There was a piece from Bloomberg which so perfectly describes the mentality/personalities of these psychopaths-in-suits that I don't even need to add any words of my own...indeed, readers may find some of the descriptive language contained therein eerily familiar.



The point to note from this is that MOST of the "successful" banksters are clearly clinical psychopaths. John Perkins (i.e. the Economic Hit-Man) is at the least a borderline psychopath given the very easy manner in which he rationalized his Crimes Against Humanity for so many years.


Amaranth Hit Death Spiral as Sycophants, Fools Cavorted

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-22/amaran...-fools-cavorted.html

In September 2006, Greenwich, Connecticut-based hedge fund Amaranth Advisors LLC collapsed after losing more than $6 billion in the natural-gas futures market. In “Hedge Hogs,” Barbara T. Dreyfuss tells the story of the math-whiz traders whose risky dance with deregulation led to the collapse.

The star of Dreyfuss’s distressing tale is Brian Hunter, the Amaranth celebrity described by sycophants at the now-defunct Trader Monthly magazine as a top dog among a crop of “red-hot traders.”

Dreyfuss, a former securities analyst, rehashes a lot that we know about Hunter’s antics. And despite admirable efforts to explain the arcana of futures trading, she may lose the lay reader when illustrating the Amaranth drama with details of widening or narrowing trading spreads.

But she does a great job of putting Amaranth’s out-of-control trader into historical context, explaining the blitz of deregulation that set the stage for someone like Hunter to do maximum damage.

Dreyfuss also captures the juvenile culture of trading luminaries who battle like enemies in some twisted fantasy. Hunter and futures trader John Arnold, founder of the hedge fund Centaurus Advisors LLC, fight each other in trading duels more suited to the video game Halo than real life.
Destroy Someone

“‘If you want to succeed and make money, you want to destroy someone else,’ a trader tells Dreyfuss. “‘That’s just how it works. If I want to be successful in this industry, I’m going to want to destroy five guys.’”

Armed with degrees in physics and mathematics, Hunter started trading natural-gas futures at TransCanada Corp. in his native Calgary in 1998. He left for Deutsche Bank (DB)’s New York headquarters in 2001, where he worked in the global commodities markets division. By the time he left Deutsche Bank for Amaranth two-and-a-half years later, he’d been demoted by a supervisor who would say later in a deposition that Hunter couldn’t be trusted to “do the right thing for the bank.”

As is to be expected in the world Dreyfuss is describing, Hunter was “quickly scooped up” by Amaranth despite that rocky ending with Deutsche Bank.

A year later, he parlayed an offer from SAC Capital Advisors’s Steven Cohen into a sweetened deal to stay at Amaranth. Money was a factor in the new agreement, but not the only one.
No Oversight

Hunter demanded that he be allowed to move from Amaranth’s Connecticut headquarters to Calgary. He also wanted to be free from the oversight of a former Enron Corp. trader named Harry Arora who’d been keeping tabs on him. The star got what he wanted.

Arora later quit, warning on his way out that Hunter “could blow up the entire firm.”

By spring 2006, clients were seeing red flags in the sudden massive gains in Amaranth’s energy portfolio -- up $1 billion in April. What goes up in a dramatic spike, those clients correctly figured, must come down.

BlackRock Inc. (BLK), the New York investment-management firm, was concerned enough that it paid a penalty to bail out. After that, Hunter’s bosses began making the first of several unheeded requests that he cut back on his positions. In May, Amaranth lost more than $1.1 billion, and a death spiral was in full force.

The book describes traders who manipulate markets and eviscerate pension-fund portfolios but don’t have a clue about the destructive roles they play.

In June 2006, when Amaranth was on its slide to oblivion, the clearly out-of-control Hunter observed to a colleague that other people in the markets “were getting out of control.” In another exchange, a trader who works with Hunter refers to the “fricken deviant market.”

It becomes clear to the reader pretty quickly who the deviants are here. Hint: They do not include “the market.”...

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:
This brings me to a Golden Oldie around here. One so old that even our "old Regulars" (you know who you are) may not remember it...


"The Bankers Manifesto of 1892"

(Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.)...

I have pulled up and read your entire original commentary. My skeptical mind has to ask, can we be certain of the authenticity of the document cited (The Bankers Manifesto of 1892)? My initial, and admittedly cursory, search engine search did not immediately turn up an obvious credible source and also seems to indicate some controversy concerning it's authenticity. Do you happen to recall what you used as a source for this document originally? I'm not asking you to do my research for me, only asking if you might be able to provide some leads.


Good stuff AgAu!

I'm always gratified to see Healthy Skepticism on display. And if we're to retain our "intellectual integrity" around here (lol); then I cannot be exempted from such scrutiny when it comes to either what I write or what I present.

Endeavouring to generally be a "responsible journalist" (lol); when I first stumbled across this text I did try to verify/document it. I spent a few hours tracing it as far back as I could. It seems to date back at least a couple of decades; back to when stuff simply "appeared" on the Net; often with little-to-no documentation.

Unable to verify authenticity, I became more cynical (lol). I assumed it was not authentic; and then proceeded with analysis. There are only two possibilities.

This was a fictional but legitimate "warning" from someone who wanted to make it appear to be of historical origin (for purposes unknown). OR, it's simply a disinformation hoax.

But this is the Game Plan, described perfectly. Plunder-and-steal relentlessly. And while you're plundering-and-stealing you also engage in relentless divide-and-conquer tactics -- to keep the Sheep distracted and "squabbling" amongst themselves.

Indeed, it is such a perfect description of what has taken place over the last decade that it is a very powerful argument for either "precognition" or time-travel!!



In all of the time I've spent sifting through Disinformation; I have yet to come across an example of "disinformation" which is comprised of 100% truth. I've seen plenty of disinformation in the 90+% truth level, but never 100% truth -- since BY DEFINITION, 100% truth cannot be disinformation.



Reinforcing that, what could be the possible motive for supposed "disinformation" which is (in fact) 100% truth? Keeping the Sheep ignorant is obviously one of the Oligarchs' top priorities.

Thus we seem to be left with only two possibilities as matter of inevitable logic. Either The Bankers' Manifesto is entirely legitimate and exactly as presented; OR it was a perfect warning created for us at least 20 years ago -- at a time when I cannot see how any ordinary person could have written such a perfect script.

Thus if it was created 20 years ago; it would seem that the only possible "candidates" as author would be some Insider connected closely enough to the Oligarchs to be able to describe the Game Plan with this degree of precision.



So, using my best efforts at Holmesian Logic (lol!); I suggest we have one of two possible conclusions we can make:

a) The Bankers' Manifesto is an entirely legitimate document
b) The Bankers' Manifesto was a perfect-but-fictionalized warning

Here is one final tid-bit of evidence. Somewhere in my reading/research over the past week I came across a reference to Lindbergh as being active and outspoken against the Banksters. It may very well have come in The Money Masters.

So if The Bankers Manifesto is a perfect-but-fictionalized warning; the author not only was able to frame it (convincingly) in archaic language; but also chose a very plausible fictional source for his warning.

robinsld wrote:
...They probably don't DESERVE a better fate, but at the same time, perhaps they never were given the opportunity to deserve a better fate. Nonetheless, there will always be some who by virtue of their own intellect and conscience can see that things SHOULD be better than they are. I like to imagine that there is still a little of that sort of virtue in everyone...


