New Miner Job Openings are Coming Soon

Download 142.38 Kb.
Size142.38 Kb.
  1   2
The solar wind is a brisk 389 km/sec and the proton count is blazing at 10.8 per cubic centimeter. There are 9 sunspot clusters on the Sun today, three of which can blast out M-Class flares. Nothing to worry about, really, Mark your calendar: The annual Geminid meteor shower peaks this year on Dec. 14th when dark-sky observers around the world could see as many as 120 meteors per hour. The source of the display is "rock comet" 3200 Phaethon. As November comes to a close, Earth is entering the outskirts of 3200 Phaethon's debris stream, and this is causing some Geminids to appear weeks ahead of peak night.
New Miner Job Openings are Coming Soon


Japan on Monday will launch a space probe on a six-year mission to mine a distant asteroid after the event was postponed due to bad weather, officials said.

Hayabusa2 is now scheduled to blast off aboard Japan's main H-IIA rocket from Tanegashima Space Center in southern Japan at 1:22 pm (0422 GMT), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency said Saturday.

The agency had originally planned to launch the rocket on Sunday only weeks after a European spacecraft's historic landing on a comet captivated the world's attention.

But a forecast of thick cloud over the weekend forced the agency to delay the launch.

The 31 billion yen ($260 million) project is sending a probe towards the unpoetically-named 1999 JU3 asteroid in deep space.

It will blast a crater in the asteroid to collect virgin materials unexposed to millennia of solar wind and radiation, in the hope of answering some fundamental questions about life and the universe.

Hayabusa2, about the size of a domestic refrigerator, is expected to reach the asteroid in mid-2018 and will spend around 18 months studying the surface
Orion: Manned Space Exploration’s next Step
AUDIO LINKOrion-Test-Flight.wav

NASA is schedule to launch an uncrewed test of its first space capsule in 40 years on Dec. 4. The space agency's prototype Orion space capsule is due to launch into space atop a United Launch Alliance Delta 4 Heavy rocket for a 4.5 hour test of its key systems.

The Orion spacecraft — built for NASA by Lockheed Martin — is designed to take humans deeper into space than ever before. Officials hope that future versions of the spacecraft will transport astronauts to deep space destinations like Mars or an asteroid towed into orbit around the moon.

The space agency and Lockheed Martin — the company that manufactured Orion for NASA — have given the "go" to proceed with the capsule's robotic test on Dec. 4. The company and agency finished their "Flight Readiness Review" on Nov. 20, clearing the way for Orion's first test flight.

"The FRR [Flight Readiness Review] is a rigorous assessment of the spacecraft, its systems, mission operations and support functions needed to successfully complete Orion’s first voyage to space," NASA officials said in a statement.

NASA officials hope that Orion will eventually be able to take humans to deep space destinations like Mars, but first, the capsule's systems need to get through a series of flight tests starting with the first one next week.

Orion is scheduled to launch to space atop a United Launch Alliance Delta 4 Heavy rocket from Florida. The spacecraft is outfitted with more than 1,000 sensors to gather data about how the capsule performs under the harsh conditions in space and during re-entry.

In total, the test flight should last about 4.5 hours. Orion will make two orbits of Earth with one of them taking it as high as 3,600 miles (5,793 kilometers) from the planet. The spacecraft will gain speed as it comes back down from its position in orbit, before re-entering the atmosphere. Orion's heat shield is the largest of its kind ever manufactured, and the test will help scientists see if it can efficiently protect the capsule during re-entry.

The test — called Exploration Flight Test-1 — will also help officials check out Orion's parachute system, designed to slow down the spacecraft before its expected splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. Officials will be on hand to fish Orion out of the ocean after it returns to Earth.

NASA, U.S. Navy and Lockheed Martin officials have started to prepare for activities after splashdown.

