Latest superb video here ;
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU&feature=email#
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Pat Condell for EU President
Pat Condell for President of the EU !
Latest superb video here ;
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU&feature=email#
Latest superb video here ;
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJKRF2uB8xU&feature=email#
Day 6 of Year 2009 PO (Post Obama )
Image - He isnt the messiah, he is just a naughty boy.
Day 6 of year 2009 PO ( Post Obama )
Peace be upon him and Blessed be his name.
Woke up again and threw the curtains back expecting to see a whole new world outside my windows.
Yet again I was dissappointed.
By now shouldnt the angels have arrived, streams of milk and honey be flowing through the streets, an end end to crime and death itself, no more disease and poverty and a world where the white man can stop whipping himself for being evil racists who enslave innocent ethnic minorities ?
Oh well, at least the BBC can keep reminding me what day it is. Its day 6 of the 2009Post Obama Era.
The Black Emperor of Liberalism and his Empire Of Love that is the United States will solve all our problems - he is the Obama Messiah isnt he ? - he isnt just another naughty boy !
The BBC are thankfully keeping a tally of what day it is since the Obama Messiah got into office - it is now day 6 of 2009 PO.
I expect that any moment now miracles will happen and that Obama ( peace be upon him and blessed be his name) will change the whole world forever.
Lets ignore the fact that he already looks knackered, stressed out, out of his depth and looks as though he cant cope with the job already.
I detect a powerful psychological flaw in Obama and I suspect that before long it will be his wife running the US , not him as he wont be able to cope with the job.
The article below reveals that he is just another liberal fascist - telling people they cannot listen to the radio shows he doesnt like and that ' I am the President ' - what next a big silver necklace with the presidential seal on it made with diamonds and a jacked up convertible limo to pimp his ride as he blings the whitehouse up.
As the great philosopher Albert Camus wrote ' A slave begins by demanding justice and ends by wanting to wear a crown. He must dominate in his turn' .
Interesting article below with a great quote from Rush Limbaugh ;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4331839/Barack-Obama-picks-a-fight-with-Rush-Limbaugh-as-bipartisan-spirit-crumbles.html
Mr Obama has told Republicans in Washington to stop listening to the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, risking a new culture war with conservative voters.
His exhortation came as he enraged other Republicans by reversing George W Bush's ban on funding international aid to charities that perform or provide information about abortions.
After less than a week in office, Mr Obama's presidency is already encountering the very partisan bickering he had pledged to stamp out during his first 100 days.
He faces mounting criticism over his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, from Republican leaders who say the legislation has been drawn up without the input which Mr Obama had promised to allow them.
The president responded with a clear signal that he is prepared to ram the bill through without the bipartisan consensus he promised to construct, telling Republican leaders from the House of Representatives: "I won. I'm the president."
He then told them to break free of the confrontational mindset epitomised by Mr Limbaugh, the highest paid talk show host in America. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Mr Obama said.
His comments followed a blunt attack on him by Mr Limbaugh, who declared on air that he hoped Mr Obama would fail as president because otherwise it will usher in socialism.
With characteristic robustness, he said: "We are being told we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over and grab our ankles... because his father was black, because he's the first black president, we've got to accept this."
After the euphoria of his inauguration, Mr Obama's team have been handed a cold dose of political reality. A series of controversial policy decisions, mistakes and unforeseen events has brought home the difficulty of bridging the divisions in Washington.
Mr Obama has pledged to end the culture wars on social issues that have riven American politics for a generation and did not allow television cameras to film him signing the executive order reversing the Bush abortion funding ban on aid agencies abroad, in order not to provoke pro-life groups.
When he finally did sign the order he issued a statement in a bid to placate abortion critics by promising to "reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies." He added: "It is time that we end the politicisation of this issue."
But despite his efforts, the reaction was brutal. Family groups accused him of plotting the "infanticide" of African children. Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer, president of the American Values pressure group, said: "It is both sad and infuriating that in the same week President Obama extended new rights to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and began planning to release men whom we know have murdered Americans, he is preparing to sentence innocent children to death through abortion."
Meanwhile the decision by the Food and Drug Administration to approve the first human trials of embryonic stem cells, anathema to the Christian right, has intensified the bubbling culture war.
Republicans are also angry that the economic stimulus plan contains funding for contraceptives and other Democratic pet projects that might take years to have any effect on the downturn. The moderate conservative columnist David Brooks, who dined recently with Mr Obama, wrote: "The bill is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach - rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact."
Republicans are also criticising Mr Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention camp with no plan for the detainees still incarcerated there and for forcing the CIA to follow stricter rules on interrogations. The revelation last week that 60 former inmates have returned to terrorism - and that one is now deputy leader of al Qaeda's Yemeni branch - was unfortunate timing for the President.
Other elements of Mr Obama's political morning after, like most hangovers, are self-inflicted. Having announced new ethics rules banning lobbyists serving in his administration, the president was immediately forced to make an exception for his deputy defence secretary William Lynn, who has lobbied for the defence industry giant Raytheon.
The president has also reacted badly to his first taste of tougher questioning from the previously supine Washington press corps - becoming visibly irritated, during a visit to journalists' offices in the White House, when asked a substantive question about the ethics affair.
The White House's failure to arrange for television cameras to record Mr Obama's second swearing in, held on Wednesday night because he and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts botched the wording at his inauguration, infuriated broadcasters.
