Soros's Progressive Cabal with Democrats to Weaken America

[vector7]

British Petroleum (BP) is to blame for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, not the oil industry as a collective entity

Blowout Prevention Act—or Oil-Production Prevention Act?

By Marlo Lewis Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Today, the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing on the Blowout Prevention Act of 2010. A draft of the legislation and other pertinent documents are available on the Subcommittee’s Web site.

Although the draft legislation and hearing documents address serious problems brought to light by the Committee’s ongoing investigations, the Blowout Prevention Act would throw the baby out with the bath water.

To restate the obvious, although oil spills are bad, oil is good. Without oil, there would be no modern commerce and no mechanized agriculture. Life for most people would be “nasty, brutish, and short,” and many of us would not even be alive. Another obvious point—British Petroleum (BP) is to blame for the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, not the oil industry as a collective entity.

Yet the draft legislation that Chairmen Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) will promote at today’s hearing could shut down all offshore drilling in the United States.

The draft text says the federal government “shall not issue a permit to drill for a high-risk well unless the applicant for such permit demonstrates . . . and the appropriate federal official determines that . . . the applicant has an oil spill response plan that ensures that the applicant has the capacity to promptly stop a blowout in the event the blowout preventer and other well control measures fail.”

Sounds innocent enough. However, the bill defines as “high-risk” any “offshore oil or gas exploration or production well,” not just ultra-deepwater rigs. In addition, at both the June 17 Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing and the June 15 Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing, Chairmen Waxman, Markey, and Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) emphasized that none of major oil companies, individually or in combination, could have stopped the spill after the blowout preventer failed:

• “BP failed miserably when confronted with a real leak, and ExxonMobil and the other companies would do no better.”—Chairman Waxman, June 15
• “It could be said that BP is the one bad apple in the bunch. But unfortunately, they appear to have plenty of company. Exxon and the other oil companies are just as unprepared to respond to a major oil spill in the Gulf as BP.”—Chairman Stupak, June 15
• “Yet when you’re asked can you stop the massive quantities of oil that are now ruining the beaches and marshland, killing the wildlife, and devasting the economy, you [BP, ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, ConocoPhillips] say no. You say you’re not well equipped to deal with it, and these catastrophic impacts are simply unavoidable.”—Chairman Markey (hearing transcript, pp. 220-221), June 15

The implication is obvious: The federal government “shall not” issue any more permits for offshore drilling, because nobody knows how to “promptly stop a blowout in the event that the blowout preventer and other well control measures fail.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) put it this way: “BP ignored a very simple rule. If you can’t plug the hole, don’t drill the well.”

But, as the BP disaster shows, some holes cannot be plugged, at least not in time to prevent gigantic spills. Logically, the bill implies that no permits to drill should be granted and that existing permits should be revoked.

How might Chairmen Waxman, Markey, and Stupak reply to this criticism?

Maybe they would claim that they just want Big Oil to invest more in spill response. For example, Markey asserted that the industry has “invested zero time and money into developing safety and response efforts.” He continued:

“The oil companies before us today amassed nearly $289 billion in profits over the last 3 years.

They spent $39 billion to explore for new oil and gas. Yet the average investment in research and development for safety, accident prevention, and spill response was a paltry $20 million per year, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of their profits” (June 15 hearing transcript, p. 4). These numbers seem to speak volumes. In fact, they are highly misleading.

Oil companies are not like pharmaceutical companies, which test and develop their products in laboratories. Most of the information relevant to the safety of offshore wells is acquired in the field, in the process of drilling for gas and oil. Safety information obtained via discrete investments in R&D is supplemental to information generated in the course of producing hydrocarbons. The most important safety ‘R&D program’ is the multi-billion dollar annual investment the industry makes to find and produce new fields of oil and gas. It has been very successful. It is the reason that, until the BP disaster, there had not been a blowout in the Gulf of Mexico since the 1979 Ixtoc 1 oil spill, more than 30 years ago. It is the reason, notes ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, that nothing like the BP disaster occurred “at the 14,000 other deepwater wells that have been successfully drilled around the world.”

As the Committee’s investigations make clear, disaster struck not because the oil industry is stingy with R&D, but because BP repeatedly cut corners in the design and testing of the Macando well. BP flouted industry best practices and acted with reckless disregard for employee safety, environmental protection, and the region’s economy. That is hardly surprising given BP’s atrocious record of “willful and egregious” safety violations in the refining end of its business.

The irony here is that BP’s dreadful safety and environmental record may well be related to its lobbying for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill and multi-million dollar re-branding as “Beyond Petroleum.” Cynicism and the pursuit of excellence don’t mix. There is hardly anything more cynical than lobbying for market-rigging rules in the name of saving the planet. Also, an oil company that starts to believe its own PR about being “beyond petroleum” is bound to become sloppy about its core competence.

One thing is clear—no amount of additional R&D spending would have enabled BP, or any of its rivals individually or working in concert, to stop the spill after the blowout preventer failed. At the June 15 hearing, Chairman Stupak engaged Mr. Tillerson in colloquy on this very point. Consider these excerpts:

Stupak: “So when these things happen, these worst-case scenarios, we can’t handle them, correct?”

Tillerson: “We are not well equipped to handle them. There will be impacts as we are seeing. . . .That’s why the emphasis is always on preventing these things from occurring, because when they happen, we’re not very well equipped to deal with them.”

Stupak: “. . . so no matter which one of the oil companies here before us had the blowout, the resources are not enough to prevent what we’re seeing day after day in the gulf, not only the loss of 11 people, but we’re on, what, day 56 or 57 of oil washing up on shores. There is no other plan. There is no way to stop what’s happening until we finally cap this well, correct?”

Tillerson: “That is correct. . . . There is no response capability that will guarantee you will never have an impact. It does not exist and it will probably never exist.”

In short, the Blowout Prevention Act sets a standard no oil company can meet. No applicant for a permit to drill can “demonstrate” that it has “the capacity to promptly stop a blowout after the blowout preventer and other well control methods fail.” Chairman Stupak surely knows this, having belabored the point at the June 15 hearing.

Maybe the Blowout Prevention Act is simply a product of sloppy drafting.

But maybe not. As written, the bill would revive and expand the federal ban on offshore drilling. Indeed, it would cripple U.S. domestic petroleum production.

Do the sponsors not know that banning offshore drilling would increase consumers’ pain at the pump, destroy high-paying American jobs, and make the United States more dependent on OPEC oil?

Or do they just not care?

[vector7]

China should buy BP and the coming oil price tsunami

July 03, 2010 – Comments (6) | RELATED TICKERS: BP , RIG , HAL

Ok, I admit that I love oil. I have always loved the smell of gasoline and exhaust. Since childhood, I have tinkered with engines, law mowers, go carts, hot rods, outboard motors, diesel and turbines. I love the smell and sound of controlled combustion. It is a manly sound like the beat of old rock and roll, so it may not appeal as much to the modern American male who has made getting in touch with his "feminine" side a bigger priority than owning a good set of tools.

Well that brings me to oil investing. It is pretty simple really... any kid that liked big blocks, knew that Sunoco 260 was ambrosia from God. It was expensive but it was the right thing to do to keep the ping away. Of course now we have the sissy way where we burn the cheap gas and merely alter the timing with knock sensors. Oh pleassssssssssse. There was a time when hitting the accelerator actually meant something. Chics loved it too especially when you patched out laying a strip of hot rubber 80 feet long in the front of her Judge daddy's big house near the country club.

So when it comes to oil investing, you could say I come buy it naturally.

How do I know this? Heck I was in Arabia. I would go down the side streets in Jeddah, and see a bunch of guys working on a car. They didn't speak a word of English, but we spoke the same common language, MOTOR HEAD. If you picked these guys up, Egyptians so happens, and put them in some garage in Bakersfield, you would think they had been there all their lives. So that is why I know oil is going to skyrocket.

The last inventory of oil was down two million barrels. So oil should have gone up but instead gasoline inventories for summer were higher so oil tanked nearly 3% in one day! And so emerged the crazy theme that the economy is slowing and oil will now slump down oil is no longer valuable.

In fact to prove their point, we have BP with an oil spill, threatened by lots of lawsuits, we have gulf driller permits delayed, and in spite of a Judges ruling that the gov. moratorium was over the top, drilling has all but stopped in the gulf and everywhere else. So I started to think about all the reason why they say oil should go down when it probably should go up:

1) Gasoline inventories are up. [They are supposed to be up in June.
Refiners have such narrow margins they have to operate at near capacity so this does not mean the supply chain is backed up.]

2) Oil inventories are down. [They claim that the US consumption due to a failing recovery makes this number unimportant. But in reality the US economy has been in decline for the last 5 years and oil demand in the US has declined 5% over that time. I realize that the guys in touch with their feminist side talk about a US oil addiction but the US has done a very good job of reducing consumption to the extent that, there is not much left to reduce. And certainly wind mills and solar cells and ethanol, which I regard as toxic to one's octane, all operated with an oil deficit so they really aren't a solution but merely increase oil demand. For example one gallon of ethanol requires 70,000 BTUs more of oil than it provides in combustion due to tractors and farm equipment used to raise the corn. Plus, then the land can't be used to feed anyone. So it even costs more just to get the cornflakes on the breakfast table.]

3) The China Slowdown. [This is the biggest joke on earth. China's economy is booming along at 12% a year. The way China reports GDP, the first quarter is always high and the second quarter is always lower due to the quarterly balancing. But even so, a slowdown in China is a boom everywhere else. China is expected to slow down about 1.5% this second quarter, not to mention that they are in fact trying to slow it down. Nevertheless China needs oil. While the US consumption has declined over the last five years by 5%, China demand has soared by and 85% increase and is expected to grow exponentially. Also Indian demand is up 67% in the last 5 years and both are looking to make major oil property purchases.
This is where I suggest that China buy out BP. I say this for many reasons but mostly to affront the US Gov. in their attempts to bully BP. It is a little harder to bully China especially when they own a trillion dollars of US notes. This would also allow China access to US and other Global oil markets. I think Chavez would think twice before nationalizing Chinese Petrol assets whereas he presently feels privileged to kick US Corporations around since the US Gov is so anti-business that it has virtually ignored the eleven HP rigs, nationalized last week by Chavez.]

4) US oil interests are being attacked globally. [I really don't know why this isn't bigger news but the HP oil rigs nationalized by Chavez, sets up a dangerous precedent whereby contracts can be ignored and nationalization may take place on a whim. This is not going to make the price of oil drop. If anything, this is going to add to the uninsurability of drillers and majors. Pretty soon, no corporations will be able to afford to drill. Think about it. A rig can always explode even with due care. The gov regulations on tap are to be retroactive against BP, and like all Obama styled legislation is anti-business and dedicated to using the gov as an instrument of punishment. So drilling around the globe is being reduced.]

5) The assumption that emerging markets need the US economy: The idea here is that if the US slows into a second recession, it will carry down the emerging markets. [Again the US economy has been in decline for the last 5 years. It has 13 trillion in debt and is essentially insolvent. So reliance on the dollar as the oil currency and reserve currency is politely a joke. Virtually all emerging markets have stronger balance sheets than the US and its socialist neighbors Europe. China has no debt, Brazil has no debt, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Russia, Australia, have no debt. So US influence is diminishing. On the other hand, with US tax regulation and anti-business legislation, US multinationals all have a game plan on the books to move heaving manufacturing to Asia. Look at the mess Boeing is in with their Dreamliner. Their Unions have killed the project. The Obama gov is pro union trying to install Unions in all businesses across the USA. US firms are leaving. Look for the Union label... and sell short. This means that the US will have demand for products no longer made in the USA. Thus, oil consumption will not decline with the emerging nations, it will grow exponentionally. Further all those foreign products will have to be shipped to the US.]

