Exclusive: U.S. lets China bypass Wall Street for Treasury orders

(Reuters) - China can now bypass Wall Street when buying U.S. government debt and go straight to the U.S. Treasury, in what is the Treasury's first-ever direct relationship with a foreign government, according to documents viewed by Reuters.

The relationship means the People's Bank of China buys U.S. debt using a different method than any other central bank in the world.

The other central banks, including the Bank of Japan, which has a large appetite for Treasuries, place orders for U.S. debt with major Wall Street banks designated by the government as primary dealers. Those dealers then bid on their behalf at Treasury auctions.

China, which holds $1.17 trillion in U.S. Treasuries, still buys some Treasuries through primary dealers, but since June 2011, that route hasn't been necessary.

The documents viewed by Reuters show the U.S. Treasury Department has given the People's Bank of China a direct computer link to its auction system, which the Chinese first used to buy two-year notes in late June 2011.

China can now participate in auctions without placing bids through primary dealers. If it wants to sell, however, it still has to go through the market.

The change was not announced publicly or in any message to primary dealers.

"Direct bidding is open to a wide range of investors, but as a matter of general policy we do not comment on individual bidders," said Matt Anderson, a Treasury Department spokesman.

While there is been no prohibition on foreign government entities bidding directly, the Treasury's accommodation of China is unique.

The Treasury's sales of U.S. debt to China have become part of a politically charged public debate about China's role as the largest exporter to the United States and also the country's largest creditor.

The privilege may help China obtain U.S. debt for a better price by keeping Wall Street's knowledge of its orders to a minimum.

Primary dealers are not allowed to charge customers money to bid on their behalf at Treasury auctions, so China isn't saving money by cutting out commission fees.

Instead, China is preserving the value of specific information about its bidding habits. By bidding directly, China prevents Wall Street banks from trying to exploit its huge presence in a given auction by driving up the price.

It is one of several courtesies provided to a buyer in a class by itself in terms of purchasing power. Although the Japanese, for example, own about $1.1 trillion of Treasuries, their purchasing has been less centralized. Buying by Japan is scattered among institutions, including pension funds, large Japanese banks and the Bank of Japan, without a single entity dominating.

Granting China a direct bidding link is not the first time Treasury has gone to great lengths to keep its largest client happy.

In 2009, when Treasury officials found China was using special deals with primary dealers to conceal its U.S. debt purchases, the Treasury changed a rule to outlaw those deals, Reuters reported last June. But at the same time it relaxed a reporting requirement to make the Chinese more comfortable with the amended rule.

Another feature of the U.S.-China business relationship is discretion: The Treasury tried to keep its motivation for the 2009 rule change under wraps, Reuters reported.

Documents dealing with China's new status as a direct bidder again demonstrate the Treasury's desire for secrecy -- in terms of Wall Street and its new direct bidding customer.

To safeguard against hackers, Treasury officials upgraded the system that allows China to access the bidding process.

Then they discussed ways to deflect questions from Wall Street traders that would arise once the auction results began revealing the undeniable presence of a foreign direct bidder.

"Most hold the view that foreign accounts only submit 'indirect bids' through primary dealers. This will likely cause significant chatter on the street and many questions will likely come our way," wrote one government official in an email viewed by Reuters.

In the email, the official suggested providing basic, general answers to questions about who can bid in Treasury actions.

"For questions more extensive or probing in nature, I think it prudent to direct them to the or Treasury public relations area," the official wrote.

The granting to China of direct bidder status may be controversial because some government officials are concerned that China has gained too much leverage over the United States through its large Treasury holdings.

For example, economist Brad Setser, who is a member of the National Economic Council and has also served on the National Security Council, has argued China's large Treasury holdings pose a national security threat.

Writing for the Council on Foreign Relations in 2009, Setser posited that China's massive U.S. debt holdings gave it power over U.S. policy via the threat of a swift, large sale of U.S. debt that could send the market into turmoil and drive up interest rates.

But Treasury officials have long maintained that U.S. debt sales to China are kept separate from politics in a business relationship that benefits both countries. The Chinese use Treasuries to house the dollars they receive from selling goods to the United States, while the U.S. government is happy to see such strong demand for its debt because it keeps interest rates low.

A spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington did not respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

The United States has, however, displayed increasing anxiety about China as a cybersecurity threat. The change Treasury officials made to their direct bidding system before allowing access to China was to limit access to the system to a specially designed private network connection controlled by the Treasury.

China is among the most sensitive topics for bankers and government officials who court the country as a financial client because of its size and importance, and none would agree to comment on the record for this story.

A former debt management official at the Treasury who did not want to be identified said that as China's experience in the U.S. Treasury market has deepened over time, Chinese officials may have felt more comfortable taking the reins in the management of their holdings.

Their request to bid directly, in his view, came from a confidence that their money managers could buy U.S. debt more efficiently on their own than through Wall Street banks, which can often drive up the price of Treasuries at an auction if they know how much large clients are willing to pay. Such a practice that is not specifically illegal, though most traders would deem it unethical.

Evidence of China's growing sophistication as a money manager in the U.S. markets is clear in its expansion of operations in New York. Its money management arm, the State Administration for Foreign Exchange (commonly called SAFE), has an office in Midtown Manhattan and a seasoned chief investment officer -- former Pacific Investment Management Co derivatives head Changhong Zhu -- in Beijing.

A woman who answered the phone at SAFE's New York office said no one in the office was authorized to talk to the media.

(Editing by Martin Howell and Steve Orlofsky)

Related:

WHY IS CHINA OUR NATION’S NATIONAL BANK

Technorati Tags: banking,CFR,CHINA,globalists,national debt,New Economic World Order,Obamaland,radicals in the White House,Timothy Geithner,Treasuries,Treasury Department,U.S. economy,U.S. policy,U.S. Treasury Bonds,Wall Street,watch the other hand

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts

This gives a new meaning to " gov’t. corruption"!!!!