That incident has also sparked a predictable backlash from the Christian right, with commentators like Fiox News host Glenn Beck suggesting, inaccurately, that Mr Obama might not be a legitimate president because he did not use a Bible for the second swearing in.
A Democratic strategist who has run two presidential campaigns told The Sunday Telegraph: "What can I say? 'Welcome to Washington, Mr President'.
"They knew what to expect but they've had it all their own way for so long that the speed of it may have come as a surprise. The Obama people like a scrap, they've proved that throughout the year, none more than the president. But they know they're in a fight now. And it probably won't let up for eight years."
Princess Michelle Obama
I have to admit, that to my shame, I used to read The Times.
I go on the Times website most days and take look and over the last few weeks all we have had on it is a bunch of docile women wittering on about Obama and his wife.
You can tell that The Times is now a paper for women, simply by reading the endless infintile articles about Obamas wifes shoes, dresses, earings, hats etc etc blah blah blah yawn !
Most sickening of all was that idiot Judy Finnegan and her husband Richard in The Express yesterday, displaying all the classic signs of their 'oh so earnest' liberal admiration of Obama and his wonderful, almost princess diana like wife.
Heres an article about Obama's wife that the British press wont tell you about, run as it is by idiots and journalists who are as dumb as their readers.
I wonder what the answer to the question in the article below is - usually it is because of theft or fraud.
So the first lady is either a crook or a fraudster - and yet the British press have never mentioned once why she was struck off as a lawyer.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd430.htm
“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*
The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice.
The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.
I go on the Times website most days and take look and over the last few weeks all we have had on it is a bunch of docile women wittering on about Obama and his wife.
You can tell that The Times is now a paper for women, simply by reading the endless infintile articles about Obamas wifes shoes, dresses, earings, hats etc etc blah blah blah yawn !
Most sickening of all was that idiot Judy Finnegan and her husband Richard in The Express yesterday, displaying all the classic signs of their 'oh so earnest' liberal admiration of Obama and his wonderful, almost princess diana like wife.
Heres an article about Obama's wife that the British press wont tell you about, run as it is by idiots and journalists who are as dumb as their readers.
I wonder what the answer to the question in the article below is - usually it is because of theft or fraud.
So the first lady is either a crook or a fraudster - and yet the British press have never mentioned once why she was struck off as a lawyer.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd430.htm
“It is a terrible thing when you think you got on a bandwagon and it turns out to be a garbage truck." Ernst (Putzi) Hanfstaengl*
The circus out in Washington, DC., for the unlawful swearing in of the impostor president, Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro and so forth, is now over. All the gushing and slobbering over the trashy looking rag worn by the militant Michelle Obama, has faded into the night. I wonder how many of the mindless mouth pieces giving their commentary about the "wonderful, smart First Lady," know that in 1993, Michelle Obama, was ordered by the Illinois Supreme Court to stop practicing law? The faux First Lady was ordered by the court; it was not her choice.
The records are sealed by the court so we don't know why, but I am told by lawyers sending me email, it had to be something major for such drastic action.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
The Holocaust, Nuremberg Trials and Abu Ghraib
As we come once again to the Holocaust Remembrance Day it behoves us to once again take a long hard look at history, and especially at the background of events which came to form the ‘historical basis’ of the Holocaust itself.
Prime amongst these events is The Nuremberg Trials.
The sad fact is that if the Nuremberg Trials were held again today then virtually all the evidence given to the trails would be thrown out of court as it was obtained by torture, hearsay evidence or not given under oath - and virtually all the interrogators who obtained the evidence based on torture would today be tried and thrown into prison.
The prisons that held the Nazi prisoners who gave evidence to the Nuremberg Trials were the Abu Ghraibs of their time.
The acts of torture that went on in the prisons that held German POW’s were not acts of torture being used to prevent a crime, they were acts torture designed to get German POW’s to admit to crimes both real and manufactured.
These acts of torture were also crimes themselves.
The issue then is simply this - under sustained torture a man will confess to anything.
Therefore the act of torture itself makes such ‘evidence’ inherently unreliable.
According to the legal standards of today none of the evidence obtained by the torture of Nazi POW’s and used in the Nuremberg Trials would be allowed in court.
In the trial of the Dachau guards alone there were recorded 139 cases of crushed testicles amongst the German prisoners being held by the allies.
There were false promises of leniency for those prisoners who ‘co-operated’ with the trial and gave ‘evidence’ in the trials against fellow prisoners.
Other German prisoners were told that unless they gave evidence against their fellow prisoners the food ration books of their families would be withdrawn and their families would be left to starve to death in the post-war famines that ravaged Germany.
Other prisoners were the subjects of mock executions, were told that they would be hung immediately if they did not give evidence against their fellow prisoners or that their families would be arrested and handed over to the Russians to be killed.
The article ‘Did 6 Million Really Die’ by Richard E. Harwood on the Radio Islam site here ;
http://www.radioislam.net/historia/really/05.htm
As far as I am concerned the Holocaust is an objective historical fact so the issue of the numbers of dead Jewish victims of the Holocaust is an issue solely for historians to debate, but what this article has to say about the torture of German POW’s at the Nuremberg Trials is extremely important ;
The American Senator, Joseph McCarthy, in a statement given to the American Press on May 20th, 1949, drew attention to the following cases of torture to secure such confessions. In the prison of the Swabisch Hall, he stated, officers of the S.S. Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler were flogged until they were soaked in blood, after which their sexual organs were trampled on as they lay prostrate on the ground. As in the notorious Malmedy Trials of private soldiers, the prisoners were hoisted in the air and beaten until they signed the confessions demanded of them.