6) Buffet is buying railroads. He's going to take a bath because oil prices will go lower on US demand. [Buffett is many things, but one of those things is not stupid. He is buying rail because he anticipates a massive increase in Asian products to flow through his railroads to the rest of the nation. He anticipates oil and gas skyrocketing from international demand to the extent that it will be cheaper for products to travel by rail to regional depots.]

7) The Panama Canal giveaway by Jimmy Carter. In 1977, under stagnant mismanagement by the US Federal gov, a treaty was enacted to give the Canal to the Panamanians. The common US wisdom was that this property was virtually valueless since US commerce didn't rely on the canal. [So Panama took the canal and ran with it and today, the Canal is a booming business which connects Asian Pacific Cargo with East Coast US ports and shipping oil from the major OPEC producer to the US refiners. This development, rather than a dead animal under the idiot US Federal Gov, has become a boom center for South America as the port of exchange for global commerce and the emerging world. Oil demand has increased in every nation now linking Asia to the emerging markets.]

8) Hedge funds are selling Oil and tech and hedge funds are always right... aren't they. Sure unless they are wrong. [Ok, I realize that hedge funds have been selling oil for the last two months. They have been selling everything else as well, including tech. Of course, hedge funds have been pushing the slowdown default thesis over Greece and Spain and in doing so scared their own subscribers into redemptions. How smart is that? So they had to sell off oil and they then pushed to sell off tech.
Last week my indicators discovered that small caps were not going lower. In fact I was short the small caps until I noted the trend was bucking on a big down day. I was also shorting tech but noticed the same trend. Turns out Barton Biggs and other hedges had been selling tech but had finished selling off. So I don't see Asia going down from here on tech. In fact I see bedrock.

I also see hedge funds now sitting on a mountain of cash, and money mindlessly flooded into bonds which are in bubble burst formation. So money is going to flow very very soon.]

9) Oil companies and oil services are at 52 week lows. They could go much lower. [I disagree. They don't call them 52 week lows if they have a whole lot of downleg power. The oil majors make money. These are not speculative biotech companies or novelty retailers. This is oil and it is summer and even if the US is in a slowdown, the rest of the world is not. Each day, each hours that oil production declines, the long distance futures prices rise. Why? Because even with a slowdown, 30% soon to be 35 - 60% of our oil is imported off the spot markets. In short, this is why the Judge declared the Fed Gov moratorium on drilling for 6 months was an outrage. By tinkering with the tumblers of oil production short term, it causes a potential tsunami in the future.]

Finally, what we have here at present is the makings of the greatest oil price superstorm in history. Even if the USA and Europe flatlined, the global demand for oil would outstip the oil demand decline in the US and Europe. In just a few years, oil demand by China and India will eclipse the US. At that time or sometime in the near future, the US will lose its status as the oil reserve currency. Then the US dollar will no longer act as a buffer for the US industrial decline. Instead of the rest of the world suffering from US Gov mismanagment, only the US will suffer and it will have no buffer to tamp the pain.

The demand for oil by emerging countries and the insane punitive regulation and taxes against the oil industry by the US and tort lawyers, will drive even declining US demand into the oil price stratosphere. The forward futures of 2013 are springloaded. Imagine a second leg of a recession aided and abetted by $6 or $10 a gallon gasoline. Buffett who everyone claims over paid for Burlington, will just smile all the way to the bank because the US economy is dependent on Asian goods which will be the only ones they can afford.

Just remember when every other article on Bloomberg says the global economy is going to slow to a dead stop, its hedge fund propaganda, getting ready to pick your pockets. Just remember that a week ago, the western oil stockpiles were down 2 million bbls. and the articles instead focused on gasoline stockpiles rising before summer. Also notice that the oil futures rise at night in Asia, and decline during the day in the US. And if you think all the anti-oil rhetoric and conduct of the US Gov. will have no material effect on the prices of oil, then look to the drilling permits in the United States which have gone into a standstill. The US Gov's lack of any credible understanding of the oil industry is setting up Citizens for another major scale fleecing. The US gov has been pushing the idea of a strong dollar and pumping up the bond bubble when everyone knows that domestic inflation is being offset by Asian labor. Global oil demand will soon be emptying US pockets. Don't buy into this global slowdown propaganda.

Instead I suggest you visit China. You will come back to the USA scared out of your mind.

I guess when Obama goes to China he gets bitch slapped so much that he doesn't really comprehend the sight of so many cranes on the landscape.

To anyone who has been there, its a whole new thing and that thing is world domination, and they seem to know it is inevitable. I went there with a friend of mine to sell some high quality hard coking coal. The US policy hates coal. Biden hates the coal industry and Obama thinks coal is a curse.

So we went to China to the land of the giant Coke furnaces. China makes about 500 metric tons of steel a year. The US makes 60 tons of boutique steel. They don't have a single blast furnace in the US which means that China is the big daddy of global steel. And the US keeps hitting China for dumping pipe at low prices and that is why Obama slapped a tariff on Chinese Tires.

He wanted Union votes.

He can have them because in a few years, the US will not be making any steel in the US. [like I said, look for the union label and sell short.]

To me the industrial power of China is not quantifiable. And if we we don't get the advantage of their cheep pipe, then some emerging market will. The US has been so accustomed to being the bully that they suddenly wake up and there are a lot of young big dogs out there that don't cower.

The Chinese are like a big Sharpei a remarkably tough animal and the Chinese are patient. They know in two or three years they will produce 700 metric tons of steel and will control the global steel market. The only thing they don't have is oil but you can bet they will get it. Like I said, the perfect move for China is to buy BP with a hostile take over and stick it to the Obama gov by exporting every drop of BP oil to China.

Now is the perfect time to Squeeze the United States and its new found love of socialism.

[samizdat]

Holy shit! What am i doin? If.... I only had a brain.

Hey I got it. Bama sold the rest of de house Clingons 4got.

Damn! If I had big bucks, I'd buy Chinese oil dream, skimoff xtras on currency exchange yuan-buck, and buy a '68 GTO pachin out ifo numero 1 1st st.

but... no bucks. Just an old mare. who konws. maybe I'll be better off. all de cars run on microchip, and electric flaws cause gas pumps to nil.

trees grow, grass is green and water is still.

[vector7]

George Soros' New Plan for Globalism and Crony Capitalism

Submitted by Ben Johnson on Mon, 07/12/2010 - 12:00



When George Soros invests $50 million to revolutionize the way Americans think about a certain issue, it would normally be deemed newsworthy. Not so with the formation of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET).

Three months after a summit in New York state last July, Soros pledged $50 million
to INET, which promises “to promote changes in economic theory and practice” by “providing the proper guidance” to “the next generation.”
Despite its name, its philosophy is nearly a century old. The group blames the economic crisis on free market capitalism and promotes a return to the theories of John Maynard Keynes. INET hosted its inaugural conference April 8-10 at King’s College, Keynes’ school, and called on economists to “apply the same Keynesian courage and innovation” to ending the worldwide recession.

That conference’s proceedings reveal INET is applying its talent to “contracting” the U.S. economy, redistributing its wealth, and creating a new world body to “supervise” global financial transactions – a body its elite membership intends to influence.

One of the conference attendees essentially spelled out its agenda in print. Andre Wilkens, who represented the prestigious German foundation Siftung Mercator at INET’s conference, was formerly “director of the Open Society Institute Brussels (OSI-Brussels) and a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).” Wilkens wrote just after the election of Barack Obama:

The challenge ahead is to manage a peaceful decline of the west while rescuing as many of the west’s liberal political and economic values as possible…We need new global governance which can both manage the ascent of China, India, Russia, Brazil as well as the relative decline of the United States and Europe. Europe and the US must concentrate on shaping this new global governance and enshrine its progressive values within it, while they still have some power to do so.

He suggested the world’s elites create piecemeal “global governance based on global financial governance and then move ahead in ways that echo the EU’s evolution” from the European Economic Community (EEC) to a full political union with a centralized parliament, open borders, and a common currency. He concluded by echoing Rahm Emanuel: “The importance is to understand the crisis as an opportunity which should not be wasted.”

The speakers at INET’s inaugural conference wasted no time fleshing out each of these themes into a program for action.

The Decline of the West

Kate Pickett, a professor of epidemiology at the University of York, who once equated the American desire for good service in restaurants with “servitude,” spent her talk arguing for a socialist West. Reviewing data drawn from her book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, she assessed neither life expectancy nor “happiness” could be improved through increased wealth creation, and that “greater equality” (e.g., reduced purchasing power) “may be leverage” to “rein in carbon emissions.” She expounded:

In terms of global wealth, those who look at the need to change the economic structure of the world to cope with climate change talk about contraction and conver[gence], that we must raise the standards of living and the wealth of the developing world while sort of contracting the consumption and wealth of the developed world…The optimistic message from our work is that that will not compromise our health or happiness. And so, contraction and convergence for climate change reasons is actually likely to bring us social benefits, and we can have a high quality of life and sacrifice.

This sacrifice would be borne only by “the rich, developed economies,” where “a bit more poverty for those who have far too much I think would be a very good thing.”

Pickett suggested “three things” to equalize wealth inside the UK: “a land value tax,” “a massively increased inheritance tax,” and “the abolition of private education.”

The Dragon Ascends

Other speakers planned the displacement of American hegemony by other nations. Franklin Allen of the University of Pennsylvaniawrote that Chinese “proposals for a global currency to replace the dollar” have a “great long run advantage.” However, this entails the “need for an institution to implement the currency.” Luckily, there is a second choice. “A more likely medium term scenario is that the Chinese Rmb becomes fully convertible and joins the U.S. dollar and the euro as the third major reserve currency.”

That “solution” would result in drastically higher interest rates and massive devaluation of our currency.

World Government

The INET conference's session on “Global Governance?” focused on building Wilkens' world government, beginning with the financial sector – with ample room for special interests to exert their influence. Charles Dallara, head of the Institute of International Finance (IIF), insisted a global crisis required “adaptations of global architecture. I think we are reluctant to do that because we have been captured by the notion of sovereignty.” Dallara wants to implement a “regime” of “global regulation, global supervision, and global risk management.” He emphasized global supervision – allowing a world body to see how each major firm in the world does business – by noting “framework of regulation is one thing, actually engaging in supervising financial institutions and the conduct of their business is another thing.” He suggested “a global treaty for financial services” and “a new global institution to manage the regulatory, supervisory, and risk management framework” as part of a “cross-border resolution regime.” In an accompanying paper Dallara calls for “a Global Macroeconomic Coordinating Council” that encourages “global coordination” of fiscal policy and reports only to the G-20 Summit. Echoing Wilkens, he told his audience, “if we do not embed this in a broader framework of” global government, “then I’m afraid we would have missed a major opportunity.”

Progressive Policies

These international institutions would embody “progressive” values. Franklin Allenproposed something like Affirmative Action for the IMF.He argued the Fund required harsh measures during the 1997 Asian crisis only “because the Asians are underrepresented in the IMF” and recommended the IMF “reform its governance structure...accompanied by an increase in Asian staff at all levels.”