"At Naval Base San Diego, two Navy ships, the USS Anchorage and the USNS Salvor, have been outfitted with the necessary tools and equipment needed to return Orion to land after the flight test," NASA officials said in the same statement.
You can follow the entire mission live on Tuesday yourself by going to
Drone Wars Update

By the way, birds fitted with cameras and transmitters have been caught in the battlefield. KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghan police said they are investigating how a wild bird came to bear an antenna, electronic devices and explosives. Police came across the strange sight around 8 a.m. in the northern Faryab province, a volatile region ravaged by Taliban violence. When police spotted the white bird — which isn't native to the area and appeared larger than an eagle — walking along a highway, they noticed it had an antenna and decided to shoot it, provincial police chief Maj. Gen. Abdul Nabi Ilham told NBC News on Saturday. The bird then exploded, he said, and "suspicious metal stuff" scattered around.

"We are gathering all the stuff, but found parts of what looks to be GPS and a small camera," Ilham said. He added that this was the first time police have made such an encounter. Police added that it is possible the bird had been "deployed" on a surveillance mission. Using animals in warfare or for suicide missions is unusual but not unheard of. Hamas militants reportedly put explosives on a donkey and pushed it in the direction of Israeli soldiers as fighting intensified this summer in Gaza.
Strange Spacecraft May Be Russian Satellite Killer


It sounds like the plot of a James Bond movie. If it’s true, can we convince Sean Connery to come out of retirement to save the world one more time? NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) is now tracking a Russian space vehicle launched in May that has recently been making unusual movements towards other objects launched by Russia – movements that resemble those of a satellite killer approaching its prey.

The object, now code-named Object 2014-28E, was carried into orbit on a rocket with three Rodnik communications satellites used by the Russian military. No explanation was given for its unannounced launch. It has been under observation since its discovery and in recent weeks has begun making odd yet seemingly deliberate maneuvers. One thought is that it’s designed to collect or destroy space junk that could be deadly to other satellites or the International Space Station. That same movement could also mean something more sinister, according to Patricia Lewis, research director at think-tank Chatham House.

Whatever it is, [Object 2014-28E] looks experimental. It could have a number of functions, some civilian and some military. One possibility is for some kind of grabber bar. Another would be kinetic pellets which shoot out at another satellite. Or possibly there could be a satellite-to-satellite cyber attack or jamming.

While anti-satellite weapons programs were allegedly discontinued after the Cold War ended, rumors out of Russia indicate they may have begun again. The actions of Object 2014-28E could confirm this.
The Financial Times reports that the satellite is stoking fears that the Kremlin has revived a defunct program to destroy satellites.

Worries that the object may be a ‘satellite killer,’ however, are wide of the mark, according to Brian Weeden, technical advisor to the Secure World Foundation, a nonprofit organization promoting space sustainability.

“All of the wild speculation about this being some sort of a space weapons test is hugely overblown,” he told, in an email. “It may make for a snappy headline, but there's absolutely zero evidence available right now to support it.” 
Plenty of attention has been focused on the object’s maneuvers, which took it close to other Russian space hardware.

Weeden noted that the object, which was launched with three Russian Rodnik military communications satellites, maneuvered into an orbit close to the remnants of the rocket that took it to space. This, however, is hardly unusual.

“The same thing happened with the previous Rodnik launch back in December of 2013, which also included a fourth object that did a series of maneuvers after launch,” he told

The expert believes that the latest satellite’s moves were likely a test of its rendezvous and proximity operations (RPO) capabilities. RPO refers to a satellite’s ability to maneuver close to another space object and remain nearby for a period of time - it can be used for tasks such as removing space debris, as well as refueling and servicing satellites.

Furthermore, the satellite’s slow course was hardly in keeping with an offensive mission, according to Weeden.

“The maneuvers took weeks to execute, providing a long period of warning for whomever the target might be,” he told

Joan Johnson-Freese, professor of National Security Affairs at the Naval War College, believes that the satellite may fulfill two roles.

“Most space technology is dual use, meaning of value to both the civilian and military communities, and if military, difficult to determine if it is for offensive or defensive purposes,” she told, in an email. “Dual use technology inherently generates angst and should be monitored, but it would be premature and over-reactive to assume anything about the technology.”