No wonder they didn't want to be Audited..

Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts - unelected.org - Click: The Silver Bear Cafe

The first ever GAO (Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Paul, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill (HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.

What was revealed in the audit was startling:

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.

To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.

In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.

"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Paul(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.

Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and super-corporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.

The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows..

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places

View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation

Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf
Senator Sander’s Article: http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

Source: unelected.org  - Click: The Silver Bear Cafe

(The Motto of the Silver Bear Cafe is: "Serving up a heaping helping of the Truth, with a generous side of Common Sense")

The Obamas… “Let Them Eat Cake” or Is That Drink Tea? – Updated

The Obamas, by New York Times reporter Jodi Kantor, has made headlines even before it goes on sale Tomorrow, 01.10.11.  A White House spokesman has dismissed it as an "over-dramatization of old news."

The book — a political dissection of a marriage and a chronological account of the rocky political education of the president and first lady.  It promises more than it delivers, so for readers expecting controversy, they may be disappointed. For those that can read between the lines… maybe not.

Although with the interesting timing of the exiting of Rahm Emanuel's replacement as Chief of Staff, Bill Daley, it might make some wonder what has been left out and wonder if this book is perhaps an under-dramatization? The early exit, not matter how it was framed by the White House, continues the whispers of internal meltdown.

The book is filled with stories of infighting among White House staff which includes (ed) Rahm Emanuel , Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett and the First Lady. Beyond Washington, few will call it juicy, except for details of a 2009 "Hollywoodesque" Halloween party at the White House with Johnny Depp in costume as the Mad Hatter from his role in the film Alice in Wonderland.

Kantor contends the White House kept details secret, fearing how a splashy party would appear during a recession. (See more below…)

The book portrays Michelle Obama as more political than her image, but opens with an interesting assumption, that Obama's re-election "increasingly rests on attractive images and charming stories of him and his family."

Kantor's narrative is built on the couple's longstanding political differences — not over policies, but the role of politics. Kantor writes that Michelle Obama always doubted if "true change could be accomplished through the legislative process."

The couple's other differences are explored: He's tolerant of staff failures. She's not. Kantor attributes that to their childhoods. Both are Ivy League-educated lawyers from modest backgrounds. But he partly raised himself and has a "soft spot" for anyone who has helped him. With her strict parents, there were no excuses.

The book is best on the Obamas' enduring friendship with two African-American couples from Chicago and on the inner workings of the White House — how security and obsessive fears about image disrupt normal family life.

It's a book that will be viewed through its readers' politics: a liberal apology to conservatives, too focused on style for liberals yet in reality probably too much on the  surface and missing the real scandals and questionable mystery issues that keep reappearing no matter how much the Obama’s have tried to bury them including: the eligibility question, the missing documents from both their backgrounds, unending questions about the president’s family and their family connections and ties between the Geithners, the Jarrett's, and the Dunhams, tales of affairs and sexual proclivity, questions of both their dealings in Chicago; personal and professional Rezko land deal, follies like the 2016 Olympic bid and the list goes on…

Kantor concludes that the first lady has gained influence, "ironically" because she "played the role of not-very-political wife and mom so well. The less popular her husband became, the more powerful she became."

She's the "more confrontational Obama, the one who tended to slip into what one friend called 'mama bear' mode when her husband was threatened." On Obama's re-election campaign, Kantor writes, "This would be the last race he would ever run, and his wife intended for him to win." We'll see if Kantor has exaggerated the first lady's role.

White House threw secret 'Alice in Wonderland' bash during recession

It was the tea party The Obamas just couldn’t resist… just like all those vacations, shopping trips and golf games. But you ordinary Americans… tighten your belt peeps~

New York Post A White House “Alice in Wonderland” costume ball — put on by Johnny Depp and Hollywood director Tim Burton — proved to be a Mad-as-a-Hatter idea that was never made public for fear of a political backlash during hard economic times, according to a new tell-all.

“The Obamas,” by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor, tells of the first Halloween party the first couple feted at the White House in 2009. It was so over the top that “Star Wars” creator George Lucas sent the original Chewbacca to mingle with invited guests.

The book reveals how any official announcement of the glittering affair — coming at a time when Tea Party activists and voters furious over the lagging economy, 10-percent unemployment rate, bank bailouts and Obama’s health-care plan were staging protests — quickly vanished down the rabbit hole.

“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” the book says.

However, the White House made certain that more humble Halloween festivities earlier that day — for thousands of Washington-area schoolkids — were well reported by the press corps.

Then the Obamas went inside, where an invitation-only affair for children of military personnel and White House administrators unfolded in the East Room.

Unbeknownst to reporters, the State Dining Room had also been transformed into a secretive White House Wonderland.

Tim Burton decorated it “in his signature creepy-comic style. His film version was about to be released, and he had turned the room into the Mad Hatter’s tea party, with a long table set with antique-looking linens, enormous stuffed animals in chairs, and tiered serving plates with treats like bone-shaped meringue cookies,” reports the book, which The Post purchased at a Manhattan bookstore.

“Fruit punch was served in blood vials at the bar. Burton’s own Mad Hatter, the actor Johnny Depp, presided over the scene in full costume, standing up on a table to welcome everyone in character.”

The Obamas’ daughters, Malia and Sasha, then 11 and 8 respectively, “sat at the table, surrounded by a gaggle of their friends, and then proceeded to the next delight, a magic show in the East Room.”

Kantor’s book details more personal aspects of the Obama White House, serving up glimpses of the first couple’s marriage, parenting, sometimes tense handling of staff issues and even the president’s sly sense of humor when it comes to race.

One morning during his Senate campaign, Obama didn’t show up to a meeting with donors. “After a frantic search, a white staffer named Peter Coffey called Obama’s barbershop to find that, yes, he was there.”

The president confronted Coffey about the call later that day.