Kate Pickett gave another view of the progressive values Soros, et. al., wish to implement globally. She rhapsodized about her college days:

When I was here at Cambridge in the 1980s, Kings was known as The People’s Republic of King’s. The student union actually voted that the union leader must change his name from Shaun Waterman to Shaun Waterperson. It was a radical place then. Places can change, societies can change, and thinking can change.

Revolving Doors

INET's agenda sounds like that of John Holdren, Obama’s Science Czar and the onetime protégé of Paul and Annie Erhlich. I was the first writer to expose Holdren's book Ecoscience, in which he called for ending global inequality, reducing Western living standards for environmental reasons, promoting left-wing social policies (in his case, compulsory abortion), and creating “a comprehensive global regime” to monitor all world commerce.

Yet even he did not envision a further proposal at INET's conference: enshrining crony capitalism.

In his paper, Dallara extolled the IIF, which he heads, as “the center of an extensive network of information and well-informed views,” yet he worries “we are not taking full advantage of the potential for public-private sector dialogue.” He points to an IIF organ, the Market Monitoring Group, which “has established a dialogue...with official bodies, including the FSB [Financial Stability Board] and the IMF, and we would like to see the institutionalization of regular, structured exchanges.” He pointed out private-public consultations have not taken place, in part, because of “public suspicion,” but reassured that “my interest in more systematic interaction...[is] not about regulatory capture or revolving doors.”

Yet Dallara is an example of such a revolving door. Before joining the IIF in 1993, “he was managing director at J.P. Morgan & Co...During the 1980s, he served in a variety of senior financial positions in the US government,” including a concurrent stint in the Treasury Department and the IMF during the Reagan administration, then served “as assistant secretary of the US Treasury for International Affairs in 1989–1991.” He has participated in a number of private organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Private Export Funding Corporation (PEFCO).

The IIF represents “multinational corporations, trading companies, export credit agencies, and multilateral agencies” based in 70 countries (half of them in Europe) and advocates for its members interests.

Despite the potential for abuse, another presenter, Franklin Allen, proposed creating a Financial Stability Board within the U.S. Federal Reserve System with several votes in Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

This means individuals with longstanding ties to corporate, banking, or financial interests would be in a position to view and grade their longtime competitors’ internal compensation and corporate risk-taking policies – and vote on matters affecting their bottom line.

This brings to mind FDR inviting the titans of industry to write the National Recovery Administration’s business regulations during the Great Depression.

They immediately set price, wage, and production standards to their advantage. The potential for corruption in a less accountable global body would be immense. If there is to be a global financial superstructure, this conference demonstrates George Soros is trying to put himself at its center.

Ben Johnson is an Associate Fellow at NLPC. His personal website is TheRightsWriter.com.

Related:
SPECIAL REPORT: Soros Groups Receive Taxpayer Funds

[vector7]

It Begins… Soros Bailing Out of US Stock Market

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, August 18, 2010, 10:55 PM

Maybe he knows something we don’t?



Far Left billionaire, democratic donor and Obama supporter, George Soros is bailing out of the US stock market. The value of billionaire investor George Soros’s hedge fund dropped by 42% to $5.1 billion at the end of the second quarter.

Economic Policy Journal reported, via Free Republic:

Billionaire trader and political manipulator,George Soros, is clearly not optimistic. The latest SEC filings are out on the Soros hedge fund, Soros Fund Management.

Between the end of March and the end of June, Soros lowered his stock investments from $8.8 billion to $5.1 billion in the fund, Soros Fund Management.

He sold most of his positions (over 95%) in Wal-Mart, J.P. Morgan Chase and Pfizer.

His biggest positionb at the end of June was in the gold ETF which accounted for 13% of his equity portfolio at $638 million.

Comments (39)

[vector7]

Socialist Hostile Takeover of Corporate America's Energy

Thanks to a new SEC rule, unions and human-rights advocates can now vote their own candidates onto a company's board of directors.

by Joel SchectmanAugust 30, 2010

Carolyn Kaster / APA protester holds up a sign behind Massey Energy Co. CEO Don Blankenship before his testimony on Capitol Hill. May 20, 2010

Until last Wednesday, unions and activists who wanted to change corporate policy had to do it the old-fashioned way: lobby lawmakers, muster public pressure, and push for boycotts.

But last week, the Securities and Exchange Commission handed them a brand-new weapon to fight companies on social-justice and workers’-rights issues: the corporate ballot box.

The new rule allows shareholders to field their own candidates for corporate boards and place them on the same ballot as management’s picks.

Sought by advocates of corporate accountability for more than 30 years, it could change the way activists deal with corporations, allowing unions, for instance, to help elect a labor-friendly director on the board of Massey Energy, the company responsible for the deadliest mine disaster in 25 years, which workers regard as particularly unconcerned with safety.

“This is a definite sea change,” said Simon Billenness, an Amnesty USA board member who works on shareholder advocacy for the organization. “With the SEC’s decision, power has shifted away from company management, and when we are talking with shareholders about possible actions, we have a new tool.”

The new power to activists and unions—whom opponents like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce describe as meddling “special interests”—is part of larger shift in authority away from CEOs toward boards and shareholders. Up until the mid-1990s, board members were considered servile advisers to charismatic CEOs.

Corporate chieftains like Enron CEO Kenneth Lay or WorldCom’s Bernard Ebbers could run their houses as they saw fit, as long as share prices continued to climb. Boards were rubber-stamp committees, and members who stepped out of line would get pushed off. In that world, shareholders and third parties couldn’t hope to influence company strategy or policy.

The collapse of Enron—in which an entire corporation took management at its word—changed all that, and new laws and mores empowered boards to hold their CEOs to account. “CEOs have lost the ability to control everything—they have lost their strangleholds over boards,” said Patrick McGurn, executive vice president of Institutional Shareholder Services. “Even strong performers can be thrown out.” Witness the board-engineered ouster this month of Hewlett-Packard’s Mark Hurd after an allegation of sexual harassment.

The new SEC rule could devolve power even further, allowing shareholders to advertise their board nominees alongside management on the list that goes out before a company’s annual meeting. That way, activist shareholders—displeased by a company’s treatment of workers, harm to the environment, or executive compensation—can elect a similarly minded reformer to the body most responsible for planning the company’s direction.

An outsider brought in by a powerful campaign could shake things up among a calcified board. Directors, who might be serving on eight or nine other boards, would have to deal with a new member elected for the sole purpose of asking tough questions and ordering tough investigations. Think 12 Angry Men: one aggressive director wouldn’t have a voting majority, but he might be able to hold sway amid a flaccid majority.

How would this work?

The Change to Win Investment Group, which helps mobilize union pension funds around accountability issues, told NEWSWEEK it sees Massey Energy as “a possible candidate” for a boardroom putsch, because of its “abysmal” safety record.

The energy company had racked up 495 safety violations at the Upper Big Branch site in the year before the explosion, which killed 29 workers. “This was a failure of the board, which resulted in an unacceptable loss in human life and shareholder value,” said Michael Garland, Change to Win’s director of value strategies.

Unions had complained for years about safety issues at the company, and the Change to Win Investment Group had launched a campaign against the reelection of some board members last March, even before the accident. But back then, the only thing groups like Change to Win could do was lobby against management’s choices.

Now they can offer the threat of their own candidates. “With the specter of [outside candidates on the ballot], they will be ignoring the shareholder at their own peril.”

Still, it will be just as difficult to wage single-issue a proxy fights—by which shareholders take control of a company—as it will be to elect single-issue political candidates. To start with, shareholders need to own 3 percent of the company’s stock for three years in order to put their own candidates on the ballot.

For a large company like Massey, that would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in stock. “These are very big hurdles to pass. I don’t think people pushing single issues are going to get very far,” says McGurn.

Especially considering shareholders are much more about profit than good governance. In order to build coalitions large enough to push through a candidate, activists will have to prove that the board has fallen down on its overall responsibility to shareholders. In the case of Massey, the company’s safety record caused it to lose 40 percent of its stock value: that is an argument shareholders understand.

Yet some of those pushing for changes in the boardroom have real muscle. In March, nine huge public pension investment funds, with $500 billion in combined assets, asked their investors to vote against the reelection of a Massey board member. With the new rules, coalitions like that could elevate their own picks—think of an aggressive former attorney general who had prosecuted safety lapses—to corporate boards.

Chevron is another company where activists may go after directors.

An attack on Chevron’s board would be aimed at getting a settlement for a lawsuit brought by Ecuadoran Indians in the early 1990s. That suit, which asks for $27 billion in damages, alleges that Texaco, which Chevron bought in 2001, contaminated vast areas of the Amazonian rainforest by dumping millions of gallons of oil into the jungle. In an e-mailed statement, Chevron says Texaco cleaned up the sites decades ago and that the case is a high-stakes deception run by New York trial lawyers.

By itself, Amnesty could never purchase enough stock to make an attack on the board. But the human-rights organization has in the past formed alliances with deeper pockets—including the New York City employee-pension fund, which had more than $600 million in the company’s stock—to file nonbinding resolutions asking for Chevron to settle with the Indians. Activists say that Texaco and Chevron have drawn out the case for decades through legal maneuvers and that the time has come to go after the board. “In the case of Chevron, there is a real question of whether this board is capable of resolving this liability and settling with the people that have been affected,” said Simon Billenness, the Amnesty USA board member. “It raises the question of whether these are the right people for the job or whether we should use this new tool and push for someone different.”

The rule change comes at a time when corporate America has proven that it needs supervision. The connection between unethical behavior at companies like AIG, which authorities says used fraudulent schemes to mask problems, and the massive loss of shareholder value has never been clearer. It won’t happen overnight, but the SEC ruling is a big step toward bringing in outside voices that may help keep companies honest.

[vector7]

Barack Obama Secures His Grip on the Oil Industry


By Christopher Massie Thursday, September 2, 2010



The American Civil War of 2010 Part III, George Soros, Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez--The Billionaire Anti-Semite buys a Marxist Chicago Politician who pays off a Communist Anti-American

Part I
Chavez in a Box—The Strings are Revealed

Just when you thought it was safe to take that long-planned vacation to Caracas, President Hugo Chavez enters the media again, angry with America. This particular outburst from the bully by the sea alleges the U.S. government is plotting alongside Colombia to invade Venezuela.

This latest accusation from Chavez comes on the heels of Columbia’s allegations that Venezuela is harboring rebel soldiers; namely, members of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).Researching the longstanding rhetoric between these two countries reveals a constant state of back-and-forth on issues related to this current upheaval.

Columbia being an ally of the United States, Venezuela positioned as our fourth largest supplier of oil, Chavez and his counterparts from across the border constantly find themselves embroiled in confrontation. The real story, often times, has far less to do with FARC and much more to do with the politics of Chavez.

As elections now approach in Venezuela, with the next parliamentary votes set for September 26, 2010, the ruling party of that country—the United Socialist Party of Venezuela—begins anew their push to arouse nationalist sentiment amongst the population. According to Margarita López Maya, PhD—historian, professor and candidate in the Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (United Democratic Table) party running in opposition to the Chavez government this September—Chavez is a radical anti-imperialist, playing games with his own people towards a self-centered goal of political gain.

Chavez could no more afford to back up his latest rhetoric with action than to “eat rocks”, as he threatened to do. These empty threats amount to yet another attempt by Chavez to stir the pot; another attempt to secure his place as a Socialist Dictator for decades to come.