I would echo much of those thoughts Robinsld...but not all of them.

Yes, as individuals most of the Sheep probably were never given a "real choice" for a better future (unlike the Silver Spoon existence for the Oligarchs and all of their most-devoted Followers).

But collectively the Sheep clearly did have the "opportunity" to create a better world for themselves individually -- via the ballot-box. Ironically, the PRECISE reason why most of the Sheep "never had a Chance" was by them voting for the Oppressive governments who robbed our generation(s) of the economic opportunities our parents took for granted.

Citizens turned into victims are worthy of pity. Serfs who choose to serve forfeit most of the basis for compassion.

Conversely, how/why has it been so easy to delude-and-enslave the Sheep? Precisely because of our inherent decency. In many ways it is the most formidable WEAPON the Oligarchs weild against us.

How/why have the Oligarchs been able to create the world which we (and few others) now see clearly around us? Because (being decent and naive) the Sheep are incapable of believing in EVIL on the scale which is demonstrated every day.

Ironically the LARGER the crimes committed by the Oligarchs (and the Puppet Politicians acting in their name) are even more invisible to the Sheep...

I wanted to add a "P.S." to today's post (separately) since today's edition of The Grind was already quite a long one.

ALL of the negative propaganda the Corporate Media has been spewing for the past 10 days was summed-up very nicely by Bloomberg (in the "Commodities" article):

...Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that the U.S. central bank may reduce the pace of asset purchases in the next few meetings if policy makers can be confident of sustained improvement in the world’s largest economy.

Understand that this is EXACTLY the message which Bernanke has been sending for four years. As a matter of logic/mathematics; the only thing which could put pressure on prices (in either direction) is to change the message.

Irrespective of which side of Bernanke's mouth you choose to listen to; NOTHING at all changed. Either the money-printing will continue forever; OR the Fed will Fed will begin to reduce money-printing some time "in the next few meetings" IF the Fed-heads are confident that the "Recovery" is now "sustainable".

There was literally not one word (out of either side of Bernanke's mouth) which we have not already heard literally dozens of times. Thus as a matter of elementary logic it is IMPOSSIBLE for Bernanke's remarks to have had any impact on markets whatsoever...except for those who simply/implicitly branded Bernanke a LIAR when they powered gold and silver prices higher yesterday.

agau121 wrote:
DayOwl wrote:
My own response is that this is just a power play: "See what happens when we restrict QE? Are you sure that's what you really want?"

See what happens when you reject bail-ins (as in Cyprus)? Are you sure that's what you really want? It could be worse, but at least you can live with this (for now).



Yes, it's always possible that there will be some stock market shenanigans used merely as a feint (or threat). Note however, the methodical creation of a stock market bubble -- especially in U.S. markets.

European markets can't "bubble" because of Austerity-induced economic destruction and the fears of "deflation" (lol); but that doesn't mean they can't be crushed lower in some global ALGORITHM event.

With most of the Sheep hooked-up to these algorithms, it's MUCH easier for the banksters to manipulate stock market prices en masse than even manipulating the paper bullion markets.

In the case of U.S. markets; there has been FOUR YEARS of propagnda-pumping and bubble-creation -- and U.S. equity markets were significantly overvalued before this new bubble-creation began. The U.S. is clearly due for a major crash.

Then we have Japan just recently announcing a massive increase in money-printing despite 0% interest rates and (finally) some signs of life in their economy.

What have I told people about 0% interest rates and QE? That in any "remotely healthy" economy they will drive economies (and markets) toward IMMEDIATE bubbles.

In a perfect world, if the Oligarchs (primarily based in the U.S.) were wanting to have the next Depression blamed on a stock market crash; don't you think they would prefer that (this time) it wasn't U.S. MARKETS which got most of the blame?

Having Japan as "Ground Zero" for (this time) an economic holocaust seems to fit in very well with the Godzilla mentality that the Oligarchs have shown toward Japan again and again and again...

agau121 wrote:


...In any event, I have been keeping my ears open for news about Jack Lew because it seems unlikely that a person with his background and dishonest character would end up as U.S. Treasury Secretary unless he was going to be used to achieve strategic outcomes in service of the oligarchy.

Given Obama's track record, I have to wonder if perhaps he isn't the best person the oligarchy could have asked for in office at this time. He serves as an object of derision for the right wing, particularly the true whack jobs, which keeps them distracted, he tosses just enough crumbs here and there to progressives to keep them from getting uppity, he's a talented orator, and people are simply not accustomed to thinking of black people as servants of the oligarchy, which misdirects their attention and keeps them placated.


Very good points. In fact I had intended to point out how/why we had the transition in the U.S. from Idiot Bush to Brilliant Obama. What did the Oligarchs want in a "leader" when they installed Bush? A Thug who was good at following simple orders (like an attack-dog). You point at something and say: "destroy."

But obviously after 8 years of Thug-rule you require someone capable of finesse: the Used-Car Salesman. The bait-and-switch artist capable of promising "change" while delivering the exact same policies as his Thug predecessor.

Fortunately, I doubt very much that Obama has been selected to be the American Hitler. I say "fortunately" because while any American Hitler can/will do horrible things to the world; a brilliant Hitler would have a much higher probability of both committing worse deeds and surviving longer.

The reason that Obama can't be the next Hitler is that too few Americans would slavishly follow a black Hitler. Then we factor-in the mainstream media. We continue to get the relentless propaganda from the idiot-Right that "Obama is a Socialist." To me this guarantees that the Oligarchs have already decided to elect a Republican next time.

This next window will almost certainly coincide with "Hitler time" in the U.S.; as there's no way they can hide the magnitude of the current, accelerating collapse more than a few months longer.

My prediction for the next U.S. president is an ultra-religious, WASP Republican (male). Call it "gender bias"; but I still can't picture a female Hitler. And then the U.S. is right back to Thug-rule -- except the next Thug will be using the Iron Fist on his own people.

Now back to your point on Jack Lew. Who was in charge as U.S. Treasury Secretary during the LAST crash-and-bailout period? Ex-Goldman Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. Enough said.

debsyl wrote:
If you have trouble understanding the concept I noted, perhaps the following unrelated example would help.

If I tell you I am on a diet, yet continue to eat with total pleasure, would you not declare me a hypocrite and know that I am, in fact, NOT on a diet?

On the other hand, if I adhere to my diet in many/most respects, but fall into temptation and eat a chocolate occasionally, I am sure you would agree that I am, in fact, on a diet, but have only strayed from my resolution.


Debsyl (ironically) the phrase you're grasping for in fleshing out your concept is "good faith". If people make an honest/legitimate (and continuous) effort to avoid sin; then it's perfectly understandable that a wise/benevolent God will forgive them when they stray from the path.

I don't think you'll get any argument that "forgiveness" is laudable -- providing there is BOTH genuine remorse AND "good faith."

But that's not what we see (especially) with the Religious Right in the U.S. The moment that these hypocrites are provoked to anger (usually via the alleged crimes of some Muslim Boogeyman) their response is "drop bombs on their heads."