On the basis of such "confessions" extorted from S.S. Generals Sepp Dietrich and Joachim Paiper, the Leibstandarte was convicted as a "guilty organisation". S.S. General Oswald Pohl, the economic administrator of the concentration camp system, had his face smeared with faeces and was subsequently beaten until he supplied his confession.
In dealing with these cases, Senator McCarthy told the Press: "I have heard evidence and read documentary proofs to the effect that the accused persons were beaten up, maltreated and physically tortured by methods which could only be conceived in sick brains. They were subjected to mock trials and pretended executions, they were told their families would be deprived of their ration cards. All these things were carried out with the approval of the Public Prosecutor in order to secure the psychological atmosphere necessary for the extortion of the required confessions. If the United States lets such acts committed by a few people go unpunished, then the whole world can rightly criticise us severely and forever doubt the correctness of our motives and our moral integrity."
The methods of intimidation described were repeated during trials at Frankfurt-am-Mein and at Dachau, and large numbers of Germans were convicted for atrocities on the basis of their admissions. The American Judge Edward L. van Roden, one of the three members of the Simpson Army Commission which was subsequently appointed to investigate the methods of justice at the Dachau trials, revealed the methods by which these admissions were secured in the Washington Daily News, January 9th, 1949. His account also appeared in the British newspaper, the Sunday Pictorial, January 23rd, 1949.
The methods he described were: "Posturing as priests to hear confessions and give absolution; torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners finger-nails; knocking out of teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and near starvation rations." Van Roden explained: "The statements which were admitted as evidence were obtained from men who had first been kept in solitary confinement for three, four and five months . . . The investigators would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses . . . All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with our American investigators."
What happened to the German POW’s after World War Two and in the lead up to the Nuremberg Trials were the precursors of what happened in Abu Ghraib.
The US government has never investigated the horrific abuse of German POW’s after World War Two, and this sent a signal out to the US military that has led to atrocities being committed by American troops throughout the late 20th Century, from the My Lai massacre in Vietnam to the torture of Iraqi’s in Abu Ghraib.
The Nuremberg Trials are a stain upon history. They are not proof of the greater morality of the Western Powers, for the Nuremberg Trials were themselves simply the heirs of the Nazi show trials and the Soviet show trials. The findings of the Nuremberg Trials do not act as evidence of any historical events - simply because the trials were themselves based on acts and evidence that can only be classified as crimes against humanity.
What we require today is for the Nuremberg Trials, and all those involved in it, to be investigated and the facts revealed.
If any evidence that was included in the Nuremberg Trials is found to have been based on torture, the that evidence should be thrown out.
The present political regimes of the West are the heirs of those that authorised the torture of German POW’s.
The Nuremberg Trails were nothing more than propaganda events designed to make the Germans look ‘evil’ and the allies look ‘good’, they were not records of historical events.
Any historical narrative whose roots can be found in torture have no legal, historical or moral validity.
This is a recognised principle of both modern law and politics.
For the West to use the Nuremberg Trails as an example of the superior morality of the Allies, and also to use the findings as evidence of any historical events, is both perverse and unlawful.
The rules on torture are today regarded as universal and applying to all people in all countries - and that principle must also be applied to the past as well.
Just as the so called ’confessions’ of people in the Third Reich and the Soviet Union are now regarded as historically unreliable, then logical consistency demands that the Nuremberg Trials be measured with the same yardstick.
The West has for too long embraced a collective cult of self imposed amnesia over its crimes during the Second World War.
It is this collective amnesia, and the sense of superiority it engenders even today amongst the US armed forces, and also the Israeli armed forces, which allows them to continue to commit atrocities generation after generation.
All those who were criminals either during the Second World War, or after the war, must be punished if they are still alive today.
The hunting of Nazis is regarded as ’justice for the dead’ yet the hunting, arrest and trials of Communist, Israeli and allied criminals who committed the same crimes as Nazis is never even contemplated.
Justice for the innocent dead is a universal concept, and unless we begin to hunt and prosecute all those who committed crimes against humanity during the 20th Century then we have no grounds on which to call ourselves a civilised nation.
The German POW's were human beings with rights under the Geneva Convention.
They should also have been regarded as innocent before being proved guilty which is the only basis of a civilised legal system.
Just as we rightly condemned the torture and ill treatment of British pilots captured by Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War, we should extend that principle to all other human beings including German POW's in the Nuremberg Trials.
Just as we condemned the torture of British soldiers by the IRA, we should extend that principle to all combatants in all conflicts including the torture and murder of British soldiers by Jewish terrorists in Palestine and during the terrorist campaigns by Irgun and the Stern Gang and others that created Israel - as the Geneva Convention requires us by international law to do.
Those tortured were regarded as guilty the moment the first fist or boot smashed into their face. Therefore the confessions they made are meaningless.
The issues of the Holocaust and the Nurmeberg Trials must be regarded as separate.