So why, then, does this country, especially the Obama administration, continue to play ball with Chavez? And, more interestingly, why was the Chavez rhetoric towards THIS White House so vanilla by comparison to the vile language hurled at Bush? The obvious answer of Socialist brotherhood comes to mind; after all, the handshake viewed ‘round the world is household news by now.

No, there’s something deeper here; something much more complex—even sinister, perhaps. Remember the rules of engagement for Marxists/Socialists: first, tear down Capitalism (we’re witnessing this administration’s work towards that end on a daily basis); next: enslave the populace to the Socialist/Communist tyrannical government (how better to enslave us to our government than by forcing us to purchase our gasoline from State owned gas stations?)

Hugo Chavez may be privy to conversations, dealings, or negotiations taking place that threaten his country’s very existence. His rhetoric with Obama reveals a stark change in attitude as compared to that he served to Bush.

While he continues the nationalistic rhetoric—timing his speeches to coincide with elections, naturally—his threats to “stop the oil” are completely toothless. Chavez criticizes U.S. policy, yet taps Obama on the shoulder, winks, and literally calls the American leader a “friend”.

If Chavez is not getting paid off in this deal, I’ll eat my hat.

You may disperse with vile cajoling, Chavez; other than the repressed countrymen you subject to your Socialist tyranny, the world knows who is now pulling your strings.

Part II
Red China invests $10 Billion to control Oil in South America—“Made in China” takes on New Meaning

From the days of Nixon and the “Shanghai Communiqué”, Patriotic Republican presidents—those with a firm belief in American Exceptionalism—knew that the normalization of relations between China and America required serious attention. Acquiescence, however, was unacceptable—particularly for Nixon. Prior to the famous 1972 meeting between Nixon and Mao, China exhibited extreme hostility and aggressiveness towards the once capital and ruler of the mainland: Taiwan. So deeply rooted was this ongoing sentiment towards Taiwan, in fact, that on the day of meeting with Nixon, Mao snorted to the effect that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek would not have approved of their secret rendezvous.

Concerned, however, that the Soviet Union’s continued spread across severely weakened states throughout Eastern Europe would ultimately land the Communist State at China’s border with virtually no resistance, Americans were pleased to see Nixon—the very man who in 1952 was elected Vice President for his stance against communism—work to normalize relations not only between the U.S. and China; but between China and the Soviet Union as well.

Nixon and Kissinger, through the “Shanghai Communiqué”, agreed to begin discussions of troop withdrawals from Taiwan while not fully endorsing the PRC’s version of the One-China policy. In other words, while Nixon agreed that China should be unified, and that Taiwan and mainland China should work towards re-unification, neither he nor his administration would fully support the United States’ complete withdrawal from the region while Communist China (People’s Republic of China) proclaimed sovereignty over our ally Taiwan (Republic of China).

Seven years would pass before changes to the U.S. position would occur; those changes taking place during the most depressed days our economy has experience until recently.

Enter Jimmy Carter. Carter’s policies on every issue from gas rationing to foreign policy to addressing the nation were the most ruinous of their kind until Barack Obama. In fact, were it not for the current occupant of the Oval Office, Carter would continue to be remembered at this nation’s worst president in many, many decades. For purposes of this report, we’ll focus on Carter’s seemingly deliberate efforts to hand our nation over to Red China on a silver platter.

Soul-stirring speeches on the subject of American Exceptionalism would not be offered to the citizens of this great nation until Ronald Reagan so poignantly spoke that magical phrase. So it may not be possible to gauge Carter’s belief in, or cynicism towards, such a theory.

But one issue is certainly undeniable: Carter sold this country to Red China when signing the Joint Communiqué on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations. He pulled all personnel from Taiwan, recognized Beijing as the capital of China, denounced Taiwan as the capital and effectively severed ties with our island ally. Carter was so desperate to right his self-induced sinking ship that he slipped into bed with communism.

Today, China owns more than $1 Trillion of this country’s debt and is one of the primary catalysts in ongoing discussions towards the removal of the dollar as the world’s currency. China dominates this country, substantially, nay preposterously, in terms of trade deficit; and holds such global strength as to silence discussions of its currency manipulations at the recent G-20 summit.

Barack Obama praises Red China, apologizes to Red China, and now borrows money from Red China to finance even more debt—debt that Obama is creating with the passage of each new ruinous package he rams through Congress.

The only method by which this country would be more indebted to the Communists—more dependent upon an ideology this country has fought against for hundreds of years—would be one that resulted in an American reliance upon Red China for oil. Surely times would never come to that; would they?

“On May 19, 2009, Petrobras finalized a $10 billion loan from China.”

Why would the world’s 4^th largest energy company need investments
from China?

Why would the largest company located in the southern hemisphere want to sign finance MOUs with China? And better still, where did the U.S. administration come up with billions to loan Petrobras?

Why would this administration send that kind of money to South America for drilling, exploration, and oil procurement while stifling those same activities—and the jobs these activities could produce—right here at home?

Are we as Americans—drowning in joblessness; plagued by moratoriums in the gulf; and sleepless over foreign oil from murderous regimes because our government stifles shale oil extraction—honestly to believe that the Obama administration is working in tandem with China on selling oil to America?

It’s been proved without a doubt that Barrack Obama is a secular-socialist/Marxist; but is he THIS diabolical?

Part III
George Soros, Barack Obama, Hugo Chavez—The Billionaire Anti-Semite buys a Marxist Chicago Politician who pays off a Communist Anti-American: the REAL 3 stooges

The tale of George Soros is so mired in secrecy—deception—that even Wikipedia has neither the wisdom nor valor to properly either remove their page describing the man or heavily screen its content for greater accuracy. For every so-called financial feat proclaimed through, what appear at least to be, unbiased sources—sources that are easily traced to their original roots—there are hundreds of bodies lying in the dust.

Even the stories of Soros’ youth, as told on Wikipedia, are riddled with omissions; Soros himself admits to plundering the Jews of his neighborhood in Hungary after his family changed their name from Schwartz to Soros—a fact so blatantly ignored by Wikipedia that it’s practically proof of propagandistic authorship.

Personal research into the man who: destroyed the lives of Jews during WWII; devastated British citizens by destroying the value of everything they owned when he single-handedly broke the Bank of England; perpetrated the worst social robbery of its kind to date from 1992-1996 (known as RussiaGate in the 1999 investigation); and nearly destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia—and so much more; leaves this author breathless.

Citizens of what is, for now, a free America, are encouraged—STRONGLY—to complete their own research: Who is this George Soros?

George Soros is no friend of the Republic of the United States of America. He openly condemns our nation as “A danger to the world” while plotting through his Open Society Institute (link confirmed safe, redirects to a .pdf at Capital Research Center) to support radical left-wing, secular-socialist organizations towards their goal of controlling the American government. Additionally, he donated $24 million to various other sinister, radical, extremist groups, most notably MoveOn.org, during the 2004 election cycle, alone, because: destroying George W Bush was “a matter of life and death” for Soros.

Establishing, as we have, that George Soros—at the very least—has his own agenda, following his money trail through donations made to various organizations by the “Open Society Institute” clearly demonstrates his propensity towards Secular-Socialist/Marxist/Communist/Anti-Semitic individuals and groups; groups that demonstrate a similarity to his world views.

Enter Barack Hussein Obama.

So as to bring us up to speed on Obama’s goal for America, so that readers will be clearly schooled in this man’s past desires—that continue to remain prevalent in Obama’s present ruinous policy maneuvers—and predictable future ambitions for reshaping our precious Republic into a Marxist/Communist state, let us review:

“Barrack Hussein Obama has been labeled by numerous organizations, factions and individuals—left, center AND right—as a Marxist. In his book, “Dreams from My Father”... it is written that Obama would seek out, and preferred to hang out with, Marxists and other such radicals.
In the book, Obama is seemingly self-described as a follower of Marxism; students following such wildly leftist theories knowing full well what Communist monsters were born from Marxism. Obama, in fact, is described by people who have spent a great deal of time in private with the man, as a Marxist-Leninist. Obama firmly grasps the theory of a working class revolution to redistribute wealth and property. He was, in college, 100% in agreement with his Marxist college professors. He is beyond a Socialist, he is a Marxist; self-described.

Dr. John C Drew, college professor and once serious Marxist, converted in 1984 after a year-long study in child labor laws, was a friend and confidant of Obama’s in college. There has never been a more provocative, compelling offer of proof to Obama’s Marxist beliefs than Dr. Drew’s personal account.
THIS INTERVIEW with Dr. Drew encapsulates Obama’s Marxist theories and the left’s attempts to keep those tendencies in the closet—or at the very least tied a little closer to center.

According to Dr. Drew, the most logical professional route for Socialists/Marxists to take, once leaving college, will take them through either community activism or teaching. These are the professions where Socialists are at peace with themselves and their consciences. Obama followed his natural calling.

From there, the next logical path, unless one denounces their beliefs, is politics.

Alcohol, cigarettes and pulpit preaching, however, don’t make much hay in modern day politics.

Obama would need to surround himself with powerful, rich, successful, and polished yet deeply committed Marxists/Socialists/Communists to accomplish his next goals.” Full Article Here

All Obama would require, once exiting the Chicago mob-style political scene, was a fast-track to the White House. His meteoric rise to the Senate, defeating his long-time friend Alice Palmer via the wrecking ball and classic thug-politics, could only continue unabated by the polishing up of Obama as he made his bid for the White House.

Harry Reid—Obama-styled crook as he was—may have called the Senator in for that now infamous prodding in 2006, but Reid wasn’t going to stick his own neck out on the line just yet. Obama would need some serious cash, quietly, to continue his quest towards a goal of a Communist America.

By this point, most Americans are aware of the openly admitted relationship Obama shared with ACORN:

“I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drives in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”—Barack Obama, as quoted in “To Save America by Newt Gingrich”

Likewise, we’re aware of ACORN’s dubious—stating it mildly—past performances in the field of voter registration; these “inaccuracies” invariably, constantly, benefiting liberals:

“ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 13 states since 2004 and was convicted of falsifying signatures in a voter registration drive last July, drawing a fine of $25,000 in Washington State. [That was way back in 2008—you should read the current stuff…]” LittleGreenFootballs.com

Obama, as shown, dealt with ACORN for many years. ACORN’s laundry list of activity towards their goal of voter registration and victories for the Democrats (no matter how fraudulent) including falsifying ballots to boost the Democrats’ election results; encouraging homeless people and drug addicts to vote illegally to bolster the Democrats’ results; and most recently, bribing undercover pimps and prostitutes to vote for the Democrats is thoroughly documented as well. Obama, by working with ACORN, proves he’ll do anything to win; be that in Chicago or D.C.

And we know that Soros is tied to ACORN, as well. As reported on by Investors.com in their revealing article entitled: George Soros: “The Man, The Mind and the Money behind MoveOn”

“Soros’ efforts go beyond spin. He has also bankrolled groups involved in the manipulation of elections, an activity that has increased since his money came into the picture.

Two groups—Americans Coming Together and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now—were sanctioned recently by the Federal Election Commission for fraud.

Soros pledged $10 million to ACT, which has since been fined $775,000 for illegally funneling $70 million set aside for voter registrations to Democratic candidates.