“ ‘The relationship between a black man and his barber is sacred,’ Obama bellowed . . . ‘For failing to understand this truth, your punishment is to watch the movie “Barbershop.” And for further punishment, you will then watch the sequel, “Barbershop 2.” ’ ”

Often White House staffers found themselves in the middle of husband-and-wife quarrels.

“The advisors could feel hopelessly caught between husband and wife,” Kantor writes. “The Obama marriage was awkward for everyone: for the aides, for the president . . . and for the first lady.”

Post photo composite

TEA PARTY! Johnny Depp played host, as the Mad Hatter, at a 2009 White House bash, but a new book says it was kept quiet from the press for fear of backlash amid the recession.

Updated (Photos from the Blaze… the truth has no agenda):

PICTURES SURFACE FROM THE OBAMA'S EXTRAVAGANT HALLOWEEN PARTY  

  Two years after the President and his family threw an over-the-top, Alice In Wonderland themed halloween party (complete with actor Johnny Depp in full Madhatter costume and makeup), pictures from the event are making the rounds. Was it wrong for the First Family to partying in such a grand fashion while the nation's unemployment was sitting at 10%? Get the details and decide for yourself HERE. 

A lot has been said over the last two days about the White House’s now-infamous “Alice in Wonderland” Halloween party from 2009. It was an extravagant affair featuring actor Johnny Depp and filmmaker Tim Burton in costume. Conservatives have panned the president for having such a party during economic turmoil, and generally keeping it hush-hush. Liberals (and even some conservatives) have defended the president, either saying the party was mentioned to some degree, or that the president‘s Halloween plans shouldn’t be national news.

No matter what side you take, it’s still conceivable that you would want to see pictures from the event, right? We thought so.

Intrepid blogger Zombie tracked down some of the photos from the night and posted them here. We’ve included some of them below (Depp is dressed as the Mad Hatter, Burton is the one with the eye patch, and the dog, well, that’s the Obama family canine named “Bo”):

You can see more of the pictures that Zombie tracked down, including more of the decorations and some from what seems to be an exclusive after-party, here and here.

By the way, the White House’s official statement defends the party as no secret:

One of the anecdotes that has received wide attention [from the new book The Obamas] has been a supposedly secret Alice in Wonderland themed Halloween party in 2009. This was an event for local school children from the Washington DC area and for hundreds of military families, and certainly nothing that the White House was ashamed of.

Of course…. If there was nothing to be ashamed of, the why was this story hidden from the press and the American people… word has it that it is logged nowhere on the White House records.

The Obamas

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??

BANK OF AMERICA TO CHARGE $5 MONTH FEE FOR USING DEBIT CARD

NEW YORK (The Blaze/AP) — Bank of America plans to start charging customers a $5 monthly fee for using their debit card to make purchases. The fee will be rolled out starting early next year.

A number of banks have already either rolled out or are testing such fees. But Bank of America’s announcement carries added weight because it is the largest U.S. bank by deposits.

Anne Pace, a Bank of America Corp. spokeswoman, said Thursday that customers will only be charged the fee if they use their debit cards for purchases in any given month. Customers won’t be charged if they only use their cards at an ATM.

The fee will apply to basic accounts and will be in addition to any existing monthly service fees. For example, one of the bank’s basic accounts charges a $12 monthly fee unless customers meet certain conditions, such as maintaining a minimum average balance of $1,500.

A fee for using debit cards is still a novel concept for many consumers and was unheard of before this year. But there are signs it may soon become an industry norm.

SunTrust, a regional bank based in Atlanta, began charging a $5 debit card fee on its basic checking accounts this summer. Regions Financial, which is based in Birmingham, Ala., plans to start charging a $4 fee next month.

Chase and Wells Fargo are also testing $3 monthly debit card fees in select markets. Neither bank has said when it will make a final decision on whether to roll out the fee more broadly.

 

“I might use all cash. Or go back to writing checks,” he said.

The debit card fee isn’t the only unwelcome change for checking account customers are seeing either. The banking industry has been raising fees and scaling back on rewards programs as they adjust to new regulations that will limit traditional revenue sources.

Starting Oct. 1, a regulation will cap the fees that banks can collect from merchants whenever customers swipe their debit cards. Those fees generated $19 billion in revenue for banks in 2009, according to the Nilson Report, which tracks the payments industry.

There is no similar cap on the fees that banks can collect from merchants when customers use their credit cards, however. That means banks may increasingly encourage customers to reach for their credit cards, reversing a trend toward debit card usage in the past several years.

An increasing reliance on credit cards would be particularly beneficial for Bank of America, which is a major credit card issuer, notes Bart Narter, a banking analyst with Celent, a consulting firm.

“It’s become a more profitable business, at least in relation to debit cards,” Narter said.

This summer, an Associated Press-GfK poll found that two-thirds of consumers use debit cards more frequently than credit cards. But when asked how they would react if they were charged a $3 monthly debit card fee, 61 percent said they’d find another way to pay.

If the fee were $5, 66 percent said they would also change their payment method.

Bank of America’s debit card fee will be rolled out in stages starting with select states in early 2012. The company would not say which states would be affected first.

Bank of America shares rose 9 cents, or 1.5 percent, to $6.25 in afternoon trading.

h/t to the Blaze

Dodd-Frank: The End Of Free Checking?

On Sat., Oct. 1, new regulations from the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul go into effect on debit cards. Specifically, they impose price controls on “interchange fees,” the fees that banks and credit unions charge to retailers on debit card transactions.

The average interchange fee is about 44 cents. The new rules limit the fees to 21 to 24 cents.

“The costs of processing debit card transactions doesn’t go away because you limit the price,” said John Berlau, director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute. “That shifts the costs to consumers.”

These fees are used by banks to offer free checking and rewards programs. But now those programs may be be coming to an end. Just 45% of noninterest checking accounts are now free, down from 65% last year, according to a recent survey by Bankrate.com. The average monthly fee for those accounts has risen 75% in

the last year to $4.37.

