The Prophet of Wrath

15

February 19, 2009 by esarsea

 grapes-of-wrath

The following article is a cut-and-paste copy taken from The Prophet of Wrath Blog by Sidney Allen Johnson. I thought it presented some interesting observations, and was worthy of further discussion by the BS crew. Thanks to Mr. Johnson for letting us borrow his work! 

———————————————————————

With the recession, and President Obama’s subsequent stimulus debacle dominating the media, recent revelations about the true origins of the financial crisis have been (deliberately?) ignored. Contrary to popular perception, the recession and the crisis in the financial markets are two separate and distinct events even though the effects of one affects the other. If you will recall, in September we were led to believe that a financial disaster was imminent. The President, at the urging of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, insisted that drastic action had to be taken immediately or the financial markets would collapse. The stock market plunged and trillions of dollars in value just evaporated. Therefore congress, in a rush, passed the 700 billion dollar bank bailout known as the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Although most of us “informed” citizens are aware of the long term root causes of the financial collapse (the Community Reinvestment Act and the toxic assets it spawned) this in and of itself would not have presented its effects as an emergency of such dire proportions. These assets had been fermenting for decades awaiting a flame to ignite them. Now the revelations are coming forth…

On Thursday at roughly 11 AM The Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the USA to the tune of $550 Billion dollars in a matter of an hour or two. Money was being removed electronically.

The Treasury tried to help, opened their window and pumped in $150 Billion but quickly realized they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. So they decided to closed down the accounts.- Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D) of Pennsylvania

In an interview broadcast on C-Span’s Washington Journal, Representative Kanjorski explained what the former Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told congress during the September 2008 closed door session. The meeting was held a few days after the electronic run on the banks on Monday September 15. The Thursday before, that Representative Kanjorski is referring to, was SEPTEMBER 11. Does that day have any significance to anyone??? He continued…

Had they not closed down the accounts they estimated that by 2 PM that afternoon. Within 3 hours. $5.5 Trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the United States would have collapsed, and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed.

So there you have the story, as it was told to President Bush and the congress. Action had to be taken quickly to stabilize the markets due to an electronic bank run. It also goes a long way to explaining why one of the first actions taken was to boost the FDIC deposit insurance up from $100,000 per depositor to $250,000. They were pre-empting a possible run on all banks in the event that word leaked out about what had happened.

In contemplating the timing of this event and the reaction of certain key figures, both before and after the electronic bank run, the obvious must be stated: THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WAS DELIBERATELY PLANNED AND DELIBERATELY EXECUTED!! Just who was it that initiated the bank run? The timing of the event, both in the deliberate choice of September 11 as the attack date and the proximity to a presidential election prohibit any realistic acceptance of a “coincidence.” Somebody took 550 billion dollars out of the banks. Even down here in Alabama we know that is a serious amount of money. The question is, who took it out? Why did they take it out? And of course…where is it now? Rest assured SOMEBODY knows!

All of those transactions produced records. You can be certain that all of this was investigated and fast. Yet no-one has revealed any information. Hell, if it weren’t for Representative Kanjorski we wouldn’t even now know that there was a run on the banks. Why is he now talking? Was the United States the victim of an economic terrorist attack? Certainly the choosing of the September 11 date for the bank run leads one to consider Islamic terrorism. However the extreme amount of money involved would eliminate any possibility of any known terrorist group, unless of course they were supported by a wealthy state with the economic resources to pull this off…Saudi Arabia anyone? Venezuela? The attack occurred at a time of surging oil prices, which just happens to financially benefit countries that would like to do the United States harm. The time would never be better for one of these known enemies to make their move. It is also rather telling how swiftly afterward world oil prices plummeted…U.S. economic counterattack?