He also gave at least $150,000 to ACORN, the left-wing group best known for pushing minimum-wage hikes, marching for illegal-immigrant amnesty and harassing Wal-Mart. ACORN has been accused of voter fraud in 13 states since 2004 and was convicted of falsifying signatures in a voter registration drive last July, drawing a fine of $25,000 in Washington State.

Soros says he has ended funding to voter-drive organizations, but he still heads a secretive rich-man’s club called “Democracy Alliance” that has doled out $20 million to activist groups like ACORN.”

So tying Soros to Obama through their mutual involvement with ACORN requires very little imagination.

There’s also Soros’ involvement with Progressive Congress Action Fund (PCAF). Publicly donating more than $3 million to that organization makes Soros their largest single personal contributor to date. And what does the PCAF work towards? According to their web-site, they “support progressive policies on everything from environmental regulation to healthcare reform to government guarantees…”

They further consider that “Congress has behaved far less progressively than the people they are supposed to represent”. I don’t know about you, fellow Americans, but this Patriot is not interested in progressivism.

Obviously, based on their public and financial support of Obama, and Soros’ massive donation to the PCAF’s coffers, the trio—PCAF, Obama and Soros—have quite a lot in common.

But trying to lace the threads together, as intriguing as it is, may not be necessary.

Thanks to our friends at LittleGreenFootball.com, well, a picture’s worth a thousand keystrokes:



Yes, that’s Soros, to Obama’s left, at the bottom of the stairs, during a fundraiser in 2007. It sure has been intellectually stimulation, however, piecing the puzzle together.

So, it’s unequivocally clear: Obama and Soros are connected, deeply so; Soros is the money man, as well. Obama and Soros are working together to change the face of our beloved country from a Republic born on Patriotism, Freedom and Exceptionalism to one of Socialism, dependence on Big Government, and Marxism.

Remember, once the Republican model of Freedom (free markets; capitalism; free speech; social, racial and economic freedom; religious freedom; freedom from tyranny; freedom from reliance on foreign dictators and tyranny) collapses under a mountain of entitlements (government mandated socialized medical care costing trillions of dollars; government mandated stimulus packages funded by nearly a trillion dollars of borrowed and printed money; cap-and-trade regulation leading to millions of jobs being pushed off of American soil and millions of additional dollars in taxes levied upon American businesses), then—and only then, according to Marxists—will Communism insert itself through the will of the new regime.

Soros funded Obama in their mutual bid to take over the White House, this we have established.

Obama is quickly moving towards the imploding of the economy, leading to an inevitable collapse of the Republic—through any means possible (including policy implementation, racial agitation, class warfare and deep divides between the parties)—in direct contrast to his campaign promises.

In Part II, it was revealed that Obama’s administration would be loaning $Billions to Petrobras and the question was raised as to where that money would be coming from. Speculations within the administration, as well as the media, arose regarding loan guarantees and whether this gesture towards the oil giant in South America signaled a softening by the administration; could this government be moving towards the allowing of drilling? Is Obama considering opening up to the type of exploration Petrobras is famous for? Will America now begin to realize its own energy independence as he promised in his campaign speeches?

I believe we’ve all come to know better of Obama by now—at least in terms of drilling here at home and building jobs for Americans is concerned.

Just in case one final piece of the interlocking maze has escaped anyone, YES, Soros is one of the most important factors in Petrobras, with an investment in the company of a minimum of $811 million. The term ‘minimum’ is appropriate in that, at any time, as the cost of the shares fluctuate—as happened in 2009—Soros will alter his stake so that he is:

‘“Taking advantage of the spread between the two types of U.S.-listed Petrobras shares”’, said Luis Maizel, president of LM Capital Group LLC, which manages about $4 billion”; according to Bloomberg.com.

So savvy is Maizel, in fact, that he even covers for Soros’ actions as the multi-billionaire seemingly innocently “dumps his interests in Petrobras”. To quote:

“Given that there will most likely never be a change in control in the company, I see no reason to pay a higher price for the common shares”; also from Bloomberg.

Now why would a hedge fund manager need to explain his boss’ actions? The price changed, you did your job; who said anything about controlling Petrobras?

Two days after Obama seized the lives of Gulf-Coast residences with his moratorium on deep-water drilling, Petrobras contacted Laborde Marine. Laborde Marine, a company that services this country’s deep-water drilling market, was headed to Brazil. Coincidence?

No.

Soros has been investing in Socialist organizations in this country for years. His goals are clear. His plans mirror those of Obama; and vice-versa. Take down the Republic, replace it with Communism. Soros has become a leading proponent for a carbon tax; Obama is ramming through Congress his cap-and-trade; were these two separated at birth?

The link between Obama, Soros and Petrobras is clearly defined. But what of Hugo Chavez? Why has he been so silent throughout all of this?

Normally, when it comes to matters involving his neighbors, Chavez becomes more vocal. He seems almost silent, as if he’s on holiday. After all, elections are coming. Yes, he has stood on the proverbial stage, given the same—YAWN—nationalistic, anti-imperialistic speech. But this is the guy who called Bush the devil; the man who blasted the U.N.; and who, until recently, compared the current administration to the previous, calling them warmongers.



And now this?

Remember back to that slip of the tongue by Soros’s hedge fund manager when he spoke of George’s move to alter his position in Petrobras: “There will never be a change in control at the company.”

There are no mistakes in life. Soros remains a powerful player at Petrobras. And Obama controls where, when and how oil and natural gas is drilled for and explored in America. Further, Chavez dictates one of the most ruthless armies in his region; to include FARC guerillas that he is allowing a safe haven in Venezuela. But how would this trio of Socialists ever persuade Petrobras to release their ties with Red China?

After all, not one of the three has majority voting power.

Since when do mercenaries need voting power?

Part IV
The New Communist Oil Monopoly—It will not be Controlled “Over There”

World dominance through the installation of Marxism is traced to its most notorious roots in the regimes of Lenin and his successor, the even more demonic ruler, Joseph Stalin.

These monstrous dictators rose to power initially as their own country battled for its survival against Germany in WWI, as Lenin poisoned his countrymen against Russia to the detriment of the entire State. Millions would perish under Lenin’s murderous rule and only Stalin would prove a worse satanic beast than his predecessor.

Their common underlying political theory was Marxism, a political mantra praised by Barack Obama during his college years; a political theory Obama practices today as he works to collapse the Republic through overloading the system one ruinous policy after another. Additional proof of Obama’s continued belief in Marxism lay in his total flaccidity at combating the internal strife tearing this Nation limb from limb: he ignores the racism; reenergizes class warfare from the Rose garden and ignites intense bipartisanism through fork-tongued rhetoric. In short, through any means possible, Obama is content to tear down the Republic; step one in the Marxist handbook.

Step two in the Marxist handbook, as the new regime moves towards the installation of Communism, is to install the new government; a fantasy or puppet government at first that eases the population into a false sense of hope. Lenin first toppled the Provisional Government, promising the people—the workers, the middle class, and the minorities—that power would be theirs.

Once accomplished, Lenin installed the Bolsheviks; HIS government. And the removal of all freedom and the people’s rights quickly vanished. From there, the murderous rampage of a man intent on “One World” ensued. Lenin signed a pact with Germany, the devil itself, and Communism would lead to the Nazi invasion of Europe.

Stalin followed Lenin’s very steps, yet his murders of and atrocities against his own people were even more brutal; some counts estimate more than one million average Russian citizens died specifically due to Stalin’s orders. He, too, would sign a pact with Germany, with Hitler, and the AXIS was formed. WWII witnessed more deaths of Stalin’s people than any other members of the AXIS. The Iron Curtain lowered because of Stalin. The beginning of the Cold War is attributed to Stalin.

Why would anyone want those days to return?

Power.

Obama has formed an AXIS that is as powerful, as ruthless, and as dangerous as any he relished—and desires to this day—when he praised the Marxist ideologies with his professors.

Obama has formed an army of Muslim soldiers in Kenya, has enacted legislation to build a Civilian National Security Force (Valkyrie, anyone), has befriended Hugo Chavez and his armies, and has compromised the armed forces of America with his apology tour throughout the Muslim world—not to mention his alienation of Israel so as to bolster support with the Palestinians.

Next steps?

China owns more than a $Trillion dollars of American debt and has loaned us $Millions more to finance Obama’s stimulus package. Agitating China has the potential for shutting off this country’s lights, literally. But remember, that pendulum swings both ways, and China knows it. We buy A LOT of Chinese goods. Just take off that ball cap you’re wearing or look at the tag in that summer dress you’re wearing and you’ll understand the sentiment here. But the Chinese government plays ball a bit differently than Americans.

They will tell the G-20 attendees to mind their own business—and they mean it. Don’t push our buttons, our people are accustomed to making $15 a week, we have no problem pulling out of the world order, demands the government of China. So the rest of the world, wisely, plays along. Human rights issues? Obama apologizes for what he considers OUR human rights offenses when facing China’s leaders! Okay, the Chinese have the upper hand; and they know it. So how does Obama remove this “situation”?

The American economy is deeply mired in a double dip, 18+ month recession. American’s net worth is plummeting. Average Americans are rapidly losing all faith in Obama—including the independents. Jobless numbers in Nevada are at 14%, the nation reporting nearly 10%. The stock market has been stuck at roughly 10,000 since Obama took office.

Racial tension today is as rampant as the days of “The Dream”, and our Black President speaks nary a work to ease the country. Class wars are evident as Obama struts through the Rose Garden with average Americans who are unemployed and verbally assaults the GOP for ‘saving the rich an administration back, but now content to cut these poor folk off at the knees’. In short, the United States of America is, at the very least drowning—at worst, she is dying.

It is becoming increasingly evident that Barrack Obama doesn’t care what happens to America. If China calls the note, why would he care? If China becomes aggressive, why would he care? If China decides that America is its next conquest, why would Obama care? He has already set in motion the implosion of the Republic.

Why then, is China so important? Why does Obama continue to placate the Red State?

Obama (through allegiances with Odinga, Mahmoud Abbas and Saudi Arabia, to name a few), Soros (with his $Billions) and Chavez (with armies to include Columbian FARC rebels) have the combined power to negotiate an arrangement with Petrobras and the Brazilian government to change the company structure as it relates to China’s position within Petrobras. Currently, China has invested $10 Billion in the Brazilian oil powerhouse; the Communist State holds roughly 8% of the company stock (interestingly enough, Obama’s administration has pledged matching funds). Perhaps, then, Obama and company are neither attempting to appease China, nor take over Petrobras.

Certainly, if so decided, Chavez could be called upon to infiltrate Petrobras’ interior offices, stage a coup and take over the company.

Obama could play the savior: negotiating with all sides; discussing a resolution whereby Venezuela no longer suffers; the Chinese relinquish some, if not all, of their influence in the oil rich region; America supporting its ally Brazil by investing more funds in Petrobras; with Obama toping it all off by bringing Soros to the table with a generous investment in Petrobras of yet another $Billion+ dollars. War in South America is averted and thousands of Americans go to work in sunny Brazil. Sound far-fetched? Take a look at history.

Only this time, we have a president with much more sinister goals in mind. We’re dealing with a president who has “One World Order” in mind. We have in the White House a Marxist, a Socialist, a Communist; a man who truly believes that America as it is structured today—a Republic born from the dream of escaping tyranny—is destined to be replaced.
Now that the United States is in such dire circumstances, now that our country is leveraged to the hilt, Obama is already receiving acceptance from members of Congress for borrowing from China to finance his stimulus bill (interesting note, Soros stated that a mere $600 Million stimulus should “do the trick” towards unsettling our economy). So Obama is confident that he can convince the people to move forward with plans to further engage Red China. If Congress is on board, he’ll argue, why shouldn’t the rest of Americans be?