Bank of America (BAC) just announced a $5 monthly fee for debit cards, starting early next year. BofA cited regulatory costs. Wells Fargo (WFC) and Chase (JPM) has experimented with $3 fees in some markets. Earlier in the year, SunTrust (STI) bank ended its debit card reward program.

Berlau notes other consequences:

Much of these costs will be transferred to consumers in terms of loss of free checking and debit card rewards, new charges for using an ATM, and other fee hikes and service cuts. In its rule, the (Federal Reserve) almost invited banks and credit unions to do this, “helpfully” pointing out that “the interchange fee standard would not limit the ability of an issuer to earn revenue from other sources, such as charging fees to cardholders.”

And there may be other nasty surprises, such as job losses. A Wall Street Journal editorial blamed at least part of the 40,000 Bank of America job losses on the loss of revenue due to the Dodd-Frank price controls. And late last week, Texas-based International Bancshares announced that due to the revenue loss from the price controls, it was closing 55 branches in grocery stores and shedding 500 jobs.

Even retailers may not get the full benefit they are expecting. According to one article, debit card processors can charge an additional fee when merchandise is returned, and that fee may not be covered by the regulations. Processors also may charge flat fees on transactions rather than a percentage-based fee, meaning retailers may pay more on small sales. Expect more processors to do that as the regulations take hold.

By David Hogberg   -  Thu., Sept. 29, 2011 11:30 AM ET  -  Capital Hill  -  h/t to Jean Stoner

Related:

The Secret Gov’t Bank That’s Financing More Solyndras

And at the core of this guy’s fiscal policies…

15 DAY TIMELINE FOR FALL OF THE DOLLAR (according to Vickers and Beck) Once or When China Says No More US Bonds

Here is a reminder of Glenn Beck's 15 day timeline from the day that China says "no more bonds"...wonder if that was the implication with Saturday's announcement...

China says they may stop buying Treasuries After S&P downgrade??? This was probably an idol threat (for now)

Video: Glenn Beck – Fall of the Dollar Timeline Prediction

Sadly, I guess we will see how accurate his timeline is...

The question is could we already be on this timeline! Probably not, but who really knows… only time will tell? But once it starts it will be quick! Pray my friends… pray and prepare just in case!! Glenn has been right so often on his predictions. So the question probably is not if, but when!!

Here's the breakdown (with the scenario beginning on a Wednesday):
*DAY 1: China says "no more bonds" (Wednesday)
DAY 2: spooked on Wall Street (Thursday)
DAY 3: rumors start to circulate (Friday)
DAY 4: weekend, "kids at soccer" (Saturday)
DAY 5: Asian markets freefall, USD down 10%, gold goes up $200/oz. (Sunday)
DAY 6: Dow plunges 900-1000 pts. in 20 minutes, markets shut down by 9:50 AM, EU raises interest rates to encourage investors (Monday)
DAY 7: Markets unable to open, emergency fed meetings (Tuesday)
DAY 8: All is quiet, markets start to rally (Wednesday)
DAY 9: Quiet, stable (Thursday)
DAY 10: Dollar plunges an ADDITIONAL 10-15% (Friday)
DAY 11: Fed meets (Saturday)
DAY 12: Fed raises interest rates 5-6% to try and attract buyers (Sunday)
day 13: GLOBAL MELTDOWN, EVERY market (not just DOW) falls 3,000 points (Monday)
DAY 14: IMF and G20 meet, total restructuring, NEW GLOBAL ORDER IS ESTABLISHED!!!! Will be announced globally(Tuesday)
DAY 15: PUBLIC PANICS, bank runs, grocery shelves emptied within a few hours, etc.

If the collapse is not quite as near as the next couple of weeks, now that gold is through the roof (something Glenn also predicted and as laughed at for), please prepare. Investment in silver us a great idea… as well as food, water, general supplies, ammo etc.

The Bitter Fruit of Insolvency - Steve McCann

Excerpt:

If a nation wishes to maintain its solvency and continue to expand its economy, it should not experience deficits higher than 3% of its Gross Domestic Product and, in today's quasi-welfare societies, unemployment rates above 6 to 7%. On an aggregate basis, a combination of these percentages should always remain below 10. The higher this "National Insolvency Index" above 10, the greater the problems that country is experiencing, and if that index remains above 10 for three years or more the viable solutions to solve the dilemmas will be increasingly difficult to enact.

The United States has not only one of the worst National Insolvency Indices in the world since 2009 -- the year Barack Obama assumed office -- but the most dismal picture imaginable over the next ten plus years assuming nothing is changed.

The Obama Years:

	2009	2010	2011	2012
Insolvency Index	19.1	18.5	20.2	18.0 Est.

The average for the eight years of George W. Bush: 7.4

Per the Government Accountability Office for the estimate of future annual budget deficits and the Congressional Budget Office for their estimates of future unemployment rates (it should be noted: the CBO notoriously underestimates), the next 10 years are as follows if no massive and dramatic changes are made:

	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Index	14.7	14.3	14.0	13.5	13.8

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022
Index	14.0	15.0	15.5	15.8	16.3

At no point from 2009 to 2022 and beyond does this index fall below 10. A disaster of monumental proportions is in the offing, and the optimistic outlook by the Congressional Budget Office that the unemployment rate would be at 5.5% by 2016 will never happen making the index even worse than the above chart.

Over this period from the end of 2008 to 2022, the national debt held by the public as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product will grow from 42.0% to 125% and interest expenditures from 1.4% of GDP to 3.9% (in terms of 2011 dollars that is an increase from $200 Billion to nearly $600 Billion or 64% of the total individual income tax receipts by the IRS in 2010.)

This is why S&P has downgraded the creditworthiness of the United States and in reality should follow up with another more dramatic downgrade soon.