So first of all the hypocrites make ZERO effort to "avoid temptation" their own thirst for blood.

Secondly, I doubt if few if any of the Catholics in the U.S. who cheer on the U.S. war machine ever even see the need to "confess" anything. They don't even recognize their hypocrisy (and lust for violence) as a sin.

Thirdly, if these Hypocrite Catholics (hypothetically) ever engaged in Confession, what would be the nature of that confession?

"Forgive me Father, for every time I hear that our military has dropped bombs on someone I cheer."

If the Hypocrite Catholic was being totally honest; he would be not only confessing his previous sins, but also his (premeditated) future sins -- since if he was being honest, he would acknowledge that he will make no attempt to avoid sin in the future.

So not only do we also have ZERO remorse, but also awareness (at least at the subconscious level) that the Hypocrite will never attempt to avoid sin in the future. At literally every level this is "BAD FAITH."

Please explain to me how/why such individuals do not deserve to be Damned??

zooey wrote:
The bubble that burst was the bubble of ever-increasing equity in house prices.

Par example; I bought a home in 1998 for $X. By 2008, on paper and assessment for tax purposes, my house had doubled in value.

It is now assessed, here in BC Canada, in 2013 at a 45% drop from the high. Still is "worth more on paper" than what I paid.

Gist of this is: People saw never-ending price rises in their homes so, being idiots, they bought more than they could afford, counting on the increases.

They refinanced and took out "ficticous" home equity loans. They are now under water.

My feeling. Yes there was a speculative housing bubble.

But it was largely on paper. People should have used a calculator and logic to figure what was affordable before they refinanced with endless "equity loans".....

Sorry but not a bit of sympathy for being greedy like the bankers.


Zooey, I know where you're coming from in that when I've tried to tell individuals (active in the Canadian housing market) that this is the WORST real-estate bubble in history; all I hear in return is "how well" they have done so far.

Obviously it's nothing less than the real-life illustration of the cliche of someone jumping off a 100-storey building, and then (while whizzing past a window on the 50th floor) remarks "so far, so good."



But what we can't forget is what ultimately CREATED this greed-cycle for all these ordinary (and otherwise innocent) people is nothing more than BELIEVING THE LIES of our governments and bankers (and media).

Ask yourself this: do these people really deserve to be wiped-out financially simply from being more victims of the Oligarchs' lies...???

SebC wrote:
I found this interesting:


Seb, this thread is my daily dialogue to our Community. If you (or anyone else) has a comment or question directly relating to something I write here you're free to post a reply.

This thread is not a link-dump.

We've got an entire Forum where you can post your thoughts. Do not post non-relevant material on this thread again.

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:


The epitome of this is Tim-the-tax-cheat Geithner. Not only does Geithner have ZERO intellect (as is obvious any/every time you hear him speak); he has ZERO academic qualifications in the world of finance/business.

He is the U.S. Treasury Secretary, and before that the President of the New York Fed...

It may have been a simple oversight on your part, but Geithner is no longer the U.S. Treasury Secretary; Jack Lew is, and he is arguably worse than Geithner. Among other things he is a former COO of Citibank who was instrumental during the Clinton administration for the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and has since refused to acknowledge that deregulation of Wall Street contributed to the financial crisis of 2008.

This segment of Democracy Now! features Matt Taibbi and Bill Black discussing Jack Lew's nomination in January of 2013:

"Failure of Epic Proportions": Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy

www.democracynow.org/2013/1/11/failure_o...ons_treasury_nominee

Regarding my own congressperson, while I am not making excuses for her, my sense of her response to my question was not so much that she was pretending to know more than she actually did but rather that she was delivering a prescripted response with which she had previously been provided. My guess is that she had previously attended some sort of Democratic Party coaching session wherein they prepared their members to deliver the canned reply that she delivered to me.



Lol!

In fact I do no recall chatter about Geithner being replaced for Obama's second term, but (especially as a Canadian) I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to the particular names of the Henchmen.

Frankly it amazed me that they would allow Geithner to remain in that job for an entire term, given that he was a total embarrassment to the U.S. every time he opened his mouth. In comparison, Junior was a skilled public speaker.



Obviously they decided that they needed a Bag Man at the Treasury Department who at least sounds literate. One really has to wonder about the knuckle-dragging, right-wing ideologues who continue to refer to Obama as a "socialist" when these are the types of people he keeps appointing to high office.

agau121 wrote:
...The observation of a low tide does not mean that the ocean is being drained forever.


Precisely.

And in more general terms this echoes my point about there being "rules" for effective/legitimate "thinking" (i.e. logic). Logic is mathematical, and as the cliche goes; in any remotely logical/mathematical process one cannot "compare apples with oranges".

Yet we see this again and again; the product of one-half mental laziness and one-half not understanding that there is a "right way" and "wrong way" to conduct analysis. Basically no one reporting/writing on business news in the mainstream even understands the distinction you just made.

"Low tide" (to them) is precisely the same thing as the ocean being drained forever...

Lol! Almost missed the post completely.

I put it near the bottom of my "to do" list since I've been writing (frequently) about how all these real estate markets are "bubbles."

However, it's important to comment on the particular gist of this article, because it applies (in varying degrees) to ALL Western housing markets. Perhaps the only exception are the Austerity-ravaged economies in Europe; where purchasing-power has been so utterly destroyed that no bubble could survive.

However in the non-Austerity economies (which includes BOTH the U.S. and UK -- despite their claims); we never had more than a partial-bursting of the bubbles...which has been followed by the most-massive "pumping" campaign in the history of our economies.

1) Relentless propaganda about (first) false-bottoms, and now false "booms".
2) Relentless efforts to bring back "easy money".
3) Relentless efforts to DUPE the Speculators into getting back into these markets; the dumbest of the Stupid Money.

While Earl may observe that "mass speculation" hasn't returned to Florida; about the only purchasing which is taking place is occurring among those Speculators not totally wiped-out by the last bubble...they're going to complete their suicide now.



Meanwhile, markets like Australia and Canada NEVER had their bubbles pop -- and in Canada's case we have Traitor Harper DUPLICATING the U.S. housing bubble (except not as much fraud).

Note what was just reported by the propaganda machine (and contained in today's commentary:

Supposedly U.S. oil demand has COLLAPSED by more than 20% in just the first FOUR months of this year. If true, this is roughly equal to three times the rate of collapse of Greek oil demand -- during the worst of its economic crash.

If these oil numbers are even remotely accurate; it means the U.S. economy has ALREADY begun the Great Collapse...with the Crash of '08 being a mere tune-up in comparison...

samix wrote:
Next time a FBI investi-gator investigates you, be sure to be in the most submissive of positions least you get shot at and killed and then be labelled "violent"

Boston bombing investigators have shot dead a man who became violent as they questioned him in Orlando, Florida, FBI officials say.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22627923




So (supposedly) some "suspect" armed with only a knife, and arrested by a GROUP of gun-wielding FBI agents "lunged at one" with a knife. Is there any context where this is plausible?

Only one. He already knew that he was going to get the "Guantanamo Special": no trial, endless torture, and shipped off to one of the U.S.'s gulags. Under those circumstances, one might as well commit suicide -- which is what that act represents.