“I don't think we can infer nefarious intent [from the mystery space object],” she added.

Johnson-Freese noted that the U.S. has similar maneuverable satellite programs, such as NASA’s Demonstration for Autonomous Rendezvous Technology (DART) and the U.S. Air Force’s Experimental Satellite System-11 (XSS-11). China’s SJ-12 program also fulfills a similar role.

The mysterious space object, however, entered orbit at a time of tense relations between the U.S. and Russia over Ukraine. Russia’s military air activity is also being closely monitored. Increased activity, for example, has been reported in the Baltic region and two Russian strategic bombers circled the U.S. island of Guam last week, possibly timed to coincide with the G-20 summit in Brisbane, Australia.

I guess I'm more interested in "WHY" is NORAD telling us this? Since our government never tells us anything else, why this and why now? Do we have a need to know?

Kind-a of like our government is planning on shooting this satellite down, so they broadcast some silly reason, (its moving funny). But wait, wait a minute, perhaps we should charge NORAD with aiding and abetting the Russian terrorist? I'm not worried about what Russia is doing, not more that then what our own US Mafia style government is doing. Must be some kind of propaganda, else NORAD would not be telling us anything.

Treasury Ponzi Process Begins

Let’s suppose you had taken out a note at the bank to pay for a gambling trip to Las Vegas. I know. Sounds risky, doesn’t it? But let’s suppose you had a sure thing. You take out this bank note for say $100,000 and you go to Vegas in style, because you’re going to win, right? The junket comes and goes, and you recover from whatever you did to yourself while you were there. You check your wallet, and realize that instead of winning, you lost it all. What the heck. You had memories that would last a lifetime, right? If you could remember everything.

Then, let’s suppose you forgot about it and went about your business. Then, you get a letter from the bank that payment in full is required on that note on 30 days. You don’t panic. You know people at the bank. You’re friends. They have never turned you down before. You go down on a Tuesday morning about 10 AM, because everyone knows bankers don’t work on Monday or Friday, and you see your favorite, well-manicured banker. You don’t have a dime of the bank’s money left, and you can’t make the payment. But, you’re not sweating it, because you have a plan.

You tell your banker that everything is working out perfectly, and you would like to borrow another $110,000. With the first $100,000 from the note proceeds, you will pay off the previous note. The last $10,000 would be used to pay for a golf trip, to which the banker and his nephew graduating this year from the War College who is seeking a position in the Spring.

What do you think? Nice plan, huh? No worries. You have been doing it for 10 years, and have never paid a dime to the bank.

The Daily United States Treasury Statement was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving. These types of reports always come late on the day before a long weekend, it seems. The report revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government. That deficit Mr. Obama said he personally cut in half? Well, that is not exactly factual.

During those eight weeks, Treasury took in $341,591,000,000 in revenues. That was a all-time record revenue for the period between Oct. 1 and Nov. 25. But, not even that record $341,591,000,000 in revenues was enough to finance ongoing government spending let alone pay off old debt that matured.

The Treasury also drew down its cash balance by $45.057 billion during the period, starting with $126,568,000,000 in cash and ending with $81,511,000,000. In other words, not only could they not pay the credit card payment, they spent 30% of the cash in their wallet as well.

The only way the Treasury could handle the $942,103,000,000 in old debt that matured during the period plus finance the new deficit spending the government engaged in was to roll over the old debt into new debt and issue enough additional new debt to cover the new deficit spending. Have you ever traded in a car on a new car, only to find out you owed more on the trade-in than it was worth? So, the old car’s loan balance is rolled into the new car’s loan. That, my fellow Earth explorer’s, is called being upside down.

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme," is defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission, “as an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission. In other words, you use the new investment money to pay off old investors, less the handling charges of course.

“With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” explains the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.” It is also sometimes called “multi-level-marketing.”