For the Holocaust to rely on evidence obtained by torture demeans its standing in history.
Torture a man long enough and he will confess to anything.
Democracies built on tyranny, blood and lies require perpetual tyranny, blood and lies to keep them alive.
I am sure that each family whose members fought in the Second World War have a story to tell.
My grandfather, who was in the Royal Navy, told my family of an event he witnessed during the war. His ship was sent to take on board German prisoners of war and my grandfather was sent to escort the German POW's on board the ship for transportation back to Britain.
As a German POW, a former member of the SS, came on board the boat he spat at my grandfather and swore at him in German.
An MP who stood at the top of the ramp took his pistol out of his holster then shot the unarmed German POW in the back of the head, then kicked his body over the edge of the boat into the water.
He smiled at my grandfather and said ' The bastard wont do that again ' and walked away laughing.
How doing that helped the war, or made us morally better than the Nazis, escapes me.
The time has come for the lies that shame history to be investigate and the truth finally told.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organised_persecution_of_ethnic_Germans
Tory Scum Profit From Economic Collapse
The conservative party is a puppet of the same market forces that have caused the economic collapse, as the fop Cameron goes on the news and attacks the government for their failures that made the economic problem worse at the same time the spivs in his party are being subsidised by the scum that are causing the collapse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126885/Tory-hedge-fund-donors-12m-short-selling-Barclays-share-price-plummeted.html
Tory hedge fund donors made £12m short-selling on Barclays as its share price plummeted
By Michael Lea
Last updated at 11:35 PM on 23rd January 2009
Comments (58) Add to My Stories
A hedge fund run by two Tory donors made a £12million killing in days by exploiting the collapse of Barclays shares, it was revealed yesterday.
Financiers Paul Ruddock and David Craigen have donated more than £300,000 to the party, most of it since David Cameron became leader.
Within hours of the ban on the controversial practice of short-selling being lifted last Friday, their company Lansdowne Partners sold shares in Barclays worth £28.4million.
They were bought back on Wednesday, by which time the bank's value had nose-dived by almost £1 per share, netting a handsome profit for the financiers' investors.
Profit: British hedge fund Lansdowne Partners made around £12million by betting on the share price of Barclays plunging this week
Although the deal was legitimate, short-selling has been blamed for undermining the banking sector and the latest revelation is sure to reopen criticism of the practice.
Lansdowne Partners is reported to have previously made £100million by betting that Northern Rock would collapse.
Mr Ruddock, who has an estimated fortune of £350million, has donated £259,500 in cash and £6,095 through sponsorship to the Tories since 2003, according to Electoral Commission records. Mr Craigen gave £50,000 to the party in 2007.
Mr Cameron has come under fire during the financial crisis for apparently refusing to criticise hedge fund managers who make millions from predicting that the value of bank shares will plummet. He denies this is because they put money in the Tory war chest.
Labour MP John Spellar, a Government whip, said last night: 'Yet again the Tories are up to their knees in cash from people who are shorting the British economy.'
Backbencher Stephen Pound added: 'I thought we were now in the age of responsibility. These are two City spivs who should hang their heads in shame.'
LibDem Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said: 'Short sellers like Lansdowne make millions betting British banks will go down. The Financial Services Authority shouldn't let them - and the Tories shouldn't take their dirty money.'
Plunge: Barclays shares fell 25 per cent in value last Friday
Short-selling is a way of making money from falling share prices. An investor borrows shares in a company he thinks he is going to fall in value from a broker and then sells them.
He waits for the price to drop before buying the same number of shares and returning them to the broker. The investor makes a profit on the difference.
The controversial practice was temporarily banned by the FSA last September, but the ban was lifted by regulators last Friday in a move which infuriated Chancellor Alistair Darling.
Treasury sources suggested he had wanted the ban to stay in place but FSA chairman Lord Turner insisted that there was no evidence that 'short selling, or abusive short selling, has a major role' in the problems affecting the banking sector.
Last night the Tories hit back by pointing out that Labour City minister Lord Myners was a director of GLG Partners, which has admitted short-selling in Bradford and Bingley.
They also claimed that Labour's £1million donor Jon Aisbitt had made money from short-selling.
Oxford-educated Mr Ruddock, who is married with two daughters, was appointed by Gordon Brown as unpaid chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum in July 2007.
Friends of Mr Ruddock last night pointed out that he had donated millions of pounds to charities and the arts in Britain.
'He is one of the most generous philanthropists there is and his political donations pale into insignificance against the enormous sums he has given to, and raised for, good causes,' one said. 'But he prefers to keep this secret.'
Referring to the money the party has received from hedge fund financiers, a Conservative spokesman said: 'These donations are legal and comply with Electoral Commission rules.'
A Lansdowne Partners spokesman said: 'Lansdowne is a highly-regarded investment institution and invests considerable sums in UK businesses on behalf of its investors, which include charities, pension funds and university endowments.
'Individuals' private donations are a matter for the people concerned and are not related to the company.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126885/Tory-hedge-fund-donors-12m-short-selling-Barclays-share-price-plummeted.html
Tory hedge fund donors made £12m short-selling on Barclays as its share price plummeted
By Michael Lea
Last updated at 11:35 PM on 23rd January 2009
Comments (58) Add to My Stories
A hedge fund run by two Tory donors made a £12million killing in days by exploiting the collapse of Barclays shares, it was revealed yesterday.