As a note, before moving further, note that Obama continues to challenge the court ordered ban on his moratoriums on deep water drilling in the Gulf; thousands of Americans in that region alone are still not working.

Now that Obama has illustrated to Petrobras his capabilities in bringing to a halt all American-based competition for his Brazilian partner, and further convinced China of his ability to sell this country to the Communist state with very little resistance from Congress (or the American people, for that matter), all that’s required now are final negotiations.

The moratoriums on drilling in this country will not be lifted. Drilling off the Alaska coast will never commence. Cap-and-trade will be passed.

Laborde Marine is headed to Brazil. Obama’s power to persuade Congress into matching China’s loan to Petrobras will not be questioned. Soros will continue to invest $Billions towards destroying this nation’s ability to sustain its own energy needs, while sending every possible American job to any other country but the United States.

Obama will then, very soon, sit with Petrobras’ management, Soros, Chavez and China and form the World Oil and Exploration Council.

America will have finally been sold to China, through a treaty relinquishing our debt based on mutual acceptance of Communist philosophy and the abolishment of presidential term limits; Marxism will begin to take hold, Soros and Obama will rule as did Lenin and Stalin, and the whole of America will cry out, “My God, why hast thou forsaken us?”

Conclusion

Never before in the history of the United States of America has this country been so close to the brink of Communism. Even in the early 1970s, as the Weather Underground Association, led by Bill Ayers and his murderous clan of terrorists blew up government buildings and called for revolution, there was a Republican government in place. Even as Carter devastated our economy, our parents knew he was simply a buffoon; he was never revealed as being an enemy of America.

But now, THIS man, this unmistakable Marxist, anti-American, nation destroying enemy of our most basic core values—this Barack Hussein Obama—is devastatingly close to completely collapsing our economy, our brotherhood, our very way of life; all towards his goal of the installation of Marxism.

I had dinner with a gentleman from New Orleans the other night, a gentleman who shares my beliefs, hopes, and fears for our great nation.


We spoke for hours on the current occupant’s past, present and fast approaching future. We are in complete agreement: Obama is Lenin/Stalin/Marx incarnate. We know what Obama is up to. We concur that the man has an agenda. I had not yet completed my research into this document, yet had I, I’m certain we’d have spent additional hours in agreement on this as well.

Speaking to the choir, however, is not going to unseat the Bolsheviks!
The people who are going to allow Obama to continue his assault upon America will never read this article. The lemmings that will pull the lever for the secular-socialists don’t even have a computer, if I may venture a guess. The target audience pin-pointed for the t-shirt rallies by ACORN (or whatever they call themselves today) may not even have cable TV—they certainly don’t know who Glen Beck is!

It’s time for us to get out from behind the keypad, find those pockets of Obama supporters and try, with all the strength that buoyed George Washington across that river, to influence just ONE of those lonely minds. These are the people who are standing in the mud, looking up at Lenin and saying, “teach us, oh wise one, we’ll follow you to the pits of hell.”

I, for one, am committing myself to finding those souls standing in the mud.

Are you?

[vector7]

Crash Course series on Socializing America
Part 2

Glenn Beck-09/07/10-A


Glenn Beck-09/07/10-B


Glenn Beck-09/07/10-C

Part 1

[vector7]

Nancy Pelosi Is Headed To Canada And May Shut Down America's Next Big Oil Source

Gus Lubin | Sep. 10, 2010, 10:06 AM | 477 | 7




Reps. Ed Markey and Nancy Pelosi are in Canada this week to visit the Tar Sands and make up their minds about pipeline running from Alberta to Texas.

US industry might want to watch this one closely.

Markey was the most vocal congressman in condemning big oil following the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.

He was the one who got BP to install the oil cam. At one point he made a big deal about how all oil companies shared the same error-filled disaster handbook. And he said BP should be banned from new offshore permits for 7 years.

American liberals have so far stayed out of the hotly contested tar sands debate.

If Markey and Pelosi come out against the pipeline, then America risks losing access to immense oil reserves, as big as anything west of Saudi Arabia.

[vector7]

Soros Panel Draft Foresees Bank Tax, CO2 Auctions to Aid Climate

November 04, 2010, 8:19 PM EDT More From Businessweek

By Alex Morales and Jim Efstathiou Jr.



Nov. 5 (Bloomberg) -- At least $65 billion could be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming will conclude today, according to a draft of its report.

The panel, which includes billionaire George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, estimated that selling carbon emissions permits could generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the draft dated Oct. 4 and obtained yesterday. The UN will release the study in New York today.

The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged to poor nations by 2020 at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The draft report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

“The ball is really now in the court of governments to move forward on generating these resources,” David Waskow, senior adviser on climate finance for the development charity Oxfam International, said in a telephone interview from Washington. “One can raise substantial public finance from public sources and do it in a way that’s not going to place additional pressure on national budgets and taxpayers.”

Appointed by UN
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed the panel, called the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, in February. It’s led by Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and his Norwegian counterpart Jens Stoltenberg. The 21-member group also includes Soros, Summers and Deutsche Bank AG Vice Chairman Caio Koch-Weser.

The draft report didn’t specify what financial transactions would be covered by the tax beyond saying the focus would be on international currency sales. A UN spokesman confirmed the report was coming and didn’t discuss details of its conclusions.

“The report is going to say that it’s definitely possible to put together the $100 billion a year in financing for climate change,” Dan Shepard, a UN spokesman, said in an interview. “But there are challenges. The report has to be looked at by governments because they’re the ones that would have do it. But it can be done practically.”

The draft was written before the panel’s last meeting, which was on Oct. 12 in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. Changes may be made in the version released today.

Tobin Tax
If confirmed today, the findings would add to the weight behind calls for a tax on financial speculation, sometimes termed a Tobin tax after James Tobin, the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist who first suggested the idea in 1971.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and labor groups including the U.K. Trades Union Congress have supported the idea. President Barack Obama’s administration opposes it. A tax of 0.05 percent on financial transactions may raise as much as $700 billion a year, according to WWF, a global environmental activist group.

A financial transactions tax would be “difficult to implement universally” and therefore “only feasible to implement among interested countries,” the panel said in its draft report.

Carbon Plan
The panel assumed a carbon price of as much as $25 a ton on emissions in the levy it suggested. An additional $5 billion could be gained from a tax on carbon offsets in the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, which polluters buy to make up for emissions elsewhere, according to the study. Private offsets could generate as much as $14 billion.

An additional $12 billion would come from a levy on shipping and aviation, the draft report showed. Waskow said the levies on transportation need to be structured so as not to harm developing nations.

Other sources of finance identified in the report included direct contributions from government budgets, a measure it said could generate the full $100 billion while being politically “challenging.”

The panel also looked at a “wires charge” on electricity generation, which it said could provide $5 billion; the removal of fossil fuel-subsidies, which could give $8 billion; and a carbon tax, which would garner $10 billion. Private finance could provide a net $18 billion, it said.

--Editors: Reed Landberg, Larry Liebert

To contact the reporters on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net; Jim Efstathiou Jr. in New York at jefstathiou@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Reed Landberg at landberg@bloomberg.net; Larry Liebert at liebert@bloomberg.net.

[vector7]

Glenn Beck Part 1 - The Puppet Master Revealed Tomorrow 11/8/2010


Glenn Beck Part 2 - The Puppet Master Revealed Tomorrow 11/8/2010


Glenn Beck Part 3 - The Puppet Master Revealed Tomorrow 11/8/2010

[American Patriot]

Just noted this:

Just when you thought it was safe to take that long-planned vacation to Caracas,

In all my wildest sailing dreams I won't be going to Venezuela. Not now, and probably not ever.

[vector7]

Part 1

George Soros and the Progressive Shadow Government Destroying America

A MUST SEE!!!


Glenn Beck Part 1 - The Puppet Master Soros 11_9_2010


Glenn Beck Part 2 - The Puppet Master Soros 11_9_2010



Glenn Beck Part 3 - The Puppet Master Soros 11_9_2010

[vector7]

Soros group wants Obama to rule by executive order

Organization cites mid-terms, claims progressives registered victory

NEW YORK – It was progressives who won the mid-term elections, particularly incumbents in a socialist-founded congressional caucus that emerged from last week's ballots virtually unscathed, boasted an article published by the George Soros-funded Institute for Policy Studies, a Marxist-oriented think-tank in Washington, D.C.

The article recommends that President Obama govern from executive order to push through a progressive (Marxist) agenda.

"Progressives won in the 2010 mid-term elections," wrote Karen Dolan, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, and director of the Cities for Progress and Cities for Peace projects based at the radical organization.

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members," she wrote, in the piece published on the IPS website.

"By contrast, the conservative Blue Dog Democratic caucus was more than sliced in half from 54 members to only 26. Further, of the 34 conservative Dems who voted against Obama's Healthcare Reform, a mere 12 won re-election," she wrote.

Dolan declared that "our work is now finally beginning."

"The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn't have it then; We don't have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team."

She went on to recommend that progressives "throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and let's push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him."

WND reported the Congressional Progressive Caucus was founded by the Democratic Socialists of America, or DSA.

Caucus member Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kirkpatrick, D-Mich., was defeated in her primary, and just three others lost in the general election, Reps. Alan Grayson of Florida, John Hall of New York and Phil Hare of Illinois. Hall and Hare are two-term incumbents while Grayson is a freshman.

Hare drew national attention earlier this year when he was captured on video by a constituent (link: http://biggovernment.com/publius/201...-constitution/) admitting that when it comes to health care reform, he doesn't "worry about the Constitution."

Working within Democratic Party

Demonstrating the close relationship between the DSA and the Progressive Caucus, two weeks ago WND reported the Democratic chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee was caught on tape meeting with DSA leaders to discuss how the group can cooperate to strengthen President Obama and advance their "one-world" plans.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., who has a long history with the DSA, was recorded promoting a "one-world" government while asking the socialist group to organize against the war in Afghanistan and in support of Obama's policies.

Conyers was a special guest at a two-day convention in Detroit in March 1982 that resulted in the formation of DSA.

Conyers has spoken at numerous DSA events, including at the socialist group's national dinner in 2008, where he was the keynote.

Conyers was one of 13 founders of Congressional Black Caucus, which long has promoted far-left causes. He is the most prominent lawmaker lobbying to free Mumia Abu-Jamal, the convicted murderer of a Philadelphia police officer. He has advocated on behalf of the Marxist Nicaraguan Sandinista dictatorship and has called for the U.S. to end its sanctions against Fidel Castro's communist regime.

As WND was first to report, the DSA has been linked closely to the Democratic Party's Progressive Caucus.

Until November 2002, the website of the Progressive Caucus was hosted by the DSA. Following news reports that drew attention to the congressional website being hosted by the socialist organization, the list of CPC names was moved to the website of Sen. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., an avowed socialist, and eventually to its own site.

The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.

"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."

Nevertheless, as WND reported, the goal of the DSA never has been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism.

Another song on the site was "Red Revolution," sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng."

Another song removed after WND's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, we'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie."

Obama connected to socialist group

Top Democratic Socialists of America members have been closely linked for years to Obama.