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in October 2013, Lew explained why he wanted the Congress to agree to increase the federal debt limit—and why the Treasury has no choice but to constantly issue new debt, unless of course the Republicans want to throw retirees out in the street and let children starve.

“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”

“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.

“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”

I guess that means that the only way lenders will ever see their money back, is for the entire market to collapse, and for the balance to be charged off. They are forgetting to include one minor detail. The lender will repossess the collateral.

The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates. In other words, it would be the same as you paying your house loan at 5.5% interest with your credit card at 29.5% interest.

At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.

Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 is owed to “China, Japan, the EU, and yes…the Fed,” and payable by you…the public taxpayer. This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.

But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.

The largest share of the marketable debt--$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which have an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October. Got it? They paid debt that had a 1.807% interest rate with debt that carries a 4.919% interest rate. No, that is not a 272% increase in interest payments. I saw you doing that in your head. Remember, you are taking a short term note, due in two years, and stretching it out over 30 years. That is $228,693.96 per million over 30 years. No matter. Those guys will be long retired by the time this loan is paid off.

Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.

The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.

The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.

If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.

Why is this important?

All wars since 1789 are led by global banks

The American Dream

Today, most American students don’t even understand what a central bank is, much less that the battle over central banks is one of the most important themes in U.S. history.  The truth is that our nation was birthed in the midst of a conflict over taxation and the control of our money.  Central banking has played a leading role in nearly all of the wars that America has fought since its founding.  

Presidents that resisted the central bankers were shot, while others shamefully caved in to their demands.  Our current central bank is called the Federal Reserve and it is about as “federal” as Federal Express is.  The truth is that it is a privately-owned financial institution that is designed to ensnare the U.S. government in an endlessly expanding spiral of debt from which there is no escape.  

The Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression and the Federal Reserve is at the core of our current economic crisis.  

The following are 41 facts about the history of central banks in the United States that every American should know….
#1 As a result of the Seven Years War with France, King George III of England was deeply in debt to the central bankers of England.
#2 In an attempt to raise revenue, King George tried to heavily tax the colonies in America.
#3 In 1763, Benjamin Franklin was asked by the Bank of England why the colonies were so prosperous, and this was his response….
That is simple. In the colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Script. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers.
In this manner, creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one.”

#4 The Currency Act of 1764 ordered the American Colonists to stop printing their own money.  Colonial script (the money the colonists were using at the time) was to be exchanged at a two-to-one ratio for “notes” from the Bank of England.
#5 Later, in his autobiography, Benjamin Franklin explained the impact that this currency change had on the colonies….

In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed.”

#6 In fact, Benjamin Franklin stated unequivocally in his autobiography that the power to issue currency was the primary reason for the Revolutionary War….

The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction. The inability of the colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the Revolutionary War.”

#7 Gouverneur Morris, one of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, solemnly warned us in 1787 that we must not allow the bankers to enslave us….

The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will… They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by (the power of) government, keep them in their proper spheres.”

#8 Unfortunately, those warning us about the dangers of a central bank did not prevail.  After an aborted attempt to establish a central bank in the 1780s, the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791.  Alexander Hamilton (who had close ties to the Rothschild banking family) cut a deal under which he would support the move of the nation’s capital to Washington D.C. in exchange for southern support for the establishment of a central bank.
#9 George Washington signed the bill creating the First Bank of the United States on April 25, 1791.  It was given a 20 year charter.
#10 In the first five years of the First Bank of the United States, the U.S. government borrowed 8.2 million dollars and prices rose by 72 percent.
#11 The opponents of central banking were not pleased.  In 1798, Thomas Jefferson said the following….

I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our Constitution – taking from the federal government their power of borrowing.”