Other than this; the likely scenario in this (staged) event is that the "suspect" was given his Script to read to the media. He refused to read the Script, and so a few seconds later one of the Thugs pulls his gun, murders the suspect, and plants a knife.

I think you're overly optimistic Samix (lol). Being "merely passive" won't save anyone once the U.S. Gestapo gets hold of you. It's either TOTAL COOPERATION or get buried in some anonymous grave...

DayOwl wrote:
Interesting note:

In an April 2011 interview with William Still, the filmmaker who created the Money Masters, he states that the film is the 15th all-time most watched movie on the Internet. Apparently a lot of people are willing to wade through it...


There you go! For all those in the Community who haven't at least begun to watch this documentary, what's your problem... (lol)?

I just noticed a little news item over on our Blogs...

www.bullionbullscanada.com/bullion-bulls...st-ask-wal-mart.html

...and it certainly ties in to both what I've talked about recently and written about in previous commentaries:

Death of the U.S. Consumer
(3 1/2 years old)

The McDonalds Economic Index
(6 months ago)

The important stat from the Blog post above is that in WalMart's most-recent quarterly report; U.S. same-store sales FELL by over 1%, something which hasn't happened since the "recession" was still official in the U.S.

Note that this 1+% decline is not "net" of inflation, as with the calculations I did in my most-recent article on the U.S. retail sector:

U.S Retail Depression is ‘Good News’

agau121 wrote:
Jeff Nielson wrote:
Why does Citi's pretend-analyst claim that the commodities boom is "over"? Because prices are not performing well today. Again, this non-analysis is so severely flawed on so many levels it takes a LONG trail of bread-crumbs to lead people back to the real world.

I don't mean to nitpick, but it seems to me that the author of this piece is saying, correctly or incorrectly, that the commodities super cycle is probably ending this year because China's economic growth is slowing, thus softening demand for commodities...


No AgAu, not "nitpicking", but a minor error in logic. What is the form of the argument?

The economy of China is slowing at the moment, so the commodities boom is ending permanently.

This is a nonsequitur. You cannot claim a temporary event as evidence that a long term trend is permanently ending.

Did the Citi-idiot dare to claim that China's economy is permanently slowing down? of course not. Did the Citi-idiot claim the commodities boom was taking a temporary pause? No. He tries to make the nonsensical argument that a long-term trend is ending because of short-term anecdotal evidence.

To simplify things here, since the propaganda machine NEVER cites long-term evidence for anything (except for misleading claims of peaks or valleys); we can simply ignore EVERY report in the mainstream media which claims to be making a long-term conclusion -- because we know without even reading the first word of the article that there will be NO EVIDENCE to support the conclusion.

In this particular example, citing the short-term developments in China's economy isn't "weak evidence" for the writer's argument, it is no evidence at all. To be elevated to weak evidence, the writer would have to make some sort of credible argument that the (supposed) short-term weakness in China's economy will evolve into a longer-term slowing in the economy.

The only reason this argument might appear rational (in comparison to the usual tripe) is that at least this isn't totally PERVERSE. In other words, the sort of "logic" we normally see in the precious metals sector is more like "China's economy is expanding rapidly -- and so the commodities boom is over."



Don't confuse "relative rationality" within the mainstream media with actually making sense...

And once again it's time for another journey into the world of Orwellian double-talk. Many readers know that American labour groups (and even some rogue politicians) have expressed anger at how easy it is for U.S. OLIGOPOLIES to bring in foreign workers...and drive-down U.S. wages even lower at a time of massive unemployment and Great Depression wages.

So now the U.S. government is going to "reform" its rules...meaning its going to make them even worse. It's going to raise the quota (not lower it) and ERASE the requirement that U.S. corporations even try to find a U.S. worker before importing another (cheaper) one.

Of course even calling these "high-skill" visas is more Orwellian nonsense? Want to know one category of these "high-skilled workers" who get this special visa-exemption to bypass other immigrant workers?

Teenage fashion models.

Apparently if you're female, very young, and very pretty; being able to "walk and chew gum" at the same time makes you "high skill"...



P.S. As usual, what does the U.S. propaganda machine call it when the Two-Party Dictatorship takes a bad rule and makes it worse? That's right: "a compromise."



P.P.S. As is also usual, it's a Republican leading the charge to drive U.S. wages lower.


Hatch, Democrats Reach Compromise on High-Skilled Visas

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/hatch-...high-tech-visas.html

Senator Orrin Hatch has reached a deal with Democrats on changes to a high-skilled visa program, clearing an impediment to Republican support for legislation revising U.S. immigration law.

“There were several things that he proposed that were absolutely unacceptable; we tried to find those things that were acceptable and to build upon them, and I think we’ve reached a reasonable compromise,” said Illinois Senator Richard Durbin, the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat and a co-author of the immigration proposal.

The Judiciary Committee, in its fifth day of considering amendments to the immigration plan, may vote on the compromise today, Durbin said.

The agreement would change the formula for calculating the number of visas for foreign technology workers while keeping the bill’s limit of 180,000 a year. It would lift a requirement that companies look for a U.S. worker before hiring a foreign visa holder for all companies except those whose workforce is more than 15 percent foreign...

I'm sorry to sound like the proverbial "broken record"; but it's becoming harder and harder to discuss particular pieces of the overall propaganda mythology without observing that it is a COMBINATION OF LIES.

Case in point is recent Fed blather (yet again) about an "exit strategy"...except they have promised so many "exit strategies" already (and never delivered) that even the propaganda machine is too embarassed to use those two words any longer.



Why is the Fed once again LYING about an exit strategy? Because the U.S. economy is "so strong". This is despite the fact that ALL recent data released by the propaganda machine has been weak. But of course the propaganda machine never allows facts to get in the way of its "message".

So because the U.S. is so strong the Fed-heads are once again talking "exit strategy", but refusing to call it an exit strategy. And this is "putting pressure" on bullion prices.



But fear not bullion-holders (lol!), for today we hear that the money-printing will continue unabated. Is this because the U.S. economy is so weak the the Wall Street fraud-factories so insolvent that WITHDRAWING this life-support would cause instant death?

No, of course not. The "reason" why the money-printing can continue is because "inflation is so low"...



...since this "proves" that the money-printing isn't doing any harm.



And so we see EXACTLY how corrupt governments produce hyperinflation. No government (no matter how terrible) would ever openly drive their own currency to ZERO. This is why I know that most readers still don't believe me when I state that our currencies will go (literally) to zero.

So how does hyperinflation ever occur? Two reasons. First we have corrupt governments telling HUGE (and growing lies) about inflation. The U.S. inflation-lie has increased from merely always being a few percentage points to a full ORDER OF MAGNITUDE (i.e. multiple of ten).

With the inflation-lie already increasing exponentially; the strategy is clear: simply tell bigger and bigger and bigger lies about inflation -- no longer caring if anyone believes the official number. Because as long as you completely conceal the truth they will never understand how BIG the lie really is. It's very possible that in less than two years (real) inflation will be ONE HUNDRED TIMES the official number in the U.S.