After World War II the United States became the greatest economic and military power the world has ever seen. This accomplishment happened in the period 1947 through 2008. The National Insolvency Index for the country averaged 6.9 over those 61 intervening years. It will average 16.0 from 2009 through 2022, far above the threshold of 10.

The urgency of reversing this index cannot be overstated; the United States is firmly on the path of becoming the most massive economic and financial failure in the history of mankind. The credit downgrade is a shot across the bow, not a political or ideological ploy. Will the current American ruling class and the average American citizen glued to the television begin to wake up and understand that he or she is living a tragic reality show in which everyone and everyone's progeny will bear the burden of a dramatically reduced standard of living and a country at the mercy of others?

Source: American Thinker - h/t to Warbird at Sovereignty in Colorado

The stock market made a slow recovery today… until Bernanke announced that he would (artificially) keep interest rates low through through 2013… or at least until the end of the election (re-election of BHO is the goal), after which all Hell will break lose (as described above or some variation) if he is reelected. AFTER THAT IT MADE A MIRACULOUS RECOVERY!

As for Geithner being relieved of his position… that will only happen if they all (the Chicago Team plus Soros) agree it is for the best because let us not forget, the Geithner-Obama connection, like the Jarrett-Obama connection go waaaay back. We are being played my friends!! (And then Geithner will toddle off to BTW, Rick Santelli pointed out that the reality of things is that without the tea party movement, we probably would have been downgraded to a BBB credit rating by S&P instead of a AA+.

How the Feds are manipulating the market:

"Stock prices are no longer based on buyers and sellers, but instead, on the US central bank. Here's how." LINK: http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Mises-Economics-Blog/2011/0610/Is-the-Fed-manipulating-the-stock-market

"The Fed Is Manipulating The Stock Market And It Should Be No Surprise" LINK: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-is-anyone-surprised-that-the-fed-took-stocks-as-collateral-2010-12

Is the U.S. Government Supporting the Stock Market?
LINK: http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2011/08/fed-exceptionally-low-rates-until-mid.html

Daniel Shaffer Notices the "Invisible Hand" aka Plunge Protection Team LINK: http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/05/daniel-shaffer-notices-invisible-hand.html

Larry Levin - the Visible and Invisible Hand is Everywhere
LINK: http://www.fundmymutualfund.com/2009/06/larry-levin-visible-and-invisible-hand.html

Per GodLikeProductions… Something is up: Something's Up: White House Cancels All Public Events for Today. LINK: http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1589786/pg9

A friend of ours asked his accountant what he should be investing in. The Accountants response was: GOLD, SILVER, GUNS, ANNUNITION, FOOD, WATER AND A GOOD BIBLE to carry you through!!

August 3: Day of Reckoning

On Tuesday evening, President Obama was being interviewed by Scott Pelley, who asked the President whether he could guarantee that Americans would get their Social Security checks if the debt ceiling weren't raised:

Can you tell the folks at home that, no matter what happens, the[ir] Social Security checks are going to go out on August the 3rd?

Obama:  Well, this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out each month.

Pelley: Can you guarantee, as president, that those checks will go out on August the 3rd?

Obama: I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved the [debt] issue, because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.

A howl of protests that the President was being disingenuous, at best, went up immediately. On Wednesday morning, Terence Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews.com, noted that according to the Daily Treasury Statement for June 30 there was plenty of income to cover all the government’s expenses for the month, with a little left over. Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, said, “You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to.” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was quick to point out that the President’s doubts about being able to pay the country’s bills and consequently being forced to default were a “misnomer:”

This is a misnomer that I believe the president and the treasury secretary have been trying to pass off on the American people, and it’s this: That if Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion, that somehow the United States will go into default and we will lose the ‘full faith and credit’ of the United States. That is simply not true.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) charged the President with bullying: “My concern is that we have a president who is not willing to do his job, and that is to prioritize the spending, that he is digging in his heels, being very intransigent, and he’s being a rigid ideologue.” Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) came close to suggesting that the President was lying:

We know from the House rules that the president never lies, but he is taking advice and information from somebody apparently who is willing to lie, because it’s just not true. The fear mongering needs to stop.

In the event that the debt ceiling debate is not resolved by Friday, July 22, there would be no time to avoid the drop dead date of August 3, and the Treasury would appear to face some daunting decisions. Jay Powell, former Undersecretary of the Treasury under President George H.W. Bush, has published an analysis of the options facing the Treasury on August 3 without a debt ceiling resolution. According to Powell, August revenues to the government will be $172 billion, while payments are expected to total $306 billion, with a shortfall of $134 billion. At least three interactive tools have been developed for those willing to make the decisions of who to pay and who to stiff have been developed here, here, and here.

No matter which one is selected, the numbers, if they are to be believed, are grim, and the choices limited. The Treasury could spend all of its revenue on just six bills that are due in August: interest on the national debt ($29 billion), Medicare ($28.6 billion), Medicaid ($21.4 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), defense vendor payments ($31.7 billion), and unemployment insurance ($12.8 billion). That would leave unpaid Active Military Duty pay ($2.9 billion), Veterans Affairs programs ($2.9 billion), IRS tax refunds ($3.0 billion), food stamps ($7.1 billion), federal government employees’ salaries ($14.2 billion), Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, and Environmental Protection ($31.3 billion), the Federal Highway Administration ($4.5 billion), the General Services Administration ($41.7 billion), the Justice Department ($1.4 billion), and “other spending” ($42 billion). In addition there would be no funds for the Small Business Administration, the Department of Labor, the Federal Transit Administration, Health and Human Services grants, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, or the Centers for Disease Control.

Credit rating agencies Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s have stated that the United States faces a possible credit downgrade if the government is allowed to default. As the White House Press Secretary put it: “You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay.”

In an effort to inform about (some would say lend support for) raising the debt ceiling, Powell’s study was presented to several Republican Senators on Wednesday evening.