#12 In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States was not renewed.
#13 One year later, the War of 1812 erupted.  The British and the Americans were at war once again.
#14 In 1814, the British captured and burned Washington D.C., but the Americans subsequently experienced key victories at New York and at New Orleans.
#15 The Treaty of Ghent, officially ending the war, was ratified by the U.S. Senate on February 16th, 1815 and was ratified by the British on February 18th, 1815.
#16 In 1816, another central bank was created.  The Second Bank of the United States was established and was given a 20 year charter.
#17 Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States.
#18 In fact, in 1832, Andrew Jackson’s re-election slogan was “JACKSON and NO BANK!”
#19 On July 10th, 1832 President Jackson said the following about the danger of a central bank….

It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? … Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”

#20 In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt.  He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.
#21 President Jackson vetoed the attempt to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States in 1836.
#22 Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived.  It is alleged that Lawrence said that “wealthy people in Europe” had put him up to it.
#23 The Civil War was another opportunity for the central bankers of Europe to get their hooks into America.  In fact, it is claimed that Abraham Lincoln actually contacted Rothschild banking interests in Europe in an attempt to finance the war effort.  Reportedly, the Rothschilds were demanding very high interest rates and Lincoln balked at paying them.
#24 Instead, Lincoln pushed through the Legal Tender Act of 1862. Under that act, the U.S. government issued $449,338,902 of debt-free money.
#25 This debt-free money was known as “Greenbacks” because of the green ink that was used.
#26 The central bankers of Europe were not pleased.  The following quote appeared in the London Times in 1865….

If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, shall become endurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will go to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe.”

#27 Abraham Lincoln was shot dead by John Wilkes Booth on April 14th, 1865.
#28 After the Civil War, all money in the United States was created by bankers buying U.S. government bonds in exchange for bank notes.
#29 James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers.  In 1881 he said the following….

Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

#30 President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881.  He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.
#31 In 1906, the U.S. stock market was setting all kinds of records.  However, in March 1907 the U.S. stock market absolutely crashed.  It is alleged that elite New York bankers were responsible.
#32 In addition, in 1907 J.P. Morgan circulated rumors that a major New York bank had gone bankrupt.  This caused a massive run on the banks.  In turn, the banks started recalling all of their loans.  The panic of 1907 resulted in a congressional investigation that ended up concluding that a central bank was “necessary” so that these kinds of panics would never happen again.
#33 It took a few years, but the international bankers finally got their central bank in 1913.
#34 Congress voted on the Federal Reserve Act on December 22nd, 1913 between the hours of 1:30 AM and 4:30 AM.
#35 A significant portion of Congress was either sleeping at the time or was already at home with their families celebrating the holidays.
#36 The president that signed the law that created the Federal Reserve, Woodrow Wilson, later sounded like he very much regretted the decision when he wrote the following….

A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men … [W]e have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world–no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.”

#37 Between 1921 and 1929 the Federal Reserve increased the U.S. money supply by 62 percent.  This was the time known as “The Roaring 20s”.
#38 In addition, highly leveraged “margin loans” became very common during this time period.
#39 In October 1929, the New York bankers started calling in these margin loans on a massive scale.  This created the initial crash that launched the Great Depression.
#40 Rather than expand the money supply in response to this crisis, the Federal Reserve really tightened it up.
#41 In fact, it was reported the U.S. money supply contracted by eight billion dollars between 1929 and 1933.  That was an extraordinary amount of money in those days.  Over one-third of all U.S. banks went bankrupt.  The New York bankers were able to buy up other banks and all kinds of other assets for pennies on the dollar.

#42 The Glass Steagall Act of 1933 was passed with four specific rules that limited commercial bank securities activities and affiliations within commercial banks and securities firms. Starting in the early 1960s federal banking regulators in the Agency Government ignored the law and allowed commercial banks and especially commercial bank affiliates to engage in an expanding list and volume of securities activities, including trading stock and mortgage backed instruments. This was the birth of derivatives. By 1987, the Fed Board decided it was suddenly legal for CitiGroup to buy Salomon Smith Barney. By 1992, Clinton said the law was meaningless and useless, and he repealed it.