But note the other dynamic: lag-time between when money-printing takes place and when the EFFECTS of that money-printing reach the general economy. The only reason we don't already have hyperinflation is that somewhere around $5 TRILLION in new money-printing has been fed into the banking system -- but completely hived-off from the broader economy.

That can't continue...without this MOUNTAIN of paper over-flowing into the broader economy. Some of it slowly leaks in through inflating U.S. equities and bond prices. But GREEDY banksters can not be prevented (forever) from using all the newly-printed money to gamble in the REAL economy.

As I've suggested before, we might have already engaged in enough money-printing to guarantee hyperinflation (in combination with all this debt). But with the mega-lies about Western inflation getting larger and larger; even if we already aren't past the point-of-no-return on hyperinflation we are CERTAIN to speed right past that point without even slowing down...




Fed's Bullard: No tapering with inflation so low

www.marketwatch.com/story/feds-bullard-n...on-so-low-2013-05-21

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - There is no case for slowing down the pace of the Federal Reserve's bond-buying program given the low level of inflation, said St. Louis Fed President James Bullard, on Tuesday. "Inflation is pretty low in the U.S. I can't envision a good case to be made for tapering unless the inflation situation turns around and we are more confident than we are today that inflation going to move back toward target," Bullard told reporters after a speech in Frankfurt according to Reuters. Bullard is a voting member of the Fed's rate setting committee this year. The Fed is buying $85 billion of Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities per month. There had been growing talk that the Fed might scale back the purchases as soon as the next meeting on June 18-19. In a separate speech Tuesday, New York Fed President William Dudley said he did not know if the next adjustment to the bond buying program would be "up or down."

Earl wrote:
Jeff,


Mertis, I would have never guessed you to be a closet Metal-Head!

Being one of the founding members of the "Earl and Mertis Fubar Band", allow me to explain, Jeff- LOL

Mertis, has three guitars, a nice acoustic, a nice "Strat", then one, this demon I brought home for her. Plus, the effects pedals, things went from "I'm leaven on a jet plane", to ACCEPT rather quickly. LOL

I gotta, give her credit vocally, she's got the "God Bless You" down. LOL

There will be more to come, as the "band" repertoire expands, I'm sure.

I call it "Metal Health"-

Thank You
Earl




Explanation noted Earl!

Yes, if I had ever learned to play guitar (more than just being able to pluck a few chords - lol); I can certainly see the "therapeutic value" in playing metal. Nothing like getting LOUD to release a little frustration...I know all about that.

With the media shoveling TONS of manure upon us daily; it only becomes possible to rebut some of the most-absurd Big Picture drivel...from these Small Picture scammers.

Why does Citi's pretend-analyst claim that the commodities boom is "over"? Because prices are not performing well today. Again, this non-analysis is so severely flawed on so many levels it takes a LONG trail of bread-crumbs to lead people back to the real world.

1) Price is NOT a "fundamental." In free-and-open markets (which we obviously don't have) price is a derivative of fundamentals; and for those of limited intellect/understanding they use it as a proxy -- instead of fundamentals.

However, in manipulated markets; the only thing which prices "prove" is manipulation itself. So we begin this analysis with the basic point that EVERYTHING the Citi-idiot says is irrelevant.



2) We get to REAL analysis. What could cause the commodities boom to end? Only two things: the cause of the boom ends OR inventories grow too large. There are no other fundamentals which can cause ANY commodities boom to end.

What do we see?

What caused the commodities boom is the OTHER 6 billion people in the world wanting to raise their standard of living. Has anyone heard the 2 BILLION poor people in China and India alone announce that their standard of living has now risen "high enough"?



Obviously we have only begun to see the gap in standard of living close. Equally obvious: economic power is shifting to the East. If anything; that dynamic argues for a much STRONGER commodities boom -- the opposite of what the Citi-idiot claims.

This only leaves inventories. In the real world; inventory levels for the vast majority of commodities are much, much lower than when the commodities boom began. The only exception to his are industrial metals. And the reason this is an exception is SOLELY due to the amount of economic destruction caused by the Oligarchs (primarily in the West).

Thus inventory levels also argue for increasing strength in the commodities boom going forward.

One last, general point.

How/why do we such totally defective pseudo-analysis from 99% of what is spewed by the mainstream media? Because it is all small-picture trivia. In the world of Corporate Media "analysis"; all that happens is what is reported TODAY.

What happened yesterday is totally irrelevant, and what happened the day before yesterday has already been totally forgotten. And what will happen tomorrow is always assumed to be exactly the SAME as what happened today...with the only exception being when the propaganda machine wants to make excuses for "bad news."



This is intentional. You always/exclusively only REPORT short-term trivia for two reasons. First of all there is the desperate need to hide the Truth. But even more important than this is the mental-conditioning.

If all you ever report to the Sheep are short-term trivia; the Sheep will inevitably believe that short-term trivia is all that matters and they will simply forget about the existence of either long-term data OR long-term analysis.

It's through such brainwashing that you can "surprise" the Sheep with literally any news. We will be "surprised" when the next (official) Depression begins. We will be "surprised" when our currencies are completely destroyed (even people on this site). And (of course) we will be "surprised" when our governments finally acknowledge/declare their own bankruptcy.




Citigroup Sees ‘Death Bells’ for Commodities Supercycle in 2013

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-21/citigr...ercycle-in-2013.html

The commodities supercycle is probably ending this year as China’s economic growth slows and the nation focuses less on infrastructure and urbanization, Citigroup Inc. said.

This year will probably signal “death bells” for the supercycle, or a longer-than-average period of rising prices, Citigroup said in a report dated yesterday, reiterating similar calls made last month and in 2011. The Standard & Poor’s GSCI gauge of 24 raw materials is down 2.1 percent this year, after an almost fourfold advance since the end of 2001.

The rally in the past decade spurred new mines, wells and crop acreage. Economic growth in China, the biggest user of everything from copper to cotton to coal, slowed to 7.4 percent in the third quarter, from as much as 12 percent in 2010. Expansion will increase to 8.05 percent in the three months through September and remain at 8 percent until mid-2014, according to economist estimates compiled by Bloomberg.

Change is “ushering in a new decade of opportunities based on how individual commodities will perform against one another and against broader market indicators such as equities or currencies,” Citibank said in the report. “The downward shift in China’s economic growth rate combined with the decline in the commodity intensity of growth have a permanent and profound impact on global markets.”...

debsyl wrote:
After my husband said that Aurcana was trading at +/- $2.80 a share I had to find out what was happening. I knew Aurcana hadn't bucked the trend and yet it was trading substantially higher than the price I had bought it at.

A quick look at my stocks revealed that I now only have about 1/8 the stocks I previously had.

Can someone tell me what transpired on May 3rd?


Debsyl, no shame in having missed the previous discussion about this. To improve its share-structure (and attractiveness to outside investors) it did a reverse-split (as Earl mentioned).

As Brian pointed out in several earlier posts; this should have IMMEDIATELY resulted in stronger share-price performance. But that outlook assumes we have "markets" instead of crime-scenes.

What has ACTUALLY happened instead is that the Banksters have focused their attacks on this Company -- as evidenced by the plummeting share price (check out the chart at Stockhouse).

