11/21/11

OccupyWallStreet Robocalls Appeal to Federal Reserve Authority, Against America’s Banks

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

At my home, I have been getting a series of robocalls supporting the orchestrated Occupy Wall Street protests. The first three or so were notable in part because they did not make any requests! They just sold.

But just this midday, I received another Occupy Wall Street call, with language couched in patriotism. Unfortunately, I answered the phone, so I do not have a recording.

Here is what struck me about it:
The source wants me to call Washington asking for the break up of America’s largest banks.

And here is what is even more striking:

The adolescent adult female voice, so soft yet so indignant and resolute, referred to “the president” I think it said of the Federal Reserve — the call took the side of the thieving, foreign, central bank imposition of the Federal Reserve as an effectively sacred authority against “big banks,” saying they should not be too big to fail. One is prone to think, “how ironic.” But what one should really be thinking is, “how very fitting.”

UPDATE, 11/22 – Here is a transcript of the call, provided by reader, “googler,” in Gulag Bound comments:

This Thanksgiving, we need to figure out what liberty and justice for all really mean. Consider these facts: the big banks have foreclosed our homes, shipped our jobs overseas, and are sitting on over $10 trillion dollars while our nation goes bankrupt. Like the president of the Federal Reserve Bank said in New York, “Too big to fail banks are too dangerous to permit.” We, the 99%, can make a difference. Call the White House, Congress, and City Hall. Tell them that liberty and justice for all means breaking up the big banks and jailing the Wall Street con-men.

Funny, these calls should reach these ears. And you, o reader, how much more confirmation do you need?

Please see our articles tagged “Occupy Wall Street,” if you have not already. You will get the picture, surveying them all. We will begin by suggesting an initial four of them.

‘U.S. Day of Rage’ Orchestrated for ‘Worldwide Democracy’ (think pseudoanarchist, neo-Marxist, globalist)

August 10, 2011

Thanks to the research and tweeting of Heather, this is the article that broke the story of Occupy Wall Street and the U.S. Day of Rage on the Internet.

Days Before Rage: Protesters are Dupes of Rothschild/Soros Banksters

September 13, 2011

‘The Occupation Manifesto,’ But Do You Want the Whole Story?

October 18, 2011

The Neo-Marxist Globalist Engineers of ‘Leaderless Occupy Wall St.’

October 31, 2011

Standard disclaimer:

This is not about ethnicity; it is about evil and restoring good, tyranny and meting justice.

11/21/11

Prove it!

By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings

Truth in advertising gets more interesting everyday according to an article on the Fox News website. Take for instance a recent edict by the European Union which goes into force next month; bottled water manufacturers saying their product rehydrates could result in jail time.

“Bottled water manufacturers will not be allowed to make the claim that water can prevent dehydration, when a new law goes into effect in the UK next month.

The edict, the Daily Telegraph reports, follows a three-year investigation. European Union officials now conclude there is no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.”

This imposed insanity would be laughable, a joke, if it weren’t so serious. If a similar burden of “proof” is required across the board, the EU could alter other aspects of expression. We’ve gone from accepting “a likelihood of actuality” and now require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; looking for certainty in an uncertain world.

If the local pastor preaching from the pulpit were tasked with proving the doctrines of religion, what then? “Jesus is the Christ,” the EU will require proof; but religion requires faith, not proof. Haul that fellow off to jail for making statements he can’t prove.

Some might say, “This could never happen.” Think again. How else could the Gospel be considered Hate Speech? Those who speak out against abominations of immorality are threatened with criminal charges by miscreants who fall back on their “right” to behave any way they please; then go beyond that and make it a crime for anyone to ridicule their lifestyle choices.

Closer to home, you might recall the Canadian anti-gay activist who was found guilty of hate speech because he believes that homosexuals are “sodomites” who spread filth and disease. “In 2005, the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ordered him to pay a $17,500 fine and stop passing out his leaflets after four complainants said they were offended.”

“In matters of free speech, Canada and the United States draw the line in very different places. The U.S. First Amendment is so strong that it guarantees the right of the KKK and neo-Nazis to march through the streets. Canada is far more squeamish – “a pleasantly authoritarian state,” as Alan Borovoy, the former head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, once put it.”

Isn’t that special. I love the way totalitarian rule got painted as “a pleasantly authoritarian state.” The only thing missing might be “Disney-esk” birds chirping under an azure sky filled with soft puffy clouds. Instead of jack booted brown shirts, their goon squads are dressed in Martha Stuart color coordinated ensembles.

The evening weather report could be fun too, “There’s a cold front moving in later and might bring rain. Hazardous driving conditions which used to be caused by wet roads can no longer be included in our forecast; because, as we all know, rain can’t be proven to cause wet roads.” I can see a Saturday Night Live skit in there somewhere.

One thing is an indisputable fact; the EU has some of the dumbest bureaucrats on the planet, which can be proven. Their total financial collapse might not be such a bad thing after all. Give that area of the world a chance to start over, this time let common sense have a chair at the table.

This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”

11/21/11

Russia Ups Ante with Caspian Neighbors by Moving Offshore

By: John C. K. Daly of http://oilprice.com

On 16 November in Astrakhan Lukoil president, Vagit Alekperov told journalists that his company will spend over $16 billion over the next decade to develop the country’s Caspian offshore Korchagin and Filanovskii oil and natural gas fields in the Caspian, at the signing of a cooperation agreement with the Astrakhan Region.

An equitable division of the Caspian’s offshore resources have bedeviled the region since the December 1991 implosion of the USSR, putting the Soviet Union’s previous cozy arrangements with the Shah’s Iran “into the dustbin of history,” to quote Leon Trotsky.

Before the collapse of the USSR, the Soviet Union and Iran effectively divided the inland sea amongst themselves, according to the terms of the 1940 Soviet-Iranian treaty, which replaced the 1921 Treaty of Friendship between the two countries, which awarded each signatory an “exclusive right of fishing in its coastal waters up to a limit of 10 nautical miles.” The treaty further declared that the “parties hold the Caspian to belong to Iran and to the Soviet Union.”

Since 1991 three new nations have arisen in the Caspian basin to contest this bilateral arrangement – Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. For the past two decades the five nations have wrangled about how to divide the Caspian offshore waters, and little has been achieved.

Amidst the disagreements Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan have tentatively moved cautiously to develop their offshore reserves in sectors that they believe would be indisputably within their future assignations under an eventual five-state agreement.

Even within these cautious offshore margins, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have increased their output in the last 15 years by 70 percent.

But at issue are the diametrically opposed positions of Iran and the Russian Federation about how to develop an international Caspian consensus beyond the now moribund 1921 and 1940 treaties. Iran insists that all Caspian nations should receive an equitable 20 percent of the Caspian, while the Russia Federation has consistently maintained that the five Caspian riverine nations should receive their portion based on the length of their coastline. Under the Russian formula, Iran’s sector would consist of 12 percent to 14 percent of the Caspian’s waters and seabed.

The stakes are high – in 2009 the U.S. government’s Energy Information Administration estimated that the Caspian could contain as much as 250 billion barrels of recoverable oil along with an additional 200 billion barrels of potential reserves, in addition to up to 9.2 trillion cubic meters of recoverable natural gas.

Accordingly, all five Caspian nations have been delicately developing their offshore Caspian reserves in areas that will undoubtedly remain theirs whatever eventual agreement is hammered out between Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Turkmenistan. The Russian Federation and Iran are the last two nations to move “offshore.”

Alekperov said, “Five hundred billion rubles ($16 billion) will be invested in development. This huge amount will provide an opportunity for sustainable development in the region.”

Astrakhan Region Governor Aleksandr Zhilkin waxed lyrical on the importance of the agreement for the long-term development of Astrakhan’s shipbuilding industry, situated on the lower Volga, the Russian Federation’s major river emptying into the Caspian. Zhilkin commented, “All shipyards in Astrakhan Region will have work for the next ten years. Vagit Yusufovich (Alekperov) mentioned that Lukoil is investing more than 500 billion rubles ($16 billion) over the decade.

Zhilkin’s remarks to reporters are hardly an idle boast, as he stated that Lukoil had paid more than $16.1 million in taxes last year to Astrakhan’s regional budget.

So, the Russian Federation, like its four Caspian neighbors, is now beginning to tiptoe into its offshore waters, all the while insisting that its vision of divvying the inland sea prevails.

The last two decades have seen an apparent pragmatism slowly evolve over the Caspian offshore resources, first in Baku, followed by Astana, Ashgabat and more recently and reluctantly, Tehran and Moscow. While the issue of a final disposition of the Caspian’s offshore waters remains significant if for no other reason than the various proposed undersea pipelines such as Turkmenistan-Baku, which could be an influential element in the European Union’s projected $15 billion Nabucco natural gas pipeline reverie, all five nations seem to be moving cautiously towards planting their offshore flags in areas unlikely to arouse their neighbors.

It will be interesting to see if they meet in the middle.

Source: http://oilprice.com/Geo-Politics/International/Tensions-Increasing-Over-Caspian-Energy-Riches.html

By: John C. K. Daly of http://oilprice.com