Financiers Paul Ruddock and David Craigen have donated more than £300,000 to the party, most of it since David Cameron became leader.
Within hours of the ban on the controversial practice of short-selling being lifted last Friday, their company Lansdowne Partners sold shares in Barclays worth £28.4million.
They were bought back on Wednesday, by which time the bank's value had nose-dived by almost £1 per share, netting a handsome profit for the financiers' investors.
Profit: British hedge fund Lansdowne Partners made around £12million by betting on the share price of Barclays plunging this week
Although the deal was legitimate, short-selling has been blamed for undermining the banking sector and the latest revelation is sure to reopen criticism of the practice.
Lansdowne Partners is reported to have previously made £100million by betting that Northern Rock would collapse.
Mr Ruddock, who has an estimated fortune of £350million, has donated £259,500 in cash and £6,095 through sponsorship to the Tories since 2003, according to Electoral Commission records. Mr Craigen gave £50,000 to the party in 2007.
Mr Cameron has come under fire during the financial crisis for apparently refusing to criticise hedge fund managers who make millions from predicting that the value of bank shares will plummet. He denies this is because they put money in the Tory war chest.
Labour MP John Spellar, a Government whip, said last night: 'Yet again the Tories are up to their knees in cash from people who are shorting the British economy.'
Backbencher Stephen Pound added: 'I thought we were now in the age of responsibility. These are two City spivs who should hang their heads in shame.'
LibDem Treasury spokesman Lord Oakeshott said: 'Short sellers like Lansdowne make millions betting British banks will go down. The Financial Services Authority shouldn't let them - and the Tories shouldn't take their dirty money.'
Plunge: Barclays shares fell 25 per cent in value last Friday
Short-selling is a way of making money from falling share prices. An investor borrows shares in a company he thinks he is going to fall in value from a broker and then sells them.
He waits for the price to drop before buying the same number of shares and returning them to the broker. The investor makes a profit on the difference.
The controversial practice was temporarily banned by the FSA last September, but the ban was lifted by regulators last Friday in a move which infuriated Chancellor Alistair Darling.
Treasury sources suggested he had wanted the ban to stay in place but FSA chairman Lord Turner insisted that there was no evidence that 'short selling, or abusive short selling, has a major role' in the problems affecting the banking sector.
Last night the Tories hit back by pointing out that Labour City minister Lord Myners was a director of GLG Partners, which has admitted short-selling in Bradford and Bingley.
They also claimed that Labour's £1million donor Jon Aisbitt had made money from short-selling.
Oxford-educated Mr Ruddock, who is married with two daughters, was appointed by Gordon Brown as unpaid chairman of the Victoria and Albert Museum in July 2007.
Friends of Mr Ruddock last night pointed out that he had donated millions of pounds to charities and the arts in Britain.
'He is one of the most generous philanthropists there is and his political donations pale into insignificance against the enormous sums he has given to, and raised for, good causes,' one said. 'But he prefers to keep this secret.'
Referring to the money the party has received from hedge fund financiers, a Conservative spokesman said: 'These donations are legal and comply with Electoral Commission rules.'
A Lansdowne Partners spokesman said: 'Lansdowne is a highly-regarded investment institution and invests considerable sums in UK businesses on behalf of its investors, which include charities, pension funds and university endowments.
'Individuals' private donations are a matter for the people concerned and are not related to the company.'
Friday, 23 January 2009
Middle East Oil Takes Over UK Economy
One of the funniest things about the Nazi fringe, apart from their new 'Love Fest' with Hamas, Stalinists and Islamists ( Nutters of the world unite - you have nothing to lose but your bullshit ), is their pathetic obsession ' viz ze jews '.
For instance, lets take the great conspiracy theory that the Jews dominate the global economy.
The basis of the global economy is OIL. Without oil raw materials cannot be dug up, refined, sold to factories, commodities produced and good sold in shops. Without oil the workers do not have jobs and do not have wages to buy those goods.
There is NO oil in Israel.
Israels economy is dependent upon US government money and EU trading deals.
The Arabs and the Islamists control the worlds oil, not the Zionists and Jews.
The basis of the entire global economic system is the United States petro-dollar recycling system which is predicated on fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking is based on credit being released today being repaid by future economic expansion - and future economic expansion is based on the availability of cheap oil.
At the moment we have cheap oil and a massive economic recession, which means the entire fractional reseve banking system is dead.
If cheap oil cannot guarantee economic expansion, then the entire present economic system is defunct.
The Jews do not control the global banking system - it is the US and its Middle East Oil allies that control the oil that is the basis of the global banking system.
What the Nazis do not realise is that modern finance is simply an aspect of oil.
The myth that the Jews control the global econoimic system is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics - one also shared by Marxists and Capitalists.
Economics is not based on capital, it is based on oil, as the value of capital itself is based on cheap oil.
Without cheap oil then capital loses value.
Whosoever controls the oil, controls the world.
Whosoever controls the currency that sells the oil, dominates the global economy.
At the moment we have cheap oil, a falling currency value, economic reccession and massive unemployment. The moment we experience again high oil costs, which is what will happen once an economic recovery begins and demand for oil rises, then this will cause inflation and damage future growth.
In a nutshell - the world economic system is screwed.
We are now falling into the abyss.