Why is AUN's share price plummeting? Apparently it's making too much profits, and increasing production too quickly. While I would never suggest to anyone to over-concentrate in any one company; this is not a reason to flee from Aurcana -- but rather a great reason to buy.

The same arguments which apply to metal also apply to (quality) miners; of which Aurcana has clearly earned a place: prices must rise, so when the current price is lower this simply means a better buying opportunity.


I was already writing about these companies being "dirt cheap" way back in the middle of 2011, so I simply lack any language to use to describe how cheap these companies are presently.

The only way I can partially illustrate this point is to point out that these companies are now ALL cheaper than after the Crash of '08...at which point the entire sector went on nearly a "ten-bagger" run (i.e. 1,000% gain).

robinsld wrote:
Hmm, "inflated forecasts" seem to also be part of their modus operandi in Australia. In particular, I'm thinking of a huge tunnel system in Brisbane for which inflated forecasts of traffic use for tolls were made to win the deals. Then the company set up to run the tunnels went into receivership because they didn't even come close to half the traffic that was forecast. As far as I can see, this means that the people of Queensland are now saddled with the debt for these bogus tunnels. By they way, they are really nice tunnels - just not really needed for a city the size of Brisbane. There are now more and better tunnels under Brisbane than there are in Sydney!!


Yes, note yet another example of Perkins' amorality. LYING is a sin which ranks so low on his behavioral totempole that he doesn't even mention it as one of the forms of behavior for which he's (supposedly) trying to make amends. He only acknowledges the horrendous consequences of particular lies.

In other words, in Perkins' (very) low standard of personal morality/conduct; lying to simply get rich is something he would do just as automatically as putting on a tie each morning. It was only when confronted (again and again and again) with the horrific consequences of his lying that his (minimal) conscience began to rebel.

For most ordinary people; a "confession" of deeds such as Perkins committed would be contained in a SUICIDE NOTE -- rather than put into a book to sell and profit from.

In this case, I would suggest that Perkins gross behavioral deficiency is more a symptom of a much broader social disease than a flaw in any way unique to Perkins. What percentage of people in our society would NOT lie to get ahead -- when they could see the easy/obvious opportunity to profit from doing so?

At one time; I would have suggested such people would have comprised a significant majority. Today, with the Oligarchs deliberately devolving our sense of morality AND rapidly increasing the general level of economic desperation; I would argue that a solid majority would (gladly) lie-to-get-ahead.

Morality is such a slippery slope. One day you're merely lying to make a few bucks. The next day you're goose-stepping as you lead Victims to the nearest Concentration Camp...

Thanks for the post AgAu! It's very important to address the dichotomy between "Bill Black: economist" and "Bill Black: banking expert".

When Black talks about banking, I shut up and listen. I learned a considerable amount of what I know about the U.S. financial system directly from Black. However, when he strays into more general economics; as I've noted before his analysis is simply/obviously weak.

The glaring example in this clip is when Black refers to "non-existent inflation" in the U.S. (lol). What needs to be explained is why Black and other intelligent, generally reputable economists are effectively economic illiterates.

What separates me from them? Apart from generally more-independent thinking; I got exposed to the precious metals sector. It was here I completed my course in "Economic De-Programming 101".



When you see individuals like Black (honest/intelligent/capable) who display this incredible ignorance about their own profession; inevitably these are people who rarely if ever mention the word "gold."

Again, my own advantage is one acquired by accident. I came to the precious metals sector via deciding to become a "commodities investor". Had I not suddenly developed that general curiousity (nearly a decade ago); who knows when (or if) my own eyes would have been open...?

Thus when I criticize the flawed economic analysis of good people like Black I don't want this to come across as being judgmental. It's simply important that we are aware of their limitations -- so that we can filter-out the "good" and reject the garbage.

How deficient is Black's economic background? All he talks about is how the banks are "too big" and "too concentrated" -- i.e. they are an oligopoly. He talks about them being "parasitic". He talks about them being all-powerful. He talks about them even being "nasty."

In other words, after first identifying the U.S. banks as an oligopoly; he then describes many of the bad traits of ALL oligopolies. Then we get to Black's "solutions".

He wants to SHRINK them, and he wants to "tightly regulate" them. In other words, he then talks about the CLASSIC approach to dealing with oligopolies. And yet in a 15-minute plus clip this economist does not even use the word "oligopoly" once.

It's not just the Big Banks which are too big; it's all corporations. It's not just the Big Banks which need to be smashed into little pieces, it's ALL the oligopolies. Hasn't Black even noticed all the raping-and-pillaging of Big Oil and Big Agriculture?

And Black's solutions are not some "brilliant idea" he dreamt up all by himself. They're straight out of an "Economics 101" textbook ("201" perhaps?).



If a young child figures out (all by themself) that we need to "smash the oligopolies"; we would pat the child on the head, hand them a sucker, and applaud their cleverness.

When an economist proposes "smashing the oligopolies"...except he can't even remember to use the word "oligopoly", this is somewhat less-praisworthy.



P.S. Note the word Black uses again and again and again instead of "oligopoly": the metaphor of "scorpions". He's been programmed (brainwashed) so thoroughly to never THINK OR USE THE WORD "oligopoly" that he's forced to use a metaphor throughout a 15-minute clip -- because there is no other word in the English language he could have used to describe what these banks actually are.

It's Tuesday May 21st, and the price yo-yo which YANKED gold violently up to $1400 yesterday is drifting lower again today. While I explained the immediate implications of the bankers' capitulation yesterday; I didn't look ahead.

While that's usually an activity guaranteed to make one look foolish (in these corrupt, fantasy-markets), I'll stick my chin out and give it my best shot (lol). Does the fact that the banksters were unwilling to allow gold (and silver) prices to continue sinking yesterday mean that we have definitely reached "a bottom."

No.

Not the answer people want to hear (lol); but my mantra is to always prepare readers for whatever lies ahead (in various permutations) rather than being some feel-good cheerleader for the sector. In the paper-fantasy markets prices can always go lower...but those lower prices carry consequences (for the banksters).

Obviously the "consequence" I always talk about, and the consequence we have seen for the past 6 weeks is extreme buying of physical metal -- the "cross" against these Vampires; the "kryptonite" against this Corrupt Superman.

This is why I continue to tell people it's not a question of how low we can tolerate prices going, but how much more self-inflicted punishment can the banksters absorb?

Their extreme (and ultimately futile) effort to curtail gold-imports to India over the short term indicates nothing less than a fear of IMMEDIATE default. Meanwhile we see strong and growing evidence of Decoupling. Both of those scenarios represent outright defeat for the banking cabal.

The evidence from the physical market and the behavior of the banksters suggests that barring some NEW variable being introduced that the banksters cannot tolerate the consequences of prices approaching $1300 (US). Of course this presumes that their primary concern is the gold market.

Silver-buying has remained strong (especially legal-tender coins) but it hasn't ignited in the way that gold-demand has -- but we all know the silver-supply situation was already much more critical.

I'm going to assume (unless/until I see evidence to the contrary) that the primary area of concern is the gold market, due to the extreme/unprecedented liquidation of paper-gold. Recall information I presented recently (via Basher Central).