Certainly we can see how this could have perplexed President Bush. Evidence suggests that the attack was, essentially, repulsed and perhaps the sudden drop in oil prices could have been a U.S. reprisal. However, you must ask yourself how the President would be able to present this to the American people? If he had suggested that the U.S. was attacked the American media, already swooning in their adoration of Barack Obama, would have accused him of playing the “terrorism” card. They would never have acknowledged the reality of such an attack and announcing it may have hurt John McCain’s chances even more than the subsequent stock market crash. Also, a significant part of Bush’s legacy rests on the fact that he prevented further terrorist attacks after September 11, 2001. Even though this was a different type of attack, he may have felt a desire to not acknowledge it publicly to preserve that impression.

It is clear that one of, if not THE, overriding motives for the attack was to influence the election results. If you will recall that in March of 2004 there was an Islamic terrorist attack in Madrid, Spain. This attack also was presented just before an election. It resulted in the appeasement party winning the elections and the government subsequently pulling Spanish troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. This is exactly the result the terrorists were seeking.

If a bombing such as the one in Madrid were replicated in the United States, the result would  almost certainly have been just the opposite. The country would have been, once again, wakened from the slumber that seven years of successfully preventing an attack had induced. John McCain, the tough military man, would have won in a landslide. By contrast, if you want to do something that will help Barack Obama…you have to hurt the economy. Remember Bill Clinton got elected by riding a minor recession and repeating the slogan: “it’s the economy, stupid.” Therefore it would need to be an attack on the U.S. economy that would have the effect of sending a democrat to the White House.

Interpreting the motive for the attack opens still more possibilities. I have thus far suggested that the most likely motive for striking the U.S. financial markets would be to alter the presidential election. It is not likely than an external adversary would have really suspected they could actually destroy the U.S, economy, nor would any country on earth benefit from such a result as we would take every other economy down with us. Therefore if influencing the election was the most reasonable motive for the attack we must also entertain another possibility…that the attack originated from elements WITHIN the United States.

A person, or group of people are absolutely within their rights to take money from their own accounts. It is 100% legal and can only be prevented by the government shutting down the market as it eventually did. We are told that as much as 5 trillion dollars would have been removed had they not interceded. How could they know that? That presumes that an uncontrollable panic involving large numbers of investors had to be involved. If this was designed as an action to induce a stampede of withdrawals then this would have had to be done in a way that was visible so the bank run could continue to build momentum on itself. Was this panic induced by several key investors who went out of there way to be seen withdrawing large amounts of money? Was it their intention to be noticed and subsequently have their actions followed and repeated by thousands of other investors? For it to work, it had to be noticed, observed and recorded. A record of all the withdrawals exists. Therefore the people who monitor such things, The Securities and Exchange Commission, has to be able to know, and most certainly does know, who was responsible. And yet we have been told nothing. Why?

One news story comes to mind immediately. It involves New York Senator Charles Schumer who is credited with initiating a run on the banks a short time before the financial attack of September 11, 2008:

OTS (Office of Thrift Supervision) announced Friday that it was taking over the $32 billion IndyMac and transferring control to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation – and the agency pointed the finger directly at Schumer for the failure, accusing him of sparking a bank run by releasing a letter that “expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability.”

“In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts,” the OTS said in a statement announcing the California-based lender’s takeover. The statement included a quote from OTS Director John Reich saying, “Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process.”

Schumer’s letter on June 26 said he was “concerned that IndyMac’s financial deterioration poses significant risks to both taxpayers and borrowers.” – CNN

Charles Schumer is certainly no stranger to hardball partisan politics, so finding him entangled in a premeditated ploy to intimidate the public into voting democratic is hardly a surprise. As always George Soros’ name also comes up as a likely major player in this affair. After all, he does have the financial resources to initiate a panic and he likewise has a history of trying to use his vast wealth to interfere with government policy. You will recall that in 1992 he sold short more than $10 billion worth of British money thereby forcing The Bank of England to withdraw its currency from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism causing the pound sterling to be devalued. Soros earned an estimated  1.1 billion in the process. Of course George Soros is also a known supporter of various liberal causes including bankrolling the legal team currently trying to Railroad Al Franken into the Senate.

