Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura... FEMA Camps

Fallen Angels

Bahrain Breakdown...clashes ahead of F1 GP

'Muslim Brotherhood tool of CIA'

Obama Impeachment bill now in congress

Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”

In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”

Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.

Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.

“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

WND

Russia and China seek info on U.S. drone downed in Iran

Iran's semi-official Fars news agency says Russia and Chinahave asked Tehran to provide them with information on a U.S. ­drone captured bythe Islamic Republic in December.

The report, released on Thursday, quotes Ahmad Karimpour, an adviser to Iran's defenseminister, as saying Tehran has received requests for many countries forinformation on the RQ-170 Sentinel, but Moscow and Beijing have been mostaggressive in their pursuit of details on the drone. He did not elaborate.

Iran said in December that it had downed the unmanned stealth aircraft ineastern Iran.

U.S.­ officials have acknowledged losing the drone. They have said Iran willfind it hard to exploit any data and technology aboard it because of measurestaken to limit the intelligence value of drones operating over hostile territory.

Israel News

Goldman Sachs Rules The World and Bank of England is Next

Speculation that Canadian Central Bank head Mark Carney has been tapped to become the next Governor of the Bank of England brings with it the possibility of virtually complete domination of Europe by Goldman Sachs – the very same financial terrorists who helped cause the economic collapse in the first place.

“Mark Carney, the governor of Canada’s central bank, has been informally approached as a potential candidate to replace Sir Mervyn King as head of the Bank of England in June next year,”reports the Financial Times.

“One of the world’s most respected central bankers, Mr Carney, 47, now heads the Financial Stability Board, which oversees global financial regulation. He was approached recently by a member of the BoE’s court, the largely non-executive body that oversees its activities, according to three people involved in the process.”

Carney is also a 13-year Goldman Sachs veteran and was involved in the 1998 Russian financial crisis which was exacerbated by Goldman advising Russia while simultaneously betting against the country’s ability to pay its debt.

Although the appointment would see the highly unusual precedent of a foreigner heading up the 318-year-old central bank, according to one observer, “As a Canadian national he is a subject of the Queen…That is important.”

Carney’s possible ascension to become the next BoE head, although denied by the Bank of Canada, would be the cherry on the cake for Goldman Sachs’ financial overthrow of Europe in their bid to exploit the financial crisis to centralize power into an EU superstate.

Last year, former EU Commissioner Mario Monti was picked to replace Silvio Berlusconi, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Italy. Monti is an international advisor for Goldman Sachs, the European Chairman of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission and also a leading member of the Bilderberg Group.

“This is the band of criminals who brought us this financial disaster. It is like asking arsonists to put out the fire,”commented Alessandro Sallusti, editor of Il Giornale.

Similarly, when Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou dared to suggest the people of Greece be allowed to have their say in a referendum, within days he was dispatched and replaced with Lucas Papademos, former vice-President of the ECB, visiting Harvard Professor and ex-senior economist at the Boston Federal Reserve.

Papademos ran Greece’s central bank while it oversaw derivatives deals with Goldman Sachs that enabled Greece to hide the true size of its massive debt, leading to Europe’s debt crisis.

Papademos and Monti were installed as unelected leaders for the precise reason that they “aren’t directly accountable to the public,” noted Time Magazine’s Stephen Faris, once again illustrating the fundamentally dictatorial and undemocratic foundation of the entire European Union.

Shortly afterwards,Mario Draghi – former Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs International – was installed as President of the European Central Bank.

The U.S. Treasury Secretary at the beginning of the 2008 financial collapse was Hank Paulson, former CEO of Goldman Sachs. When Paulson was replaced with Tim Geither, Goldman Sachs lobbyist Mark Patterson was hired as his chief advisor. Current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein has visited the White House 10 times. Goldman Sachs spent the most money helping Barack Obama get elected in 2008.

As the graphic below illustrates, the economies of France, Ireland, Germany and Belgium are also all now controlled by individuals with a direct relationship with Goldman Sachs.

Dominion over virtually all of Europe’s major economies, as well as the United States, by one international banking giant, notorious for its role in corruption and insider trading, is now almost complete.

Goldman Sachs rules the world.

Infowars

An Executive Order You Should Know About

We did a post on this a couple of days ago, here is the link:

http://nunezreport.blogspot.com/2012/04/laws-in-placeconcentration-camps-rfid.html

With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about. This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy - in the name of national security - in times of national emergency.

This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries. The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense." There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.

By issuing this as an Executive Order the President puts the federal government above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen.