Roughly $300 BILLION has been sunk into paper-gold "funds" of one sort or another. Potentially all of that money could be pulled out, and so far less than 25% has actually been liquidated. Since we know that much/most of the proceeds from this liquidation is going straight into physical bullion; the banksters cannot tolerate strong, additional demand from the Sheep.

This means both not tempting them with lower prices AND not stimulating their greed with any dramatic price-surge -- other than one-day melodramas like yesterday. What this suggests is one of two scenarios looking ahead to the next rally. Either we will see simply more choppy, sideways price-action (before the market takes off on some unannounced "cue"); or the banksters will CHOOSE a "V-bottom": one more plunge -- which then immediately triggers the next rally.

There are THREE problems with investors planning to "wait" for that one, last "buying opportunity".

a) It might not happen at all
b) We have no idea how long/how far the plunge will go
c) There is no bullion AVAILABLE at lower prices

While the first and third possibilities are pretty much self-explanatory, ( requires a little more expansion. The problem with trying to "time" any bottom is that the selling often stops sooner than one expects.

You're expecting an ambush that lasts a whole week (or longer), but instead it's over in a day and a half. Prices start to boomerang higher, but since you're still expecting lower prices you're not convinced. You blink, and suddenly bullion prices have risen by 20% and you're chasing the market higher.

Worse, we should now EXPECT inventory supply problems in any/every rally. The liquidation of paper-gold not only means the eventual death of this banker-fraud; but it also means that in future rallies a much, much higher ratio of investor dollars will go into METAL instead of PAPER.

The fact that the availability of physical metal isn't a problem at the moment is a luxury -- not a "constant." We are getting very close to the day when PRICE become a trivial concern in comparison to availability.

At the moment we have low prices and good availability. A bird in the hand...

Why penalize the murdering of males at all -- if we only have concern for women?

Because our societies are run by rich (white), male Oligarchs; and if we didn't engage in some punishment of violence against males their own (precious) lives would be at risk.

What's the ONLY time our societies 'forget' about their insane bias for women? When it has to compete against our even more-extreme bias for the wealthy.

Need more convincing? In Arizona (the state where the murder above took place), only ONE women has ever been executed. Her crime? Killing a WEALTHY MAN.

...Only one woman has ever been executed in Arizona, one-time Alaska cabaret singer Eva Dugan. Convicted of killing a wealthy Tucson chicken farmer, she was hanged and accidentally decapitated in 1930.

Amiericans like killing males. Of course this is generally true with all societies, where roughly 2/3 of the murder-victims are always MALE. Where Americans distinguish themselves for their bloodthirstiness is that they LOVE murdering (alleged) male murderers -- i.e. capital punishment.

Conversely Americans (like all societies) abhor killing women. Where Americans distinguish themselves (as the only supposedly civilized society which engages in "capital punishment") is that Americans hate murdering female murderers.

They will convict-and-execute males on the flimsiest of evidence (especially if those males have non-white skin colour), but will practically never murder female murderers -- no matter how extreme the crime.

Examples abound, but here is a recent one:

... [Jody] Arias, 32, was found guilty earlier this month of the murder of Travis Alexander, whose body was found slumped in the shower of his Phoenix-area home in 2008. He had been stabbed 27 times, shot in the face and had his throat slashed.

We're all familiar with "crimes of passion". That's where someone "snaps" (usually out of extreme emotional distress) and commits some (generally) gruesome murder. That's not what we have here.

When you "kill" someone three times (shot in the face, throat slashed, stabbed 27 times); obviously two of those three "killings" are purely gratuitou -- i.e. the product of extreme malice rather than mere emotional distress.

Yet here we have American Justice locked in a debate about whether this murderer "deserves" to be murdered. Obviously if it is ever justifiable to murder someone as punishment for murder (it isn't) it would be in handing out such gruesome/extreme punishment for a gruesome/extreme crime.

Put another way, if the facts here were reversed, and it was a male murderer and female victim; the only "debate" taking place would be whether he should be hung, shocked, injected, or simply have his head chopped off.

Can me mathematically quantify our societies' gender-hatred of males? Sort of.

With 2/3 of all murder victims being male, if we had EQUAL concern about the lives of men and women this would mathematically equate to valuing the lives of women TWICE as much. The threat to males is twice as high, but despite this we showed only equal concern.

Of course that hypothetical has no connection to our real world. In our societies, we have phobic obsession about "violence against women"; while absolutely ZERO concern about "violence against men."

This implies valuing the lives of women INFINITELY more than the lives of men, but let me conservatively estimate this as valuing the lives of women 10 times more than the lives of men. Is there any corroboration for this? Yes.

In the U.S., while 1 out of 8 people arrested for murder are women (12.5%) less than 2% of those executed are women. Depending on how much "less than 2%" that is, we approach the 10:1 ratio mentioned above.

How insane is our gender-hatred of males -- given our love for women? Our gender-hatred of males causes more women to be murdered than if we had equal respect for both genders. A simple hypothetical will illustrate this.

You own a prized flower bed, but also have a young child who likes to go stomping through that flower bed. While you have planted several types of flowers, your preference (by far) is for your tulips. And so you make a mistake.

Instead of simply telling the child not to stomp on any flowers; you only have a "zero tolerance" policy about stomping tulips. The child continues stomping through the flower bed, because in telling the child that only stomping tulips is "bad" you imply there is nothing wrong with stomping the other flowers.

So the child continues stomping other flowers, and even though he tries to avoid stomping tulips it is inevitable that some tulips will be inadvertently stomped with the other flowers. Conversely, if the child is told that stomping ALL flowers is bad; he will stay out of the flower bed entirely -- the only way to minimize the number of tulips which are stomped.

The parallel should be obvious, but since our gender-bias/hatred is so extreme; I better spell it out.

If you tell males that ONLY the lives of females have value; not only will you MAXIMIZE the number of males who are murdered; but in the midst of all that male-murdering some females will inevitably be killed as well.

Conversely, if we valued ALL human lives equally; then along with minimizing the total number of murders we also reduce the number of women being killed. Our hatred of men is so extreme that we willingly sacrifice the lives of our (beloved) women just so we can indulge in this hatred.

Any time you here the phrase "fight violence against women"; you know you are dealing with a male-hating Zealot brainwashed beyond any capacity for logical thought.

"Violence against people" is a social issue. An obsession about (only) "violence against women" is clearly a social disease.






Convicted U.S. killer Arias would join tiny death row group

www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/21/us-us...dUSBRE94K0FU20130521

(Reuters) - Jodi Arias, convicted of brutally murdering her ex-boyfriend, is expected on Tuesday to address a jury in Arizona tasked with deciding whether she should join the small group of women sitting on death row in the United States.

Arias, 32, was found guilty earlier this month of the murder of Travis Alexander, whose body was found slumped in the shower of his Phoenix-area home in 2008. He had been stabbed 27 times, shot in the face and had his throat slashed.

The same jury that convicted Arias and will ultimately decide her fate has ruled that the one-time waitress is eligible for the death penalty, finding that she acted with extreme cruelty.