Obama himself spoke at a forum organized by the group at the University of Chicago in early 1996 called "Employment and Survival in Urban America."

Quentin Young, considered the father of the U.S. single-payer health-care movement, is a longtime Democratic Socialists of America activist. Young has had a relationship with Obama, particularly in the 1990s, when he reportedly advised Obama on health care.

Young reportedly was present at a 1995 meeting at the home of former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, who was said to have launched Obama's political career.

Young has been active in Chicago socialist circles and was previously accused of membership in a communist group. In 1992, Chicago's branch of the Democratic Socialists of America awarded Young, a member, with their highest honor – the Debs Award.

In a 2008 article in the official Communist Party USA magazine, Young noted Obama previously expressed support for a single-payer universal health-care program, although he later waffled when asked about his position.

As an Illinois state senator representing a mostly black district on the South Side of Chicago, Obama publicly supported universal health care. He also co-sponsored the Bernardin Amendment, which did not pass but would have amended the Illinois State Constitution to add health care to the list of basic rights for residents.

Meanwhile, Obama spoke at the March 29, 1998, memorial service for Chicago Democratic Socialists of America member Saul Mendelson.

Timuel Black, a member activist, mediated political disputes on behalf of Obama in the 1990s and was reportedly involved in Obama's campaign committee during his successful 2004 Senate race.

Longtime member and activist Arnold Wolf was a member of "Rabbis for Obama" and has held fundraisers in his home for Obama, including a function in 1995 that was aimed at introducing Obama to the Hyde Park activist community.

Eliseo Medina, international executive vice president of the Service Employees International Union, has been honored by Democratic Socialists of America. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council.

WND reported Medina, speaking at a 2009 Washington, D.C., conference, declared granting citizenship to millions of illegal aliens would expand the progressive electorate and help ensure a progressive governing coalition for the long term.

[vector7]

Part 2
George Soros and the Progressive Shadow Government Destroying America

A MUST SEE!!!



Glenn Beck-11/10/10-A



Glenn Beck-11/10/10-B


Glenn Beck-11/10/10-C


Part 1 is posted here.

[vector7]

George Soros Touts China as Leader of New World Order

Raven Clabough | The New American
17 November 2010


Leftist Billionaire George Soros

Leftist billionaire George Soros continues to make headlines with his disturbing sentiments regarding a new world order. At the Canadian International Council on Monday evening, where he accepted his Globalist of the Year award, Soros not only defended the formulation of a new world order, but asserted that China should be one of the global leaders. At the ceremony, “Soros announced that China’s grip on the global economy is getting tighter and compared the United States’ recent economic woes to the decline of the United Kingdom following World War II,” reports The Blaze.

Soros’ assertions came after harsh criticism of political gridlock on Capitol Hill, which he contends has stalled economic reforms in the United States.

Soros contends that China “has risen rapidly by looking out for its own interests.” (It seems worthwhile to point out that Soros’ praise of China for prioritizing its own needs is confusing as he has bashed the United States and the capitalist economy for doing the same in the Story of Stuff video series.)

In his acceptance speech, he adds, “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well.”

Soros’ sentiments are reminiscent of statements he made in 2009 to the Financial Times. He claimed that China would supplant the United States as the leader of the new world order, and that America should simply accept it and not stand in the way of world progress. As a result, the American government, according to Soros, should not resist the decline of the dollar, nor the decrease in living standards and the introduction of global currency.

YouTube - Soros: China Must Be Part Of The New World Order

When the Financial Times asked Soros what Obama should discuss in his 2009 visit to China, Soros answered, “This would be the time because I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order.”

“I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.”

He added that the orderly decline of the dollar was “desirable” as it would allow the entire system to be reconstituted towards global currency.

According to Prison Planet, in 2009, “Soros predicted that China would become the new engine of the global economy, replacing the U.S., and that this would slow economic growth and reduce living standards. Soros characterized the United States as a drag on the global economy because of the declining dollar.”

At the time, Soros added that the G20 was a move in the right direction towards global governance.

On Monday, however, Soros voiced his disappointment in the G20. “The world order as we know it is turning into disorder. The G20 looked like the new central area of cooperation, and it actually did perform at the initial conference, but ever since then opinions have been pulling it apart and in Seoul I think that process was taken a step further.”

Soros recognizes that the path to the new world order would not be an easy one. The Globe and Mail reports, “Looking forward, Mr. Soros said global governance is a pressing concern, but it is hard to implement.”

Soros states, “Whereas globalization and deregulation spread like a virus, regulation is extremely difficult to achieve on an international scale.”

According to the Globe and Mail, “Mr. Soros chose not to attack the U.S. for revving up its printing presses in its new round of quantitative easing, focusing instead on China’s foreign exchange policies. Speaking at a gala hosted by the Canadian International Council in Toronto, Mr. Soros and China’s devalued currency manipulated global trade and distorts the global economic recovery.”

Most disturbingly, Soros indicated at the gala, “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”

To clarify, the progressive Soros is claiming that the government of China — the same that suppresses dissension, forces abortions on its citizens, and tortures members of the Falun Gong faith — is a better functioning government than that of the United States.

To an extent, Soros’ allegations make sense, as they are representative of the typical progressive mind-set that a bigger and more powerful (and stifling) central government is the ideal government.

For example, progressive President Woodrow Wilson once said, “You know it was Jefferson who said that the best government is that which does as little governing as possible … but that time is passed. America is not now and cannot in the future be a place for unrestricted individual enterprise.”

Given that Soros hopes to play a role in the formulation of a new world order, has proven himself to play influential roles in the collapse of regimes, has targeted the United States as an “obstacle” in the way of a new world order, and now admittedly favors the government policies of China, shouldn’t Americans be concerned?

[vector7]

George Soros: The Puppetmaster

Raven Clabough | The New American
11 November 2010

Fans of the Glenn Beck program on the Fox News Channel have long agreed with the conservative pundit that George Soros, left-wing billionaire, is a “spooky dude.” Just how spooky, however, remained to be seen, until Beck’s television special, “ George Soros: The Puppetmaster,” which was viewed by over three million Americans on its first day.

Being responsible for the orchestration of both economic collapses and communist revolutions in a number of countries; being a rabid Anti-Semite, anti-capitalist, and a leading proponent of the formulation of a new world order; and harboring delusional egotistical fantasies about himself prove Soros to be a far more dangerous individual than anyone could have dreamed.

Anti-Semitic Background

George Soros was born George Schwartz in Hungary in 1930. Both of his parents were Jews, though non-religious. In his early childhood, Schwartz's parents changed their last name to “Soros” to disguise their Jewish background and embrace their Hungarian roots.

When Soros was a teenager under Hitler, he and his family helped to confiscate land from his Jewish neighbors. He indicated in an interview much later in his life that he did not feel guilty for it.

“I don’t deny the Jews their national existence,” he told Steve Kroft in a 1998 60 Minutes interview, “but I don’t want to be part of it.”

In his book Underwriting Democracy, Soros attributed his lack of Jewish sympathy to his mother:

My mother was quite anti-Semitic, and ashamed of being Jewish.

I left Hungary behind and my Jewishness did not express itself in a sense of tribal loyalty that would have led me to support Israel.

Economic Collapse

Known as “the man who broke the bank of England,” Soros prides himself on this billion-dollar endeavor. In The Shadow Party, Richard Poe relates:

He famously shorted the British pound in 1992, wagering $10 billion on a drop in its value. In a desperate bid to keep its currency afloat, the Bank of England tried to buy up pounds as fast as Soros could dump them. However, as more and more investors followed Soros’ lead and joined his efforts, the Bank of England eventually gave up.

The British pound was devalued, launching a tsunami of financial turmoil from Tokyo to Rome. When it was over, millions of hardworking Britons confronted their diminished savings, while Soros counted his gains. He had personally made nearly $2 billion on the catastrophe.

In 1997, the Malaysian Prime Minister accused Soros of doing the same to the Malaysian currency. In Thailand, Soros was labeled “an economic war criminal [who] sucks the blood from the people.”

According to Beck, Soros has been accused of causing financial collapses in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Japan, and Russia.


Revolution Orchestrator

In the book The Shadow Party, writers David Horowitz and Richard Poe outline a step-by-step system Soros used to bring about regime collapse. Beck explains that Soros has made progress in this arena in efforts to undermine the U.S. government.


►Step 1 — Create a Shadow Government

Under the guise of humanitarian aide, Soros created the Open Society Institute (OSI), which donates billions of dollars to “charities” around the globe, including the 2000 “shadow conventions” which were hosted by Ariana Huffington and Reverend Jim Wallis, a self-proclaimed Marxist.

Of the many “charities” that have received funding from the OSI are ACORN, Apollo Alliance, Free Press, MoveOn.org, the TIDES Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center for American Progress, National Council of La Raza, Campaign for America’s Future, Foundation to Promote Open Society, and many, many more. In fact, the list was so long that when Glenn Beck revealed the scroll on which only half of the names of the “charities” appeared, it took up the length of his studio.

Likewise, by way of the Center for American Progress, a leftist think-tank, Soros has helped to manipulate America’s federal policies, including in the handling of the BP oil spill.

Through Soros’ Tides Foundation, organizations such as the Center for American Progress, the Institute for Policy Studies, and the Apollo Alliance — the latter of which wrote the $787 billion stimulus bill — are funded. The Tides Foundation also played an intricate role in the funding for the Chicago Climate Exchange.

►Step 2 — Control the Airwaves

Perhaps the most obvious of Soros’ endeavors, his Open Society Institute, recently donated $1.8 billion to National Public Radio (NPR) — interestingly, in that same week Juan Williams was fired for his appearance on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor — so that NPR could hire 100 new journalists.

Similarly, Soros wrote a $100 million check for Media Matters, asking them to destroy Fox News.

His Open Society Institute funds Free Press, an organization that has driven the movement to end “hate speech,” i.e. conservative speech, on talk radio, as well as fund the Huffington Post.

Additionally, George Soros has donated $1 million to TeaPartytracker.org, a website created by the NAACP to help combat alleged Tea Party racism.

►Step 3 — Destabilize the State

George Soros has openly admitted that the United States needs an “orderly decline of the dollar” in order to bring about the new world order, in which the “United States should find its place.” In order for this to happen, according to Soros, “[Americans] would have to give up some of their privileges.”

As of now, the United States remains the “main obstacle of a stable and just world order,” explains Soros.

Likewise, Soros has declared that capitalism “poses some serious threats to open society.”

He asserts that in order “to stabilize and regulate a truly global economy, we need a global society to support our global economy.”

The sovereign United States poses a threat to Soros’ global exploits and so must be conquered.

Through his various “charitable” donations to groups such as La Raza and MoveOn.org, Soros has helped create disorder and panic by way of angry protests. Working closely with Van Jones, former member of STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), and Zack Exley, former trainer of anarchists in the Ruckus Society, as well as the founder of Students for a Democratic Society, Alan Haber, Soros has made friends with professional agitators.

He has also launched a campaign against capitalism, infiltrating academia to promote anti-capitalist sentiment among students. Soros’ Rides Center has funded the creation of the Story of Stuff video series, video curricula for students that vilify capitalism and the American love of capitalism.

Likewise, Soros’ think tanks such as the Center for American Progress and the Institute for Policy Studies, both which have massive influence in the White House, continue to encourage the reckless spending which is crippling the American economy.