As President and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, he has the Constitutional authority to issue executive orders. And while similar orders have been made before by presidents from Eisenhower and Reagan to Clinton and George Bush – it has never been done to this extent.

It is still unclear why this order was signed now, and what the consequences are for our nation – especially during times of peace. This type of Martial Law imposes a government takeover on U.S. citizens that is typically reserved for national emergencies, not in a time of relative peace.

I want you to know I am following this very closely. If you would like to read the order for yourself please click here.


Sincerely,


Kay Granger
US Congressman

Threat of Credit Downgrade Persists for Morgan Stanley

Morgan Stanley‘s rebuilding efforts are starting to take hold, as it posted one of its strongest quarters since the financial crisis.

The bank showed healthy gains in core areas like wealth management and equity sales. Bond trading – the great profit machine on Wall Street – also kicked into high gear. In all, first-quarter profit surged 27 percent to $1.4 billion, excluding one-time accounting charges.

The results were proof, chief executive James P. Gorman told analysts during a conference call on Thursday, that Morgan Stanley was “on the right track.”

But a cloud still looms over the bank: the threat of a creditrating downgrade that could hurt its huge derivativesbusiness.

The group, which facilitates trading in the complex securities, may lose business and have to come up with billions of extra dollars if Morgan Stanley’s credit rating is cut.

Moody’s Investors Service, which is considering whether to downgrade 17 large financial companies, said Morgan Stanley’s rating could decline by as much as three notches to a level below that of the bank’s chief rivals.

Morgan Stanley cannot easily protect itself from this potential blow.

In 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, the investment bank kept its derivative business in its core operations rather than shifting it into a subsidiary that enjoyed greater taxpayer protection and a higher credit rating. If Morgan Stanley had made that move as Goldman Sachs did, a ratings cut would not have the same sting.

Morgan Stanley might not have that option anymore. With the financial system more stable, bank regulators are unlikely to allow Morgan Stanley, or any other bank, to move large parts of its derivatives business into a taxpayer protected subsidiary, where the government could be on the hook for potential losses.

Morgan Stanley has played down the effect of a downgrade, saying only 8 percent of its derivative contracts have rating triggers that could immediately prompt customers to move their business. And, Morgan Stanley notes, clients look at other data, including the bank’s ratings by agencies, when picking trading firms.

Mr. Gorman has also been emphasizing that the bank has taken steps in the last three years that should help buoy its credit rating. It has ended or reduced its presence in certain high-risk trading operations and expanded into wealth management, a lower risk business that tends to produce steadier results.

The latest financial results reflect some of the changes.

In the first quarter, Morgan Stanley reported earnings of 71 cents a share, handily beating analysts’ estimates. Its institutional securities group, which includes stock and bond trading, reported revenue of $5 billion, excluding the accounting charge. That is up from $3.76 billion a year earlier. Revenues in the global wealth management division, which includes Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, were essentially flat.

Shares of the bank rose 2.3 percent on Thursday to close at $18.07.

“We have done a lot to narrow the impact of any potential ratings change,” Ruth Porat, Morgan Stanley’s chief financial officer, said during the conference call. Despite significant improvements, Morgan Stanley executives still face questions about the threat of a downgrade, and how it affects business. A big concern is the derivatives book, which is the third largest among American banks, according to figures from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

Derivatives are big business on Wall Street. Banks, pension funds and other big investors use them to bet on the direction of stocks, bonds, interest rates and commodities.

Those customers pay close attention to the credit rating of the bank executing the derivatives trades, because they need to be certain the bank can pay what it owes. If a bank loses its credit rating, clients may opt to move their business elsewhere. Or they could demand the that bank post more cash to back its derivatives trades. Either can be costly.

“Definitely, Morgan Stanley’s credit rating is a pressing issue for the bank right now,” said Mike Mayo, a bank analyst with the brokerage firm CLSA Asia Pacific Markets.

Morgan Stanley’s derivatives business is even more vulnerable than those of its rivals. In the financial crisis in 2008, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs converted to bank holding companies. While the designation came with added regulation, it also allowed the companies to take advantage of the government’s bailout funds and other perks.

A few months later, the Federal Reserve exempted Goldman from a rule intended to stop a financial company from using a deposit-taking bank subsidiary with taxpayer backing to support other parts of the company.

With the waiver, Goldman was able to move much of its derivatives business into an insured bank, where it remains. Normally, a strict limit on the size of such transfers would have prevented Goldman from making the shift.

Goldman now warehouses $44 trillion of its derivatives – 92 percent – in that subsidiary, Goldman Sachs Bank USA, according to figures from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The credit rating on the insured bank is one notch higher than on Goldman’s parent company because the subsidiary has the backing of the government.