A careful reader should take note of three points. First, the numbers in the Powell study have not been vetted and are merely informed estimates of revenue flow for August. Second, in the perspective of an economy that is generating nearly $15 trillion of goods and services annually ($1.25 trillion a month), the alleged estimated shortfall of $134 billion for the month of August is small change). And remember that June numbers showed revenues exceeding expenses. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the government finds itself in the same position as a family whose primary breadwinner has just lost his job, and they now have to cut their standard of living by 40 percent overnight. It seems somehow just, proper, and right that the profligate government would now be faced with the same situation if the debt ceiling weren’t raised. The adjustment, long overdue, would be painful, but necessary. Extending additional credit to the family (or the government) to “get over the hump” merely pushes the day of reckoning off into the very near future, when the financial difficulty will be even more painful to resolve.

Related:

How about we start tightening our belt by skipping “O’s” Lavish B-day Party?

Krauthammer:  Call Obama’s Bluff

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund? (Madoff would be proud)

Republicans to Vote on $2.4 Trillion in Cut With Debt Ceiling Increase  -  Obama and Dems… Still No Plan Offered~

UN Reveals Its Master Plan for Destruction of Global Economy

Debt Crisis, Ron Paul, the Fed and the IMF  

Return of the Gold Standard as world order unravels (Gold has already replaced the dollar)

Boehner Verses the Freshmen:  Debt Ceiling Battle Lines Are Drawn

Video: (you gotta see this one!)  Juan Williams Pwned: Sean Hannity Makes Williams Look Like Complete A$$  -  Sean Hannity completely pawned Juan Williams last night on Hannity. Sean asked Williams to respond to Eric Cantor's comments on raising the debt ceiling. When Juan got through trashing Cantor, Hannity told him that actually those were Obama's comments from 2006. Watch Juan Williams' expression when he finds out he got totally pawned.

Video:  Congressman Joe Walsh:  The Obama Movie – Stop Lying

And as usual there is Sheila Jackson Lee… playing the race card!:  Jackson Lee:  Congress Complicating Debt Ceiling Because… Obama IS Black  -  Am hearing a lot of gag reflexes out there!!

 

We Need Leadership… What We Got Was: The Tantrum in a High Chair (and Then Fear Mongering to Seniors)

Every mom who has ever been at her wit’s end recognizes Barack Obama. The president who earlier nagged Congress that it was time for Americans to “eat our peas” finally threw his own peas to the floor and banged his spoon on his supper dish. Such a tantrum in a high chair is a familiar sight in a lot of kitchens.

“Enough is enough,” the president cried, frustrated by the tense budget talks at the White House. “Don’t call my bluff,” he told his Republican tormentors. “I’m going to the American people.”

If a pout and a sulk is familiar to Mom, every 2-year-old in town can understand the president’s angry frustration. Throwing your peas on the floor, particularly if they’re of the English variety, tasting of copy paper and sliding down a tiny throat like un-lubricated ball bearings, is the instant gratification every tantrum-thrower yearns for. But it’s a presidential strategy we haven’t seen before

These are not the cheers and hosannas the prince of Hyde Park imagined for himself when he agreed to step down from on high to assume the presidential purple. It’s going on three years and the natives are restless. They keep asking impertinent questions. Rep. Eric Cantor, the leader of the Republican House majority, ignited the president’s ire when he suggested the president and the Democrats take a smaller budget deal than His Excellency wants. The president—“he got very agitated,” in the telling of Mr. Cantor, who was there—did not appreciate such lack of respect for royalty.

Harry Reid, the president’s liege man in the Senate, wanted to boot Mr. Cantor from the talks. “He shouldn’t even be at the table,” the majority leader said. No tea and cookies for him. Some Democrats disputed the details in the Republican account, but there was general agreement that Mr. Obama lost his celebrated cool. And why not? So far the budget talks have been a classic standoff between the president, who is determined to raise taxes to make the welfare state grow, and the Republicans, who are determined to cut the bipartisan spending that threatens to spin the economy into an abyss of unknown depth.

The president’s tantrum can have a positive effect, however, if it captures the full attention of the public. Talk of the economy makes the average voter’s head hurt, his teeth itch, and his Jockey shorts bunch up under his belt. The economy has always been like algebra, difficult to grasp, and voters have been willing to leave the algebra to the advocates for the tax-eaters. That may be changing, as one and all begin to recognize that the good life is at risk—the car, the boat, college for the kids, tropical vacations in Maui. The exceptional nation may be at risk of becoming like the toy nations of Europe.

President Obama plays the empty threat to withhold Grandma’s Social Security check. Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, warns of “a huge financial calamity” if Congress refuses to raise the debt limit. This echoes the lamentations of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner as well as the new chairman of the International Monetary Fund. Moody’s, the financial service that measures such things, piles on, with the dire threat that U.S. bonds could be downgraded. Maybe. It all smells like a contrived campaign to put pressure on the Republicans to cave, just as they have the attention of the president and his frightened Democrats.

The scheme of Sen. Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republicans in the Senate, to give the president the authority to raise the debt limit without serious cuts and bear the consequences, looks better to the Republicans than it did when he introduced it and for his trouble was scorched by some conservatives as the usual Republican sell-out artist. Democrats squealed like stuck pigs. They naturally don’t want this responsibility because they understand the eventual consequences of continuing to live it up like pigs in the slop-house. Mr. Obama wants Republicans to share the “credit” for his incompetent management of the economy.

The verdict of history, though on the way, is not quite at hand. The verdict of 2012 soon will be, and looms over everything. It’s enough to make a president, swaddled with a bad situation he made much worse, bang his supper dish with his spoon and throw his peas on the floor.

Life, Health, Prosperity,  Diane G.

h/t to Deonia Copeland and Jean Stoner

And Here is the Latest The latest demagoguery from AARP… The Senior Group That Sold Out Their Members for Profit… 

Wake up Seniors… Join One of the Other Groups!