Once again we have to put ourselves in the position of President Bush. How can he possibly present this scenario to the public without himself being accused of trying to mislead the public? Who would have believed him if he had presented evidence that democratic supporters were sabotaging the economy in order to acquire a victory for themselves? Considering his approval ratings, he had almost no choice but to sit on the information. Even if he had released the names of all involved after the election it could have had a devastating effect on our population. But do we not need to know this? Should this be allowed to go unacknowledged? Should we not consider the penalty we must pay as a nation if we allow people to deliberately damage our economy just to further their own political objectives? And what of those political objectives? Considering the damnable stimulus bill they just rammed through the congress do we dare assume they have our best interests at heart? Perhaps President Bush let us down. This will come out, and its effects on the social order of our country will be catastrophic. This of course will be no problem for our current President who will use this impending threat to social order as an opportunity to consolidate more power. H.R. 645 anyone?

Before you write this off as making a worst case scenario out of the, thus far, limited revelations of a little known house member, it would be wise to consider the actions of both Barack Obama and John McCain at the time of the attack. If you will recall, John McCain famously suspended his campaign to return to Washington and lead the efforts that would result in the TARP bill. This put the first presidential debate in serious jeopardy of being canceled or delayed. What, pray-tell, did Barack Obama do? Insisting that the debates should go on as scheduled, he uttered one of his most infamous statements:

“There are times for politics, and then there are times to rise above politics and do what’s right for the country. And this is one of those times. It is going to be part of the president’s job to deal with more than one thing at once. I think there’s no reason why we can’t be constructive in helping to solve this problem and also tell the American people what we believe, and where we stand, and where we want to take the country. You know, what I’m going to do is, I’m going to — what I have told the leadership in Congress is that, if I can be helpful, then I am prepared to be anywhere any time.” – Barack H. Obama

Ahh, the the notorious “call me if you need me” line. Not the kind of reaction you expect from a presidential hopeful concerning a crisis of an uncertain nature. No, this is the kind of reaction you get from someone who figures things are going according to the plan. A plan that was designed entirely for his benefit. A plan that succeeded in making him the President of the United States. What wouldn’t a man such as this do to fulfill his ambitions? Dare we want to know what those ambitions portend?

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “The Prophet of Wrath

  1. Randy Spiker says:

    This could either be the ultimate conspiracy theory or we’re in deep doo-doo! With the timelines and circumstantial evidence presented, he does make a good case. I’d like to see more before fully coming on to believing this array of information. Do you think that the powers that be in Wash D.C. will ever try to disprove any of these assertions? That in itself could be construed as admitting that there might be something to investigate.

  2. Da Goddess says:

    The “financial crisis” was timed perfectly. I’m not saying it was some big conspiracy, but if you look carefully at various elections within your city or state, you would see that very often, before an upcoming election, a crisis develops. It can be an artificial crisis or real, but either way, my guess is you’ll find a crisis of some sort. It’s supposed to shake things up. It’s designed to make you think hard about who you elect. It’s done to sway votes.

    With a financial or budget crisis, governors, mayors, etc., can actually convince people that a tax increase is a good thing. Or maybe an opponent will use the crisis to say, “we need CHANGE! We cannot allow this to happen again!” (when in fact, they’ll use it to their advantage to pass pork off on all the trusting, unsuspecting voters).

    People now believe the crisis is real and inevitable. Guess what? Many of us fell for the oldest trick in the book. If you tell enough people there’s a threat (financial, physical, etc.) they will rush out to get money, supplies, whatever and they actually help perpetuate the myth. Soon enough, what was just a rumor is now fact.

  3. Jane says:

    for goodness sakes there is enough truth out there to read up on and find better ways to occupy ones time than this
    in all seriousness there are some very wise people who have been alerting the public to realities and ways to find the best ways for our country and all humanity for that matter
    in a portable package, i HIGHLY reccomend
    http://www.alibris.com/booksearch?qwork=8036739&matches=18&wquery=in+pursuit+of+justice&cm_sp=works*listing*title

    and in online searchable by topic
    http://www.nader.org/

    uh yeah things actually are going down the shitter but there are things we can do about it. read, call congress

  4. esarsea says:

    “…in all seriousness there are some very wise people who have been alerting the public to realities…”

    You are right, Jane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM

  5. Jane says:

    Stu, who do you think told em about it????????