Morgan did not make the same choice. While it received the exemption from the Fed, it mainly shifted other types of assets into its insured bank. Ms. Porat said Morgan Stanley had been slowly moving derivatives into the insured bank. But only 3 percent of Morgan Stanley’s $52 trillion of derivatives are at Morgan Stanley Bank N.A., the insured subsidiary.

“It really surprises me that Morgan Stanley didn’t move all its derivatives into the bank,” said Saule T. Omarova, a professor at University of North Carolina School of Law who has written about exemptions the Fed granted to banks in the crisis.

Morgan Stanley declined to explain why it did not shift its derivatives like Goldman.

The bank does not have many options now. It could move a large amount of derivatives into a higher-rated nonbank affiliate. But it probably would need to raise or transfer a lot of capital to support the rating of the subsidiary, which would be costly.

If Morgan Stanley asked the Fed for an exemption to shift the derivatives into the government- insured bank, Morgan Stanley might meet with resistance from regulators and lawmakers.

Last October, several members of Congress wrote to bank regulators to express their concern that Bank of America had moved derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary into an insured bank.

While the Fed did not mention any specifics about Bank of America in its response a month later, it highlighted the rule that caps the amount of business that can be transferred into, or transacted with, an insured bank. The transferred business is not permitted to exceed 20 percent of the insured bank’s capital.

That cap could severely limit how much business Morgan Stanley could move.

Its insured bank had $8.8 billion of capital at the end of 2011, according to a regulatory filing, and 20 percent of that is $1.76 billion. That sum probably would be exceeded if Morgan Stanley transferred a large part of its derivative business, given the size of its book.

The overhaul of financial regulation makes it even harder for banks to move large amounts of derivatives.

Part of the Dodd-Frank legislation, effective in July, allows theFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a bank regulator, to deny a transfer, even if the Fed approves one. And even if both regulators give waivers, a bank could face scrutiny from Congress.

“We passed Wall Street reform to equip regulators with the tools they need to protect American taxpayers and ensure the soundness of our financial system,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, who was behind the letters sent to regulators in October about the Bank of America derivatives transfers.

“If the very agencies charged with preventing unnecessary risk in our financial systems are approving huge exemptions, I’m committed to addressing that.”


NYTimes

Spanish and Italian borrowing costs already at unsustainable levels, warns Moody's Analytics

Europe's third and fourth biggest economies are in such a "weakened state" that the rates currently being charged by the alarmed bondmarkets are "unmanageable", the economists argued.

Without "urgent action", included heavy buying of sovereign bond by the European Central Bank, both countries could need a Greek-style international bail-out or may even have to quit the euro, they said.

"The European Central Bank will need to buy more government bonds, and we cannot rule out further liquidity injections into the banking sector," the Moody's economists said. "In the medium term, changes will be needed in the design, and possibly the membership, of the single-currency union."

Citigroup backed the view, warning that Spain will need a bail-out by the EU, ECB and International Monetary Fund within months. "Spain will need to enter some form of a Troika program" some time this year, Citi's economists said in a note.

The warnings in the report rattled traders across Europe. Spain's Ibex dropped 2.42pc, after a 4pc decline on Tuesday, plunging below the 7,000 level for the first time in three years. Italy's MIB fell 2.01pc; France's CAC fell 2.05pc; and Germany's DAX fell 0.9pc. In London, the FTSE 100 held firm.

The bondmarkets were initially cheered after Spain passed a key test and successfully raised €2.5bn at a debt auction. Madrid reached its sale targets but was forced to pay a far higher cost to shift its benchmark 10-year debt. The average yield was 5.7pc, compared with 5.4pc at the last auction.

In its report, Moody's Analytics, which is the economics arm of the rating agency, said "borrowing costs above 5.7pc will significantly raise the chance of default" for Spain.

The economists warned that although Italy's implied borrowing costs were lower than Spain's, Rome's threshold was lower.

"Italy is already out of fiscal space, in our estimate." said Moody's. "Its debt levels relative to GDP already exceed a manageable level. The manageable limit for Italian 10-year bond yields is estimated at 4.2pc. As of Wednesday, Italian 10-year yields were 5.46pc."

The economists said the problems were compounded by the advancing signs of recession and the inadequate political response.

"The eurozone economy is near a crossroads," said the report. "The region has slipped into a mild recession and sovereign debt crisis tensions are resurfacing. Policy missteps could deepen and prolong the downturn. European governments must continue to build firewalls around the region's highly indebted economies."

It added: "The eurozone has not put up sufficient funds to bail out either Italy or Spain if that becomes necessary."