Wars, civil conflicts, mass unemployment and homelessness, food riots and famines will shortly follow.
The trend in British economics has been marked by two important dynamics - the collapse of British companies and the takeover of the British economy by Arab oil money hedge funds and investment banks.
The Russians oligarchs have also invested a lot of stolen money in the British economy, such as Abramovich buying Chelsea and others buying The Evening Standard. The fact is that Russian economic system that spawned the oiligarchs was itself a product of American economics and Boris Yeltsins corruption and stupidity.
The main economic force taking over the UK economy is Arab oil money.
The British media groups have been quietly heavily infiltrated with Arab oil money, our ports have been taken over, water companies bought up and now it is the banks themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7254692.stm
http://www.eurekahedge.com/news/04nov_archive_EH_Islamic_Fund_Industry_Overview_ed.asp
The article below reveals how Barclays banks is about to be taken over by one Arab investment bank.
Whilst the Nazi, Islamist and Stalinist morons read books from the 1930's about the power of 'Jewish' finance in Pre-War Germany or the role of Jewish Commissars in the Soviet Union, they ignore completely what is now happening in the real world around them.
Whilst they fixate about ancient history, and facile myths, the future is being set right and here and now.
Just like their political strategies the Nazis cannot evolve.
They are stuck in a pathetic time warp where the economics of the early 20th century are more important to their ideological, political, tactical and strategic ideas than the real world around them.
Whilst the Nazis dress as skinheads, a cult that is about as relevant to youth today as people whose politics revolves around dressing as Roman Centurions and marching through the streets waving their spears and shields, they embrace a political worldview that is also as anachronistic and outdated as that of the Roman Imperial Model.
They have refused to evolve as they cannot evolve.
Along with the Stalinists with their pathetic communist cult of the Soviet Union era and the Islamists with their pathetic cult of the Middle Ages, they are all dinosaurs.
No wonder the dinosaurs now like marching alongside each other - for each is dumb as the other. Its like watching a scene out of Jurassic Park when you watch the Nazis, Islamists and Stalinists all marching alongside each other in the street.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4309296/Barclays-may-lose-control-to-Gulf-investors.html
Barclays may lose control to Gulf investors
Government dismay as state bail-out plan hamstrung by capital-raising clause that saw Gulf investors pump £5.3bn into bank.
By Louise Armitstead and Philip Aldrick
Last Updated: 5:45PM GMT 22 Jan 2009
The Government is in talks with Barclays after the bank admitted that raising extra capital could trigger a clause that would deliver control to its Middle East investors.
Government insiders were last night reeling at the possibility that helping Barclays could see Britain's fourth biggest lender automatically delivered to the Middle East as the result of a little known clause agreed in the bank's October capital raising.
Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, and two Qatari investment vehicles invested £5.3bn in the bank in October. In return, they took a series of complicated investment structures, the bulk of which were "mandatory convertible notes".
Under the terms of the deal, the investors have to wait seven months for delivery of the shares, which convert at 153.276p. However, if at any time until June 30 Barclays raises more capital at a lower price, the Middle East investors are able to take their stake at that lower level.
With Barclays' shares now at 66.1p, the bank would have to roughly triple the number of shares issued to Sheikh Mansour and the Qataris. Such a move would hand the Arab investors around 55pc of Barclays, effectively giving them control. With the warrants for an additional £3bn of "reserve capital instruments", their combined stake could rise to 67pc.
One insider said: "This was a clause to protect the Middle East. There seems to have been no thought about protecting the bank at all. If the clause is triggered at this level, the Middle East can lay claim to the whole bank."
The Financial Services Authority is understood to be seeking a full explanation about the clause's implications.
Amanda Staveley, who advised the Middle East investors for a £40m fee, has written to Sheikh Mansour alerting him to the implications of Barclays plunging share price. According to insiders, Ms Staveley had insisted on the inclusion of the clause as a way of protecting the investment against short-sellers in the event on the ban on short-selling of financial stocks being lifted.
The ban was lifted earlier this month and yesterday politicians called for its reintroduction after noting "anecdotal evidence" that hedge funds had been shorting UK banks.
Barclays is reeling from speculation it will have to be nationalised or seek alternative state support. The shares collapsed for a seventh consecutive day yesterday, falling 9pc to 66.1p, despite small recoveries at Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group. Barclays has now lost nearly two thirds of its value in little over a week, its four largest investors have lost a combined £8.5bn.
One banking expert said: "Barclays has spent the past few days insisting it has enough capital. That would be fine in normal circumstances, but these are not. The Government has made it completely clear that it will not allow the banks to fail and everyone knows that nationalisation is very much on the table."
Government insiders were said to be incredulous that the clause could restrict their options for a rescue. Speculation has mounted that banks might pay for the planned "toxic debt" insurance scheme by issuing new shares, but the Barclays clause would prohibit this. It now seems banks will buy the insurance with preference shares or cash.
Barclays pointed out that the clause expires on June 30, after which it will be able to issue shares with no strings attached. A spokesman dismissed any concerns, arguing it would not need to raise capital under the FSA's revised rules unless it suffers £20bn of losses in the next six months. He said: "The statement on Friday demonstrates the strength of the group's capital position."
For instance, lets take the great conspiracy theory that the Jews dominate the global economy.