#43 Within a short 5 years, with the Glass-Steagall law out of the way, global banks strutted into every State and bought every regional bank they could find. Within 5 years, with Sections 20 and 32 of the law out of the way at last, universal banking was fully implemented and the extraction process was fully engaged. Within 8 years, the next phase of global domination was completed; with the cycle of massive asset valuation fraud complete, the money supply collapse was next on the agenda. By 2008, trillions of dollars had been extracted from every village in America and given to the trans-Atlantic banking cabal.

#44 Within 5 years, the banks refused to meet the credit needs of their communities. Without access to capital, small businesses—once the largest group of free employers in the world—were driven into extinction. Without employers, more than half the nation had become professional voters, receiving government subsidies in exchange for reelecting the same leaders into power.

These are the true historical facts. Each fact is replete with letters, documents, new laws, and financial transactions as evidence. The politicians who stand against them are killed without compunction, no matter how beloved by the people. The news reporters who uncover this evidence are jailed or murdered. The whistleblowers are killed by the dozens. Only a very few have been able to run for their lives to foreign countries willing to provide them asylum.

Ask the survivors. Listen to the presidents who made recorded national speeches about this criminal cabal that struts the halls of the Agency Government buildings in Washington and then were assassinated a few days later. Ask the generals and admirals who have been fired, jailed, or murdered because they would not follow the orders given by the bank’s henchmen in elected office or deep in the shadows of the Agencies.

Ask the whistleblowers who live every moment in fear for their lives, because they revealed the truth reeking from file cabinets full of innocent victims. Killing millions of people in the name of money or oil is not a crime. It is the person who leaks it to the press who is the real traitor and must hang by the neck until he is dead to show all others who think about divulging secrets the risk they are taking.

When debt comes due, someone has to pay or give back the stuff. Unless you are the US treasury. You can just write yourself another loan to pay off the other loan, and let the next generation worry about it.

Poor performance catching up with active stock fund managers

Friday, 28 Nov 2014 | 6:02 AM ETReuters

Stock-picking fund managers are testing their investors’ patience with some of the worst investment returns in decades. With bad bets on financial shares, missed opportunities in technology stocks and too much cash on the sidelines, roughly 85 percent of active large-cap stock funds have lagged their benchmark indexes through Nov. 25 this year, according to an analysis by Lipper, a Thomson Reuters research unit. It is likely their worst comparative showing in 30 years, Lipper said.
Some long-term advocates of active management may be turned off by the results, especially considering the funds' higher fees. Through Oct. 31, index stock funds and exchange traded funds have pulled in $206.2 billion in net deposits.

Actively managed funds, a much larger universe, took in a much smaller $35.6 billion, sharply down from the $162 billion taken in during 2013, their first year of net inflows since 2007.

Jeff Tjornehoj, head of Lipper Americas Research, said investors will have to decide if they have the stomach to stick with active funds in hopes of better results in the future.

A year like this sorts out what kind of investor you are, he said.

Even long-time standout managers like Bill Nygren of the $17.8 billion Oakmark Fund and Jason Subotky of the $14.2 billion Yacktman Fund are lagging, at a time when advisers are growing more focused on fees.
The Oakmark fund, which is up 11.82 percent this year through Nov. 25, charges 0.95 percent of assets in annual fees, compared with 0.09 percent for the SPDR S&P 500 exchange-traded fund, which mimics the S&P 500 and is up almost 14 percent this year, according to Morningstar.
Read MoreWhat matters for markets next year: Goldman Sachs

The Yacktman fund is up 10.2 percent over the same period and charges 0.74 percent of assets in annual fees.

The pay-for-active-performance camp argues that talented managers are worth paying for and will beat the market over investment cycles.

Rob Brown, chief investment strategist for United Capital, which has $11 billion under management and keeps about two thirds of its mutual fund holdings in active funds, estimates that good managers can add an extra 1 percent to returns over time compared with an index-only strategy.