Others argued that the its was becoming obvious that eurozone "sinner states" would not be able to stick to the German-led austerity programmes. Spanish prime minister Mariano Rajoy has pledged to reduced his country's budget deficit to 5.3pc.

Stephen Pope, economist at Spotlight Ideas, said: "It did not take long for the initial applause for the Spanish [bond] auction to turn into a haunting slow handclap. Rajoy has done as much as possible on the austerity front but in truth his supply side measures are less than popular in a nation saddled with crippling unemployment and their effect will not be realised until [the fourth quarter] 2012 at the earliest.

"The honest truth is ... Spain will fail to make 5.3pc as a deficit to GDP target this year. It will require aid and even if it is dressed up as a bank solvency plan, it will be another nation taking the bailout route. This is why the markets have turned ugly in Madrid."

Italy has already axed its 2012 economic growth outlook. Mario Monti, the technocrat prime minister struggling to impose radical austerity, said the economy would contract by 1.2pc not the 0.4pc shrink that forecast. Italy will also miss its 2013 target for a balanced budget, too.

Telegraph

South shows off missiles of its own

Seems a missile parade, everybody has bigger one.......





The South Korean military yesterday unveiled two high-end missiles in response to the North’s defiant rocket launch. 

The Ministry of National Defense yesterday showed a video clip of the two latest weapons to reporters for the first time - a long-range cruise missile and a ballistic missile. 

“The military has independently developed and deployed this cruise missile, which is equipped with the world’s best capability for attacking a target in North Korea from anywhere it is fired,” Shin Won-sik, a Defense Ministry official, told reporters. 

“This cruise missile can attack a target as small as a window located hundreds of kilometers away,” Shin said. “We can attack any military target precisely, including North Korea’s facilities, soldiers or equipment.” 


In the footage, the cruise missile blasted off from the launch pad and flew toward a building-shaped target, striking the roof. Although the ministry didn’t offer details of the exact profile of the weapon, experts say it has an estimated range of at least 1,000 kilometers (621 miles).

The ballistic missile was also shown in the clip. It flew up and then exploded in midair, attacking targets on the surface. The ministry said the weapon could devastate a region as large as several soccer fields and fly up to a range of 300 kilometers.

“We showed this video clip of two missiles to respond to North Korea’s recent military provocations and missile launches,” Shin said. 

Tensions ran so high on Wednesday that North Korea lambasted a demonstration staged by South Korean citizens lampooning new leader Kim Jong-un, saying it will “blow up the whole city of Seoul.” 

“While we are celebrating the centenary of founder Kim Il Sung’s birth, the traitor Lee Myung-bak and his group is pouring water on our festive atmosphere and committing evil acts and extreme madness,” the statement said. “They let the traitors of the Korea Parent Foundation and the gangsters attending universities commit acts like bastards in several places, including Gwanghwamun Plaza in Seoul.”

The Korea Parent Foundation, known as a conservative civic group protesting against pro-North supporters in the South, held a press conference on April 13 in Gwanghwamun Plaza, after the regime fired the long-range rocket. Condemning the liftoff, the foundation members displayed a mock-up rocket with a doll of heir Kim Jong-un attached to it and burned a photo of the new leader on the spot. 

On Sunday, Kim Il Sung’s 100th birthday, a group of university students staged a demonstration in the plaza, protesting the young successor’s rocket launch. 

“Although it’s the heart of Seoul, it is becoming the center of provoking us and slandering our dignity,” the North said in the statement. “A special action measure will be taken to blow up all of the things in Seoul.” 



Korea JoongAng Daily

Experts: NKorea missile carrier likely from China

Taiwan - The enormous, 16-wheel truck that North Korea used to carry a missile during a recent parade likely came from China in a possible violation of U.N. sanctions meant to rein in Pyongyang's missile program, experts say.

The carrier, also believed capable of launching missiles, caught the eye of experts during last Sunday's military show in Pyongyang because it was the biggest carrier yet displayed by North Korea and gives the country- truculently at odds with the U.S., Japan and South Korea — the ability to transport long-range missiles around its territory, making them harder to locate and destroy.

The large size of the vehicle "represents a quantum leap forward" for the North Koreans, said Wendell Minnick, a reporter on Asian military developments for Defense News, a Washington-based publication.

Unlikely to have been made by North Korea because of its technical sophistication, experts said the design of the vehicle shows that China is the probable source. Pinning a sanctions-busting charge on Beijing would be difficult, however, because it would be hard to prove that Beijing provided the technology for military purposes or even that it sold the vehicle directly to North Korea, the experts said.

CBS