I'm No Pushover

Congress Must Prevent Harmful Cuts to Social Security and Medicare

AARP ^ | 7/12/2011 | Government Affairs and Campaigns

Posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 9:42:50 PM by Mangia E Statti Zitto

Right now, President Obama and Congress are considering a deal to pay the nation's bills that could cut the Social Security and Medicare benefits seniors have earned through a lifetime of hard work.

(Excerpt) Read more at aarp.org ...

Post #23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2749323/posts?page=23#23

To: Mangia E Statti Zitto; All

Seniors may not get cost of living raises anymore and have their SS checks withheld, but Omuslim is going to take care of his muzzie bros and throw himself a big 50th B-Day party!

THIS is the sh*t that should be cut!

BILLIONS FOR JIHAD!

Obama’s 2009 Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Pandemic Flu was revised and “passed by the full committee.”
It gives billions http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/obamas-supplemental-bill-passes-gives-billions-to-enemies/  of U.S. taxpayer dollars to countries and entities that support Sharia law and/or harbor, hide and support those who want to destroy the U.S. and our allies.

Read the summary from David Obey’s office that was quietly released last week with nary a word from any media.

• $3.6 billion, matching the request, to expand and improve capabilities of the Afghan security forces

• $400 million, as requested, to build the counterinsurgency capabilities of the Pakistani security forces

• Afghanistan: $1.52 billion, $86 million above the request

• West Bank and Gaza: $665 million in bilateral economic, humanitarian, and security assistance for the West Bank and Gaza

• Jordan: $250 million, $250 million above the request, including $100 million for economic and $150 million for security assistance

• Egypt: $360 million, $310 million above the request, including $50 million for economic assistance, $50 million for border security, and $260 million for security assistance

• Pakistan: $1.9 billion, $591 million above the request

• Iraq: $968 million, $336 million above the request

• Oversight: $20 million, $13 million above the request, to expand oversight capacity of the State Department, USAID, and the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan to review programs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq

• Lebanon: $74 million

• International Food Assistance: $500 million, $200 million above the request, for PL 480 international food assistance to alleviate suffering during the global economic crisis… for people who hate us

• Refugee Assistance: $343 million, $50 million above the request, …including humanitarian assistance for Gaza. Funding for the UN Relief and Works Agency programs in the West Bank and Gaza is limited to $119 million (Note: Gaza = Hamas)

• Disaster Assistance: $200 million to avert famines and provide life-saving assistance during natural disasters and for internally displaced people around the world, including Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, the Middle East and South Asia

•Peacekeeping: $837 million for United Nations
peacekeeping operations, including an expanded mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and a new mission in Chad and the Central African Republic

• Department of Justice: $17 million, matching the request, for counter-terrorism activities and to provide training and assistance for the Iraqi criminal justice system
The mainstream media remains silent on this but the International News has now picked up the story http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=22164
— and then there is Obama’s $108 billion IMF bailout scheme http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/13/obamas-100-billion-imf-bailout-scheme/
in addition to the Supplemental.

And THIS is what Obama is doing to American taxpayers:

THE BIGGEST TAX HIKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY:
http://www.atr.org/days-thebr-largest-tax-hikes-history-a5370
PDF Version:
http://www.atr.org/files/files/090310pr-jan2011taxes.pdf
Obama gives your tax dollars to rebuild Muslim mosques around the world
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26990#

ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION WILL GIVE AWAY NEARLY $6 MILLION OF AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS TO RESTORE 63 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL SITES, INCLUDING ISLAMIC MOSQUES AND MINARETS, IN 55 NATIONS. See the State Department document here.
http://exchanges.state.gov/media/pdfs/office-of-policy-and-evaluations/ambassadors-fund/afcp2010list.pdf

23 posted on Friday, July 15, 2011 10:14:11 PM by patriot08

'A Slippery Character': New Details Emerge About Obama's Father

With a father like this, it is little wonder President Obama did not want to release his full birth certificate.  Barack Hussein Obama, Sr, the root of The Roots of Obama's Rage.

Though the proof that he was actually born in Hawaii may silence some critics, a new, rather more interesting side of his life has emerged - that his father Barack Obama senior was a serial womanizer and polygamist who government and university officials were trying to force out of the country.

Obama senior married Stanley Ann Dunham, a white student from Kansas, not only when he was said to have already been married to a woman in Kenya, but at a time when interracial marriages were still illegal in many parts of the U.S.

Documents obtained from the U.S. immigration service paint a picture of a man who 'had an eye for the ladies' and, according to his file, had to be warned several times to stay away from girls at the university.

Heather Smathers, a investigative journalist with the Arizona Independent, obtained the files through a Freedom of Information request.

A memo from a University of Hawaii foreign student advisor said that Obama senior had 'been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. Subject replied that he would "try" to stay away from the girls.'

It also considered his earlier Kenya marriage as a grounds to deny him a visa extension but concluded that 'polygamy was not an excludable or deportation charge'.

'A slippery character': President Obama's father was a serial womanizer who had to be warned to stop his 'playboy ways'

Family portrait: A rare snapshot of President Obama with his father Barack Obama senior who, new documents reveal was a serial womanizer and polygamist

Happier times: Barack Obama senior stands with the President's mother Stanley Ann Dunham at an airport in Hawaii

Heather Smathers, a investigative journalist with the Arizona Independent, obtained the files through a Freedom of Information request.

A memo from a University of Hawaii foreign student advisor said that Obama senior had 'been running around with several girls since he first arrived here and last summer she cautioned him about his playboy ways. Subject replied that he would "try" to stay away from the girls.'

It also considered his earlier Kenya marriage as a grounds to deny him a visa extension but concluded that 'polygamy was not an excludable or deportation charge'.

He is further described as 'a slippery character', and his relationships with 'several women' are discussed and investigated, while questions about his 'marital problems' are repeatedly raised.

Another immigration memo, from June 1964, records that Harvard officials were trying 'to get rid of him' and 'couldn't seem to figure out how many wives he had'.