  6. Jane says:

    http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/87-Testimony-of-Ralph-Nader-on-THE-HOUSING-FINANCE-REGULATORY-IMPROVEMENT-ACT.html

    hope its ok to make alot of posts, i hit that enter button a little early, don’t want anyone to think i post alot just to boost my bullshit rating

  7. Jane says:

    and here i go again, wise????? wise?????
    lord, McCain who had to cut his campaign short to vote to throw away our money on the bailouts?
    your blog entry mentions how during this time the presidential debate was in jeapordy but it wasn’t even really a debate!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    see previous links to opendebates.org…….

  8. Randy Spiker says:

    Well…… since this thread seems to be morphing into a “cause and effect” on the financial mess, I have a few items of interest starting with this one here;

    The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
    By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

    Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it’s dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Read More: Business & Regulation

    ——————————————————————————–

    Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the “trickle-down” economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

    But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street’s most revered institutions.

    Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

    The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but “predatory.”

    Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the ’90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

    And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.

    As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

    Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

    Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

    In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

    But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

    At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

    The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today’s nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

    And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we’ll all be paying for Clinton’s social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.

    There’s a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we’ll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

    But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn’t get it. They won’t acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.

    Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

    While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

    Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government’s fingerprints all over it.

  9. Randy Spiker says:

    Here’s exhibit #2. It’s a collage of “hearing events” back in the day.

  10. Randy Spiker says:

    This one is a short soundbite from a gal who knows what is gonna be delivered. This mindset seems to have many followers as we witnessed a similar situation in the Fort Meyers townhall last week.

  11. Randy Spiker says:

    A fitting quote for this thread…..

    “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. ” Thomas Jefferson

  12. Randy Spiker says:

    THIS is the video I’ve been looking for that pretty much splains it all.
    Brother Bill, I fully expect a response from you that includes greed, corruption and Republicans and yes I agree that many were guilty but the Community Reinvestment Act which is pretty much solely responsible for about 95% of the mess were in today is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, PERIOD!!! And if you want to say that Republicans had involvement due to wanting LESS regulation, well that Dog don’t hunt and is just MSM dogma. Even Bill Clinton agrees.
    Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and a whole host of others in high places absolutely belong behind bars…… not commitee heads of Banking and Finance. It’s akin to having some welfare receipient in charge of handing out welfare checks or the perverbial Fox guarding the henhouse
    The more I learn about this crap, the more pissed I get.

  13. Jane says:

    i hear ya Randy. while it is helpful in some ways to learn the history etc. to prevent its repeating and to learn what not to do etc. this situation needs solutions more than whats to blame. IMO
    one of the reasons I have been so enamored by Mr. Nader is his ability to show a better way most times.
    still learning I am for sure but to me this isn’t a republican vs democrat issue

  14. bill says:

    Naw, Randy, I don’t have a dog in this hunt for Red Obama.

    George Bush was missing in action during all this, right up to the election, because like 9/11 (My Pet Goat) and Katrina, the damned fool didn’t know what to do.

    If you want some decent, non-partisan information that’s right out there in the open, pick up the latest TIME magazine that features a cover story on how it happened and who’s really responsible. It will surprise you because the 25 people TIME has called out for the country’s economic melt down are on both sides of the aisle.

    As an amateur social scientist, I do find it fascinating that Ockham’s Razor rarely comes into play.

    Wiki:”Occam’s razor, also Ockham’s razor,[1] is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.”

    In other words, with all things being somewhat equal, the simplest explanation is usually the correct explanation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

February 2009
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23 other followers

Blog Stats

  • 148,099 BS BLOG visits to date
%d bloggers like this: