Media, below:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story
In an interview produced by Millar Grattan Media, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange claims that the United State’s response to his organization’s activities has been the most severe reaction since the McCarthy era.
“The United States has brought out to the public an extremely aggressive response,” he said. “In private, it is also doing other things. That response has been the most aggressive response to an international publisher ever.”
“I think there is a perception that the public rhetoric went too far,” Assange added. “But under the surface these investigations continue.”
Watch video, courtesy of Millar Grattan Media, below:
Part 1:
Part 2:
Supreme Court & the Sham of a Law System, June 1 2011
Eric W. Dolan
Raw Story
The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously threw out a lawsuit accusing former Attorney General John Ashcroft of misusing his power by jailing a supposed terrorism witness in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
In the case Ashcroft v. al Kidd, the highest court in the nationruled (PDF) 8 to 0 that Ashcroft did not clearly violate the 4th Amendment’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the jailing of a U.S. citizen as a potential witness.
“The Court has unfortunately let Attorney General Ashcroft off the hook, but half of the justices who participated in today’s decision expressed real questions about how the government used the material witness statute in al-Kidd’s case,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Our hope is that those questions will lead to a serious examination moving forward of the use of the statute as a tool for preventive detention.”
Abdullah al Kidd, a former University of Idaho football player, was arrested at Dulles Airport as he was boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia. Federal officials had obtained a warrant to arrest al Kidd by telling a judge that information “crucial” to a suspected terrorist’s prosecution would be lost if al Kidd boarded his flight.
Full article here
Raw Story
The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously threw out a lawsuit accusing former Attorney General John Ashcroft of misusing his power by jailing a supposed terrorism witness in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
In the case Ashcroft v. al Kidd, the highest court in the nationruled (PDF) 8 to 0 that Ashcroft did not clearly violate the 4th Amendment’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the jailing of a U.S. citizen as a potential witness.
“The Court has unfortunately let Attorney General Ashcroft off the hook, but half of the justices who participated in today’s decision expressed real questions about how the government used the material witness statute in al-Kidd’s case,” said Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Our hope is that those questions will lead to a serious examination moving forward of the use of the statute as a tool for preventive detention.”
Abdullah al Kidd, a former University of Idaho football player, was arrested at Dulles Airport as he was boarding a plane to Saudi Arabia. Federal officials had obtained a warrant to arrest al Kidd by telling a judge that information “crucial” to a suspected terrorist’s prosecution would be lost if al Kidd boarded his flight.
Full article here
Psych Drug Docs Push to Add Lithium to Water, June 1 2011
Ethan A. Huff,Natural News
Chlorine, fluoride, and the various other chemical poisons already added to the nation’s drinking water supplies are apparently not enough for the self-appointed experts whose insatiable lust to force-medicate the world is never satisfied. A recent report in The Daily offers credence to the insane notion that adding lithium, a drug currently used to treat mental disorders, to drinking water will be beneficial in helping to reduce suicide and violent crime rates.
Much like fluoride, lithium alters the brain’s normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, which in turn artificially alters the way an individual thinks and how he or she feels about a given situation. Lithium is literally a mind-altering, antidepressant chemical substance that those promoting it openly admit modifies brain function. And yet they purport that forcibly inducing these chemical changes on the unwitting populations of the world is a good and acceptable idea.
“Lithium certainly dampens impulsivity, which would explain how it reduces suicide rates,” said Dr. Allan Young, a psychiatry professor at Imperial College London and big time promoter of lithium-laced water, to The Daily. “When you change these resilience factors in the brain, you see other changes too. People are less timid and shy, for example.”
And in the same conversation with that reporter, Young humorously wonders with seemingly insidious arrogance why he has received slews of angry letters from the concerned public about his proposal to mass-medicate the world with this new type of drug. Could it be, Dr. Young, that people would rather think for themselves without having self-appointed “experts” like yourself superciliously play the role of God by deciding for others what they should and should not consume of their own free will?
In his push to begin poisoning water supplies with lithium, Young also cites Americans having been easily swayed to accept genetically-modified (GM) foods as a reason why the US is a “likely candidate for early implementation” of lithium-laced water. He and others are openly pushing to get lithium in the water as soon as possible in order to, as The Daily puts it, “cultivate a more serene social order.”
Sources for this story include:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/0…
Chlorine, fluoride, and the various other chemical poisons already added to the nation’s drinking water supplies are apparently not enough for the self-appointed experts whose insatiable lust to force-medicate the world is never satisfied. A recent report in The Daily offers credence to the insane notion that adding lithium, a drug currently used to treat mental disorders, to drinking water will be beneficial in helping to reduce suicide and violent crime rates.
Much like fluoride, lithium alters the brain’s normal production of serotonin and norepinephrine, which in turn artificially alters the way an individual thinks and how he or she feels about a given situation. Lithium is literally a mind-altering, antidepressant chemical substance that those promoting it openly admit modifies brain function. And yet they purport that forcibly inducing these chemical changes on the unwitting populations of the world is a good and acceptable idea.
“Lithium certainly dampens impulsivity, which would explain how it reduces suicide rates,” said Dr. Allan Young, a psychiatry professor at Imperial College London and big time promoter of lithium-laced water, to The Daily. “When you change these resilience factors in the brain, you see other changes too. People are less timid and shy, for example.”
And in the same conversation with that reporter, Young humorously wonders with seemingly insidious arrogance why he has received slews of angry letters from the concerned public about his proposal to mass-medicate the world with this new type of drug. Could it be, Dr. Young, that people would rather think for themselves without having self-appointed “experts” like yourself superciliously play the role of God by deciding for others what they should and should not consume of their own free will?
In his push to begin poisoning water supplies with lithium, Young also cites Americans having been easily swayed to accept genetically-modified (GM) foods as a reason why the US is a “likely candidate for early implementation” of lithium-laced water. He and others are openly pushing to get lithium in the water as soon as possible in order to, as The Daily puts it, “cultivate a more serene social order.”
Sources for this story include:
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/0…
When Climate Scientists Actually Did Science, June 1, 2011
Real Science
A reminder that there was a time when climate scientists actually did science.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
A reminder that there was a time when climate scientists actually did science.
http://news.google.com/newspapers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)