The basis of the global economy is OIL. Without oil raw materials cannot be dug up, refined, sold to factories, commodities produced and good sold in shops. Without oil the workers do not have jobs and do not have wages to buy those goods.
There is NO oil in Israel.
Israels economy is dependent upon US government money and EU trading deals.
The Arabs and the Islamists control the worlds oil, not the Zionists and Jews.
The basis of the entire global economic system is the United States petro-dollar recycling system which is predicated on fractional reserve banking.
Fractional reserve banking is based on credit being released today being repaid by future economic expansion - and future economic expansion is based on the availability of cheap oil.
At the moment we have cheap oil and a massive economic recession, which means the entire fractional reseve banking system is dead.
If cheap oil cannot guarantee economic expansion, then the entire present economic system is defunct.
The Jews do not control the global banking system - it is the US and its Middle East Oil allies that control the oil that is the basis of the global banking system.
What the Nazis do not realise is that modern finance is simply an aspect of oil.
The myth that the Jews control the global econoimic system is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of economics - one also shared by Marxists and Capitalists.
Economics is not based on capital, it is based on oil, as the value of capital itself is based on cheap oil.
Without cheap oil then capital loses value.
Whosoever controls the oil, controls the world.
Whosoever controls the currency that sells the oil, dominates the global economy.
At the moment we have cheap oil, a falling currency value, economic reccession and massive unemployment. The moment we experience again high oil costs, which is what will happen once an economic recovery begins and demand for oil rises, then this will cause inflation and damage future growth.
In a nutshell - the world economic system is screwed.
We are now falling into the abyss.
Wars, civil conflicts, mass unemployment and homelessness, food riots and famines will shortly follow.
The trend in British economics has been marked by two important dynamics - the collapse of British companies and the takeover of the British economy by Arab oil money hedge funds and investment banks.
The Russians oligarchs have also invested a lot of stolen money in the British economy, such as Abramovich buying Chelsea and others buying The Evening Standard. The fact is that Russian economic system that spawned the oiligarchs was itself a product of American economics and Boris Yeltsins corruption and stupidity.
The main economic force taking over the UK economy is Arab oil money.
The British media groups have been quietly heavily infiltrated with Arab oil money, our ports have been taken over, water companies bought up and now it is the banks themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/7254692.stm
http://www.eurekahedge.com/news/04nov_archive_EH_Islamic_Fund_Industry_Overview_ed.asp
The article below reveals how Barclays banks is about to be taken over by one Arab investment bank.
Whilst the Nazi, Islamist and Stalinist morons read books from the 1930's about the power of 'Jewish' finance in Pre-War Germany or the role of Jewish Commissars in the Soviet Union, they ignore completely what is now happening in the real world around them.
Whilst they fixate about ancient history, and facile myths, the future is being set right and here and now.
Just like their political strategies the Nazis cannot evolve.
They are stuck in a pathetic time warp where the economics of the early 20th century are more important to their ideological, political, tactical and strategic ideas than the real world around them.
Whilst the Nazis dress as skinheads, a cult that is about as relevant to youth today as people whose politics revolves around dressing as Roman Centurions and marching through the streets waving their spears and shields, they embrace a political worldview that is also as anachronistic and outdated as that of the Roman Imperial Model.
They have refused to evolve as they cannot evolve.
Along with the Stalinists with their pathetic communist cult of the Soviet Union era and the Islamists with their pathetic cult of the Middle Ages, they are all dinosaurs.
No wonder the dinosaurs now like marching alongside each other - for each is dumb as the other. Its like watching a scene out of Jurassic Park when you watch the Nazis, Islamists and Stalinists all marching alongside each other in the street.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4309296/Barclays-may-lose-control-to-Gulf-investors.html
Barclays may lose control to Gulf investors
Government dismay as state bail-out plan hamstrung by capital-raising clause that saw Gulf investors pump £5.3bn into bank.
By Louise Armitstead and Philip Aldrick
Last Updated: 5:45PM GMT 22 Jan 2009
The Government is in talks with Barclays after the bank admitted that raising extra capital could trigger a clause that would deliver control to its Middle East investors.
Government insiders were last night reeling at the possibility that helping Barclays could see Britain's fourth biggest lender automatically delivered to the Middle East as the result of a little known clause agreed in the bank's October capital raising.
Sheikh Mansour Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, and two Qatari investment vehicles invested £5.3bn in the bank in October. In return, they took a series of complicated investment structures, the bulk of which were "mandatory convertible notes".
Under the terms of the deal, the investors have to wait seven months for delivery of the shares, which convert at 153.276p. However, if at any time until June 30 Barclays raises more capital at a lower price, the Middle East investors are able to take their stake at that lower level.
With Barclays' shares now at 66.1p, the bank would have to roughly triple the number of shares issued to Sheikh Mansour and the Qataris. Such a move would hand the Arab investors around 55pc of Barclays, effectively giving them control. With the warrants for an additional £3bn of "reserve capital instruments", their combined stake could rise to 67pc.
One insider said: "This was a clause to protect the Middle East. There seems to have been no thought about protecting the bank at all. If the clause is triggered at this level, the Middle East can lay claim to the whole bank."
The Financial Services Authority is understood to be seeking a full explanation about the clause's implications.