Indeed, the top active managers have delivered. For example, $10,000 invested in the Yacktman Fund on Nov. 23, 2004, would have been worth $27,844 on Nov. 25 of this year; the same amount invested in the S&P 500 would be worth $21,649, according to Lipper.
Even so, active funds as a group tend to lag broad market indexes, though this year's underperformance is extreme. In the rout of 2008, when the S&P 500 fell 38 percent, more than half of the active large cap stock funds had declines that were greater than those of their benchmarks, Lipper found. The last time when more than half of active large cap stock managers beat their index was 2009, when the S&P 500 was up 26 percent. That year, 55 percent of these managers beat their benchmarks.

Unusually bad bets

In 2014, some recurring bad market bets were made by various active managers. Holding too much cash was one.

Yacktman's Subotky said high stock prices made him skeptical of buying new shares, leaving him with 17 percent of the fund's holdings in cash while share prices have continued to rise. He cautioned investors to have patience.

"Our goal is never to capture every last drop of a roaring bull market," Subotky said

Oil Plunge a Panacea for Much of World Economy

Friday, 28 Nov 2014 07:52 PM

Well, you have been begging for it. Remember, sometimes you get what you ask for. Remember the movie Bedazzeled ? Brandon Frasier gets a list of wishes, which a she-devil grants. Sort of.
Well, a year ago people would have thought that gas process would never come down. A renewed plunge in oil prices is actually a worrying sign of weakness in the global economy that could shake governments dependent on oil revenues. Yet it is also a bonus for consumers as prices fall at the pump, giving individuals more spending money and lowering costs for many businesses.

The latest slide follows OPEC's decision to leave its production target at 30 million barrels a day. Member nations of the cartel are worried they'll lose market share if they lower production. But the Saudis believe that the US will choke to death on its shale oil that costs ten times as much to produce as oil flowing from their vast underground reservoirs.

In 2008, oil prices shot to record values. Every drill that could operate was punching holes as fast as they could in 2009, provided they could find money to fund it. The administration did everything in its power to stop it. Global warming, the BP oil spill, and the EPA forcing refineries to close and upgrade, made oil the number the hottest commodity in America. By late 2011, there were wells pumping everywhere. Drilling into shale found an enormous glut of natural gas, but without a pipeline, it could not produce revenue. The oil company executives publicly serving in the EPA shifted the blame for global warming from oil to the coal industry. Coal-fired plants were forced to switch to natural gas, allowing the oil companies to reap record profits. The move raised the price 46% in less than 6 years; the first public utility increase since World War II.
By late 2013, the US refineries were back online and accepting all shipments. The oil glut was publicly denied until the facts were revealed through independent news sources to the American public. Prices began falling to encourage Americans to drive more and burn off the glut of oil. Oil exports from America soared for the first time since the 1960’s.
Now, Citibank analysts wrote in a report last Thursday that global supplies exceed demand by about 700,000 barrels a day. That is not a comfortable margin, but it usually means someone has to lower their production rates to meet demand and maintain the price. I have been telling you for years now that the price of oil is an economic weapon. Usually, it is wielded by OPEC. Now, it seems, the US has taken out it own oily sword.

The price of U.S. crude oil dropped $7.54 a barrel, or 10 percent, to $66.15 Friday and is down 38 percent since hitting $107 in June of this year. Brent crude, an international benchmark, fell 3 percent to $70.15 a barrel on Friday. Russia feels economic pressure whenever oil gets below $80. It works just like a sanction, get it?

Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service, expects the price to fall by another $5 or $10 a barrel before stopping. "It's that kind of rout," he said.

Overall, the slide is a boon for consumers in oil-importing regions like Asia, Europe and North America. But there are also some possible negatives. They open dusty file drawers down at Wars R Us.


The U.S. economy will receive an outsized benefit from lower oil prices because the U.S. is the world's largest oil consumer. Prices raised to pay for gasoline as part of doing business will not come down unless this price stays down and competition creeps into their business markets. It means they will be collectively making enormous profits for a while. Don’t think that stock prices will go up, though. Remember, the stock market is no longer based on value, it is based on the money pumped into them by the Fed out of thin air each month.