According to Zubi Diamond, author of The Wizards of Wall Street, the Federal Reserve’s newest action of “quantitative easing” is “in alignment with George Soros’ agenda to destroy global capitalism” by way of declining the dollar.

Diamond contends that Soros is betting on a U.S. financial collapse. “The collapse of capitalism will be a big day for George Soros and members of the Managed Funds Association. They are betting against the dollar and moving assets to gold and to the emerging economies. They are betting against U.S. survival as a capitalist nation.”

Likewise, Soros played an integral role in helping to elect President Barack Obama, whose administration, according to Diamond, has launched a “war on capitalism” and a “war on wealth,” particularly under the direction of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Combining agitation with a weak economy, Soros has the perfect formula for destabilizing the state.

►Step 4 — Provoke an Election Crisis

According to Richard Poe, George Soros used Sen. John McCain to push the McCain-Feingold Act, a law which restricts the ability of grassroots groups to advertise on television, while allowing major media free rein to promote their Democratic candidates.

The act was devised by Soros in 1994, explains Poe, but did not get passed until 2002 as a result of the efforts of Senators McCain and Feingold. Following the passage of the act, Soros rewarded McCain for his efforts by giving money to McCain’s Reform Institute.

Following the passage of the McCain-Feingold Act, there was an explosion of 501(c)(3) groups. Examples of such groups include Reverend Jim Wallis’ Sojourners, Van Jones’ Color for Change, and Soros’ MoveOn.org. Are you beginning to recognize a pattern?

Soros’ Open Society Institute also funds ACORN, the group behind massive voter fraud in 2008, and SOS (Secretary of State project), since the Secretary of State is the one who certifies election results. It has been widely claimed that it is by way of one of Soros’ SOS agents that Al Franken was able to win the election in Minnesota in 2009.

►Step 5 — Take Power/Stage Demonstrations

According to Beck, this process is only beginning but is underway. “We have seen the beginnings already, through the One Nation Rally in Washington, D.C., which was a project of the Tides Center.”

Also, OSI’s donations to aggressive vigilante groups like the Ruckus Society, and Faith and Public Life are not-so-subtle ways of promoting violent demonstrations.

Likewise, Bertha Lewis of ACORN, a group funded by George Soros, attempted to incite fear when she told a room full of Young Socialists that they would be attacked in their sleep by Tea Partiers. She concluded, “Organize, get out into the streets, you really have got to circle the wagon, this is not rhetoric or hyperbole. This is real.”

Success?

According to The Shadow Party, Soros adhered to this very system when he helped to bring about the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic, as well as revolutions in Ukraine, Croatia, and Jordan.

Anti-American Soros

Soros is a proponent of globalization, and as such, is a necessary enemy of the United States. In a 1998 article entitled “The Crisis of Global Capitalism,” Soros wrote, “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions. Interestingly, the greatest opposition to this idea is coming from the United States.”

Soros wants American authority to be replaced by greater authority in the hands of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and supports the creation of the International Credit Insurance Corp to establish supervision over national supervisory authorities.

He also contends that the United States will have to lose its role as an undisputed dominant force. “The veto power that we have in the International Monetary Fund will disappear. We will be downsized. At the same time, hopefully, we will have a better working system and opponents will be more downsized than we will.”

Soros has also called for cap and trade as a “great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence,” though it is clear that his support of such a system rests upon the negative impacts that cap and trade would have on the American economy.

In a 2008 interview with BBC, Soros said, “I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.”

Soros the Narcissist

Soros has narcissistic tendencies, or “messianic fantasies.” In his book, The Independent, Soros wrote, “It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” He later observed, “If truth be known, I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood which I felt I had to control, otherwise I might end up in the loony bin. But when I made my way in the world, I wanted to indulge myself in my fantasies to the extent that I could afford.”

Soros’ Response

Prior to the airing of Beck’s "Puppetmaster" episode, Soros’ right-hand man reached out to an executive of the Glenn Beck program. According to Soros’ aide, Beck is embarking on a dangerous mission, as he is engaging in a right-wing conspiracy. The aide also accused Beck of “hurting Mr. Soros and his business.”

When it became clear that Beck’s executive would not budge on the airing of the "Puppetmaster" episode, Soros’ aide gave Beck’s executive a gift for Glenn Beck — a threat cloaked as a gift. The aide handed the executive a 1957 DVD created by a communist, Budd Schulberg: A Face in the Crowd, starring Andy Griffith.

The video is about an alcoholic promoted to national fame as a television idol, but who, despite his fame and fortune, proves to be nothing more than an evil person. He uses his influence to sway the masses and control political elections. Soros’ aide made it very clear that they believe the character in the film to be a close depiction of Glenn Beck, though ironically, many think Griffith’s character more closely resembles Soros.

Also, on the same day the first installment of “Soros: The Puppetmaster” was aired, the Open Society Institute released a short video highlighting Soros’ efforts as a philanthropist and celebrating his various “achievements.”

Beck believes that Soros’ actions in response to the "Puppetmaster" episode indicate panic.

Let’s hope for the sake of America that he is right.

[vector7]

George Soros also profiting off controversial new TSA scanners

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
11/15/10 12:55 PM EST



Be sure and read Tim Carney’s Examiner column today on the politically-connected lobby for the controversial new TSA scanners that are upsetting airline employees and travelers everywhere. Carney notes that a company called Rapiscan got a $165 million contract for the new body image scanners four days after the underwear-bomber incident this past Christmas. Not surprisingly, Rapiscan is politically connected, observes Carney:

Rapiscan got the other naked-scanner contract from the TSA, worth $173 million. Rapiscan’s lobbyists include Susan Carr, a former senior legislative aide to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. When Defense Daily reported on Price’s appropriations bill last winter, the publication noted “Price likes the budget for its emphasis on filling gaps in aviation security, in particular the whole body imaging systems.”

Then this morning Carney also noted that former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff was flacking for Rapiscan.
As for the company’s other political connections, it also appears that none other than George Soros, the billionaire funder of the country’s liberal political infrastructure, owns 11,300 shares of OSI Systems Inc., the company that owns Rapiscan. Not surprisingly, OSI’s stock has appreciated considerably over the course of the year. Soros certainly is a savvy investor.
Note that OSI Systems CEO is Deepak Chopra, but it appears to be a different Deepak Chopra than the more famous liberal new age guru.

[American Patriot]

Rapscallion!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

[vector7]

George Soros: The United States Must Stop Resisting The Orderly Decline Of The Dollar, The Coming Global Currency And The New World Order

Courtesy of Michael Snyder of Economic Collapse

Submitted by ilene on 01/03/2011 00:48 -0500



In the video you are about to see, George Soros talks about "the creation of a New World Order", he discusses the need for a "managed decline" of the U.S. dollar and he talks at length of the global need for a true world currency. So just who is George Soros? Well, he is a billionaire "philanthropist" who came to be known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England" when he raked in a staggering one billion dollars during the 1992 "Black Wednesday" currency crisis. These days Soros is most famous for being perhaps the most "politically active" (at least openly) billionaire in the world. His Open Society Institute is in more than 60 countries and it spends approximately $600 million a year promoting the ideals that Soros wants promoted. Soros and his pet organizations have played a key role in quite a few "revolutions" around the globe over the last several decades, but these days the main goal of George Soros is to bring political change to the United States.

So exactly what is it that George Soros is trying to accomplish? Well, in a nutshell, what he wants is a Big Brother-style one world government based on extreme European-style socialism, strict population control and the radical green agenda. It would be a world where the state tightly regulates everything that we do for the greater benefit of the environment and of society as a whole.

However, Soros is not the "mastermind of the New World Order" that some have tried to make him out to be. The truth is that to those in the international banking elite, Soros is considered to be something of a "black sheep" and an "outsider". Much of what Soros is trying to accomplish lines up with the goals of the international banking elite, but what they don't like is that Soros won't stop publicly talking about a global currency and a "New World Order". Of course the international banking elite very much want a global currency and a "New World Order", but what they don't need is a "squeaky wheel" like Soros running around drawing unneeded attention to those goals.

Also, Soros does not seem to understand that both sides of the political spectrum in the United States are deeply influenced by the international banking elite. Sadly, the truth is that the same handful of elitist organizations has dominated the cabinets of every single president that we have had since World War II. If you doubt this, just check out how many members of each presidential administration over the last 40 years have belonged to either the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group. If you have never looked into this before, you will be absolutely shocked. No matter what president we elect, it is always the exact same organizations that always dominate their cabinets.

But Soros still seems very much trapped within the left/right paradigm and he seems absolutely obsessed with destroying the Republican Party. For example, Soros spent an insane amount of money attempting to defeat George W. Bush back in 2004. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, George Soros donated $23,581,000 during that election cycle to political organizations that were trying to keep Bush from being reelected.

Soros has also been a tremendous backer of Barack Obama, although lately Soros seems a bit disenchanted with him. Through organizations such as the Center for American Progress and MoveOn.org, Soros is constantly trying to influence the state of American politics.

So what is George Soros thinking about these days?

Well, in the video posted below you will see Soros discussing "an orderly decline" of the U.S. dollar, the coming global currency and the importance of the New World Order....



Did you noticed how uncomfortable Soros was when he was saying the term "New World Order"?

The truth is that he knows exactly what that phrase means. He knows that it is a phrase that he probably shouldn't say and that will get a lot of attention.

But he said it anyway.

Soros also seemed a bit uncomfortable as he discussed "an orderly decline" of the U.S. dollar.

Soros has been saying the the U.S. dollar needs to go down for quite a while now, and he speaks of the coming fall of the dollar as if it is inevitable.

The only thing that Soros seems to fear is that the "managed decline" of the dollar could "get out of hand" and could lead to global financial chaos.

Soros even had the gall to say that having the dollar be the reserve currency of the world is not in our national interest and that a move to a global currency is "a healthy, if painful, adjustment" that we are just going to have to endure for the greater good of the world economy.
But shouldn't the American people have something to say about all of this?
Perhaps the American people do not want a "managed decline" of the U.S. dollar.

Perhaps the American people do not want any part of a new "global currency".

Perhaps the American people do not want any part of a "New World Order".
But to men like George Soros, it doesn't really matter what "the little people" think. In the world that Soros lives in, those with overwhelming amounts of money and power know what is best for the rest of us, and if "the little people" don't seem to want to go along initially then public opinion can be bought if you just spend enough money.

The sad truth is that we already live in a global economy. Just go into just about any store across the United States and start picking up products to see where they were made. Very few of the things we buy are still made in the United States.

Today, labor is a global commodity. American workers must now directly compete for jobs with those making slave labor wages in China and India. The fact that millions of U.S. jobs are being offshored and outsourced does not bother advocates of globalism at all because it is supposedly a beneficial thing for the overall global economy.

And most Americans have little to no idea just how much influence international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO have over our daily lives.

The truth is that we already live in a world that has been deeply, deeply integrated. As this continues, at some point it will only seem "natural" for America to agree to a true global currency and full global political integration.

Let us hope that day never arrives. Or at least let us hope that the American people wake up enough to not just go passively into a "New World Order".

A global economy is bad for America and a global government would be really bad for America.

But perhaps you disagree. Perhaps you believe that integrating our economy, our currency and our government with the rest of the world would be a wonderful thing. If that is the case, please feel free to leave a comment explaining exactly why globalism is such a wonderful thing for all of us....