Amanda Staveley, who advised the Middle East investors for a £40m fee, has written to Sheikh Mansour alerting him to the implications of Barclays plunging share price. According to insiders, Ms Staveley had insisted on the inclusion of the clause as a way of protecting the investment against short-sellers in the event on the ban on short-selling of financial stocks being lifted.
The ban was lifted earlier this month and yesterday politicians called for its reintroduction after noting "anecdotal evidence" that hedge funds had been shorting UK banks.
Barclays is reeling from speculation it will have to be nationalised or seek alternative state support. The shares collapsed for a seventh consecutive day yesterday, falling 9pc to 66.1p, despite small recoveries at Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group. Barclays has now lost nearly two thirds of its value in little over a week, its four largest investors have lost a combined £8.5bn.
One banking expert said: "Barclays has spent the past few days insisting it has enough capital. That would be fine in normal circumstances, but these are not. The Government has made it completely clear that it will not allow the banks to fail and everyone knows that nationalisation is very much on the table."
Government insiders were said to be incredulous that the clause could restrict their options for a rescue. Speculation has mounted that banks might pay for the planned "toxic debt" insurance scheme by issuing new shares, but the Barclays clause would prohibit this. It now seems banks will buy the insurance with preference shares or cash.
Barclays pointed out that the clause expires on June 30, after which it will be able to issue shares with no strings attached. A spokesman dismissed any concerns, arguing it would not need to raise capital under the FSA's revised rules unless it suffers £20bn of losses in the next six months. He said: "The statement on Friday demonstrates the strength of the group's capital position."
One Mans Stand Against The Obama Messiah Nutters
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/01/20/barack_obama_inauguration_this_emperor_has_no_clothes_it_will_all_end_in_tears
Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.
If it is an exaggeration to say that he believes the world has gone to the dogs, it is only a slight hyperbole.
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
This is my favourite comments as regards this article ;
President Obama is great at oratory - but when you analyse his speeches you can remove 99% as being meaningless.
He 'sold the sizzle' - but what is inside the sausage?
Gerald Warner is an author, broadcaster, columnist and polemical commentator who writes about politics, religion, history, culture and society in general.
If it is an exaggeration to say that he believes the world has gone to the dogs, it is only a slight hyperbole.
Barack Obama inauguration: this Emperor has no clothes, it will all end in tears
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Jan 20, 2009 at 18:50:54 [General]
Posted in: Society , Eagle Eye
Tags:Barack Obama, Freedom of Choice Act, Neil Kinnock, stimulus package, Tony Blair
This will end in tears. The Obama hysteria is not merely embarrassing to witness, it is itself contributory to the scale of the disaster that is coming. What we are experiencing, in the deepening days of a global depression, is the desperate suspension of disbelief by people of intelligence - la trahison des clercs - in a pathetic effort to hypnotise themselves into the delusion that it will be all right on the night. It will not be all right.
We have been here before. In the spring of 1997, to be precise, when a charismatic, young prime minister entered Downing Street, cheered by children bussed in for the occasion waving plastic Union Jacks. A very few of us at that time incurred searing reproaches for denouncing the Great Charlatan (as I have always denominated Tony Blair) and dissenting from the public hysteria. Three times a deluded Britain elected that transparent fraud. Yesterday, when national bankruptcy became a formal reality, we reaped the bitter harvest of the Blair/Brown imposture.
The burnt child, contrary to conventional wisdom, does not fear the fire. After the Blair experience there is no excuse for anybody in Britain falling for Obama. Yet today, in this country, even some of those who remained sane during the emotional spasm of the Diana aberration are pumping the air for Princess Barack. At a time of gross economic and geopolitical instability throughout the Western world, this is beyond irresponsibility.
To anyone who kept his head, the string of Christmas cracker mottoes booming through the public address system on Washington's National Mall can only excite scepticism. It is crucial to recall the reality that lies behind the rhetoric. Denouncing "those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents" comes ill from a man whose flagship legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act, will impose abortion, including partial-birth abortion, on every state in the Union. It seems the era of Hope is to be inaugurated with a slaughter of the innocents.
Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is like one of those toxic packages traded by bankers: it camouflages many unaffordable gifts to his client state. With a federal deficit already at $1.2 trillion, Obama wants to squander $825 billion (which will undoubtedly mushroom to more than $1 trillion) on creating 600,000 more government jobs and a further 459,000 in "green energy" (useless wind turbines and other Heath-Robinson contraptions favoured by Beltway environmentalists).
It is frightening to think there is a real possibility that the entire world economy could go into complete meltdown and famine kill millions. Yet Western - and British - commentators are cocooned in a warm comfort zone of infatuation with America's answer to Neil Kinnock. We should be long past applauding politicians of any hue: they got us into this mess. The best deserve a probationary opportunity to prove themselves, the worst should be in jail.
It is questionable whether the present political system can survive the coming crisis. Whatever the solution, teenage swooning sentimentality over a celebrity cult has no part in it. The most powerful nation on earth is confronting its worst economic crisis under the leadership of its most extremely liberal politician, who has virtually no experience of federal politics. That is not an opportunity but a catastrophe.
These are frank, even ungracious, words: they have the one merit that, unlike almost everything else written today about Obama, they will not require to be eaten in the future.
This is my favourite comments as regards this article ;
President Obama is great at oratory - but when you analyse his speeches you can remove 99% as being meaningless.
He 'sold the sizzle' - but what is inside the sausage?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