U.S. consumers have been surprised and delighted at the lowest gasoline prices since 2010. Drivers in some low-cost states such as South Carolina, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas could see prices below $2, according to Kloza. Don’t look for Ford Expeditions to clear off the lot just yet.

The U.S. national average was $2.79 on Friday. Kloza expects gas to eventually be a full $1 per gallon below its June peak of about $3.70 a gallon. That would save typical households $60 a month for those that burn 60 gallons of fuel.

"It's a nice easy, calculation," Kloza says. "These are numbers that we would have regarded three or four months ago as something from the lunatic fringe."

The bottom should come between $2.50 and $2.70 a gallon, Kloza says.

Canadian consumers are also catching a break. In some regions, such as southern Ontario, gasoline could fall below the important psychological barrier of $1 per liter.

The oil companies propelling a production boom in Canada and the U.S. won't be so happy. Crude produced in Canadian oil sands, deep offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and in some U.S. onshore shale formations is some of the most expensive oil to produce in the world.

Drillers are already cutting back on production.


Many of Europe's economies are net importers of oil, so lower prices are likely to give a welcome, if small, boost to growth. Cheaper energy reduces costs for industry and puts more money in consumers' pockets. That will be particularly useful in the 18-nation Eurozone, where unemployment is high.

In Germany, the price of Super E10 fuel has fallen from 1.53 euros per liter ($7.16 per gallon) at the start of September to 1.42 euros per liter ($6.69 per gallon) this week, according to the ADAC motoring association. Keep in mind that the US still subsidizes the price of gasoline so fuel prices remain among the lowest in the world.

Declining fuel prices also, however, add to one of the Eurozone's biggest headaches: low price growth. Weak growth makes it harder for troubled economies like Greece to reduce debt. It is also a problem for the European Central Bank, which wants to boost its price growth from just 0.3 percent currently to around 2 percent. Some would call this inflation, but inflation only occurs when the money supply is artificially increased through printing money or unfunded government mandates like minimum wage.

The few European producing countries — mainly Britain and Norway in the North Sea — face a drop in revenues that could balance out the positives of cheaper fuel.

Russia gets about 50 percent of its state revenue from oil exports, so the government's concerns are clear. The national economy is already sliding into recession under the impact of Western sanctions and investors are pulling money out.

For Russian consumers, the outlook is mixed. Prices at the pump have actually gone up because a drop in the national currency, the ruble, has increased inflation. In local money, 95-octane gasoline costs 35.99 rubles a liter ($2.8 a gallon) in Moscow, up from 35.53 per liter two months ago.


Venezuela pushed for an OPEC cut because it badly needs high oil prices to fund its government. The country's oil production has been steadily declining for years so the combination of lower output and lower prices is already squeezing the nation's finances.

Venezuelan drivers won't immediately see a difference in price, though, because gasoline is heavily subsidized. Drivers there pay the equivalent of 5 cents a gallon.


In Japan, which is a net importer of oil, cheaper crude prices have been slow to filter down to consumers. Also, a recent drop in the yen's value will reduce the savings Japan can reap from lower oil prices.

In June, regular gasoline cost $1.40 a liter ($5.29 a gallon) at the Esso filling station in Shimbashi, near the glittering Ginza shopping strip in Tokyo. The price was $1.44 a liter ($5.44 a gallon) on Friday morning.

Prices are expected to fall but that will complicate the government's efforts to end Japan's deflation.


The Chinese government adjusts retail prices in line with the global market. Although they are not affected the same as free economies because they artificially fix the value of their currency. Beijing has cut gasoline and diesel prices repeatedly this year. On Friday, the highest grade gasoline cost $1.20 a liter ($4.54 a gallon) in the capital, down from $1.35 a liter ($5.11 a gallon) in June. Cheaper fuel would allow their manufacturers and small businesses to grow at a faster rate. China's economic growth has declined steadily over the past two years, but is still it is up to 15 times the rate of growth in the US. We’re not talking inflation. We are talking gross domestic product. The actual output of their country.

Download 142.38 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page