The documents also specify that he had a child - Barack Obama junior - while he was at the university on August 4, 1961.

The memo also notes that he be 'closely questioned before another extension is granted - and denial be considered'.

Other notes make reference to some kind of campaign to drive Obama senior out of the country and back to Kenya. The memo advised officials to withdraw his funding.

It said: 'Obama has passed his general exams, which indicates that on academic grounds he is entitled to stay around here and write his thesis; however [Harvard] are going to try to cook something up to ease him out.... They are planning on telling him that they will not give him any money, and that he had better return to Kenya and prepare his thesis at home.'

President Obama's mother met his father at a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii in 1960. At the time he was the first and only African student at the university.

When they married, she did not realize that he had a wife and child in Kenya. The couple divorced in 1963 and Ann Dunham struggled as a single mother to bring up her child, just as her estranged husband was at studying at Harvard and reportedly carousing after women.

The pictures have been put up in a 'shrine' in the apartment where Obama grew up

President Obama is honored in the shrine that comprises a host of family photos outside the lobby of an Punahou Circle apartment complex in Hawaii

Meanwhile a collection of pictures collected in Punahou show President Obama with family and friends, depicting a regular childhood in the 60s and 70s as he was looked after by his grandparents, oblivious to his real father's womanizing ways.

The President was raised with help from his grandfather, a soldier, and grandmother who worked in a bank.

The last time President Obama saw his father was in 1971 when he was ten years old. Obama Sr. was killed 11 years later in a car accident in 1982.

Of his early childhood, President Obama has said 'That my father looked nothing like the people around me - that he was black as pitch, my mother white as milk - barely registered in my mind.'

Longtime residents in the Punahou Circle Apartment block have put up the display to honor their former neighbor, who they remember as a 'sweet' child.

They said it was set up to honor the resident turned president and pay homage to his grandparents Madelyn and Stanley.

The pictures show Mr. Obama as a little boy with his family, later as a student receiving an honor and ultimately his official presidential picture and one with his wife Michelle and their two children.

Barack Obama as a student, years before he entered the White House

The politician lived with his grandparents in Hawaii before moving to Chicago

The pictures emerged after Mr Obama was forced to publish his full birth certificate in a bid to quash rumours about his nationality.

The U.S. President said he made the document available because America 'does not have time for this kind of silliness' and has to move on.

His intervention came after the 'birther' debate about his origins and religion had moved from the political fringes to take centre stage.

His birth certificate shows he was born at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynaecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Former DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino Claimed Obama’s Vault Copy Birth Certificate Was Half Handwritten

Mr Obama has been dogged by persistent questions about his citizenship since the election more than two years ago. More than 60 per cent of Americans have told pollsters they are not convinced he was born in the U.S.

If true, this would make the politician constitutionally ineligible to occupy the White House.

Many senior Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the birther movement and some suspect it has been encouraged by the White House in order to discredit the opposition party.

One tenant of Ponahue said of the President: 'He was a great kid and obviously his grandparents did an amazing job of raising him. All we have are fond memories, his grandparents were wonderful people and Barry was a sweet and respectful child.

'Our little lobby tribute has become a must-see tourist destination. It shows a family-oriented Barack surround by love. Who knew that little Barry would become president of the United States?'

Setting record straight: Barack Obama and Michelle chat to Oprah Winfrey last night on a show that will air on May 2

h/t to: dailymail.co.uk, Fox Nation and

Video: Wayne Madison Bombshell: Barack Obama Conclusively Outed As CIA Creation – AJ 1/3

Full  Story in Print: Bombshell:  Barack Obama Conclusively Outed as CIA Creation

Shorebank:  Obama’s Mother and Geithner’s Father…  Hmmmm… Coincidences?

Related:

Obama won’t produce birth certificate because it would reveal TRUE identity of his father: Hawaii senator’s extraordinary claim

--> Former DOH Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino Claimed Obama’s Vault Copy Birth Certificate Was Half Handwritten <--

Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis

FBI Destroys File on Obama’s Grandfather

Valerie Jarrett’s Mother and Bill Ayer’s Father

It is looking more and more evident that the question of Obama’s eligibility may come down to his father’s citizenship, his adoption by a non-citizen. Lolo Soetoro and/or his dual citizenship: Barack Obama Running from Barry Soetoro… but there there are always those pesky newspaper and magazine ads from Kenya announcing Kenyan born Barack Hussein Obama Jr. was elected to the U.S. Senate, his Kenyan grandma’s statement that she was at his birth in Kenya and that Kenyan birth certificate that keeps surfacing… but don’t pay any attention to any of that???  There is nothing to see???  Or maybe there is?

“There are non so blind as he/they that will not see!!”

Black Chamber of Commerce Head:  Obama is “Fanatical” & “Marxist”  -  I Only Voted for Him ‘Because He’s Black’… and then there was the “White Guilt”

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??, plus the added components of  Political Correctness, white guilt, ethnic and racial allegiance, and blind liberal Obama media worship?

Related:

MSTSATTOCI: Special Eligibility Edition 

Coil of Rage

10 Most Corrupt Politicians of 2009

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2009 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

3. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank’s intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationshipwith a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

4. Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn’t until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: “Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned ‘full details’ of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG.” Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed “household help” ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the “Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington” list.

5. Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won’t be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation of the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro’s Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton’s scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions – a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder’s former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder’s controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder’s politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.

6. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama’s then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat. According to Reuters: “Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama…In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich -- later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat -- at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed.” Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.

7. President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration “lowlights” from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the President’s former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicalswho answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President’s bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control -- through fiat and threats -- large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: “The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.” Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors – this is Obama’s “ethics” record -- and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.

8. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)

9. Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks -- tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file.” The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha’s nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents…show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military.”

10. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow “forgot” about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: “The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently ‘wrangling’ other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.” Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That’s why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.