A spokeswoman for Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix said Arias was expected to address the jury on Tuesday. A judge on Monday denied a request for a mistrial in the penalty phase of the trial by Arias' lawyers who argued that a key defense witness had declined to testify due to threats.

While women account for about one in eight of the arrests for murder in the United States, less than 2 percent of death row inmates are women, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

"Juries are a little more reluctant to mete out the death penalty to a woman than a man," said Andy Silverman, a law professor at the University of Arizona and a member of the Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty.

"We don't look at women as being as violent ... We don't think of death row as a place for them," he added.

Only one woman has ever been executed in Arizona, one-time Alaska cabaret singer Eva Dugan. Convicted of killing a wealthy Tucson chicken farmer, she was hanged and accidentally decapitated in 1930.

Another woman sentenced to death in Arizona, Debra Milke, had her conviction overturned in March after an appeals court ruled that prosecutors failed to disclose the history of misconduct of the detective who secured her alleged confession.

There are two women and 122 men currently on death row in the state. Of the more than 1,300 murderers executed nationwide since 1976, only 12, or fewer than one percent, were women.

In the Arias case, prosecutor Juan Martinez has argued that Arias killed Alexander "three times over" - stabbing him in the heart, cutting his throat "from ear-to-ear" and shooting him.

Defense attorney Kirk Nurmi argued that Alexander subjected Arias to physical and emotional abuse, which left her with post-traumatic stress.

CABLE NEWS SENSATION

With evidence including a sex tape and photographs of the blood-spattered crime scene, Arias' trial became a sensation on cable TV news with its story of an attractive, intelligent and soft-spoken young woman charged with an unthinkable crime.

If Arias gets a death sentence, her case could take decades to pass through the appeals process.

In January a Gallup poll found that support for the death penalty in the United States was at 63 percent, down from a high of 80 percent in 1994.

"I am expecting that it will be at least 20 years before her case is final," said Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender who represents death row prisoners' appeals.

"There may be a better understanding of the post-traumatic stress. Politically there may be a change in the governor's office, or in the legislature, or the clemency board," he added.

Arizona, which is among 32 U.S. states that have the death penalty, has executed 11 people since 2010, most recently in December when Richard Stokley was put to death for killing two girls in 1991.

After that execution, state Attorney General Tom Horne, a Republican, said he would continue to fight to cut what he called "unconscionable delays between verdict and the chance for victims' families to see justice done."

Some 18 states have abolished the death penalty, while other states including California and Oregon continue to have capital punishment on the books but have not carried out executions in recent years.

Directly after her conviction, Arias told a local Fox television news affiliate she preferred a death sentence to life in prison: "I believe death is the ultimate freedom, so I'd rather just have my freedom as soon as I can get it," she said.

While the judge instructed jurors not to follow media coverage of the case, the interview, if it was seen by jurors, could make it easier for them to apply the death penalty, legal experts said.

"It's a very difficult thing for juries, even if they are for the death penalty, to impose it on an individual, a young person, a person who culturally they relate to," said Richard Dieter, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

"You lift some onus from them by saying ‘Give it to me,'" he added.

About the only thing which Canada's Conservative Party has ever shown itself to be good at (other than serving the U.S.) is wallowing in the public trough. So it was only a matter of time until these parasites got caught either defrauding taxpayers or influence-peddling.

At the moment; it's the former kind of wallowing which is getting them into trouble. Several Conservative Senators are under investigation for "questionable" expense claims. One of them in particular (Mike Duffy) had apparently cheated the public Treasury out of a particularly large amount.

So Stephen Harper had his Chief of Staff WRITE A CHEQUE to reimburse the Treasury for what Duffy had ripped-off. Meanwhile PUBLICLY Harper lied about how Duffy had made "an innocent mistake, and then reimbursed taxpayers" for what he had taken.

When it was discovered that it was Harper's office -- not Duffy -- which had paid-back what Duffy had taken; Harper immediately turned on Duffy (lol), ejected him from the Conservative caucus...and now gets his Chief of Staff to 'fall on his sword' for Harper.

a) steal
b) get caught stealing
c) lie about the stealing after getting caught
d) get caught lying
e) sacrifice scapegoats


...it's all in the "Conservative Handbook for Good Government".





Harper Said to Name Novak Top Aide After Wright Resigns

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-20/harper...-wright-resigns.html

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, seeking to limit damage from the first scandal to touch his inner circle, named his longest-serving aide to replace former chief of staff Nigel Wright.

Wright resigned yesterday amid an ethics probe into a C$90,000 ($87,500) payment he made to Conservative Senator Mike Duffy to cover the repayment of expenses that Duffy improperly claimed. Ray Novak, Harper’s principal secretary, will take over from Wright, a person familiar with the decision said on condition they not be identified because the appointment hasn’t been made public.

An expenses controversy has dogged Harper’s ruling Conservative Party in recent months by implicating his lawmakers in the Senate, an unelected body whose members are appointed by the prime minister. By claiming Wright, the scandal has moved closer to Harper than any since he took power in 2006, said Nik Nanos, an Ottawa-based pollster.

“One of the reasons Harper has been politically successful is that he has been untouched by controversy,” Nanos, president of Nanos Research, said by e-mail. “I believe this is the first time something controversial has been linked inside the prime minister’s office.”

Harper’s office acknowledged last week thatWright wrote Duffy a personal check to help him reimburse the Senate for disputed housing claims.
‘Public Interest’

Wright “was acting in the public interest,” Harper said in a statement yesterday. The prime minister’s office said May 15 that Wright helped Duffy because the lawmaker was unable to pay back the funds immediately and the chief of staff didn’t want taxpayers to foot the bill.

“In light of the controversy surrounding my handling of matters involving Senator Duffy, the prime minister has accepted my resignation,” Wright, 50, wrote in a separate statement. “I accept sole responsibility. I did not advise the Prime Minister of the means by which Senator Duffy’s expenses were repaid.”

The controversy coincides with Harper’s Conservatives trailing in public opinion polls for the first time since the 2009 recession. A Nanos Research poll released April 12 found the Liberal Party with the support of 35.4 percent of voters, compared with 31.3 percent for the Conservatives. That’s a reversal from January, when the Conservatives had 34.3 percent support, compared with 27.6 percent for the Liberals. Elections aren’t scheduled until 2015.
‘Get Legs’

“There’s enough time to put this behind him but they can’t let it get legs,” Nanos said.

The spokesman for ethics issues for the main opposition New Democratic Party, Charlie Angus, told reporters today he’s written to Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissioner Bob Paulson asking him to investigate the matter.

“A secret cash payment to a public figure is a very, very serious allegation,” Angus said in the televised conference in Ottawa. “The fact that this payment was made out of the prime minister’s office demands accountability.

‘‘These actions are not only troubling, but they may violate the very laws that the RCMP is charged with upholding and enforcing,’’ Angus said.

Novak has worked as a political aide to Harper since his return to federal politics in 2002. He served as Harper’s executive assistant before his promotion to principal secretary in 2008.
‘Good Faith’

Duffy, 66, has said Senate rules allowing for reimbursement of housing and travel expenses to lawmakers whose primary residence is more than 100 kilometers (62 miles) from Ottawa were unclear, a statement corroborated in a Deloitte LLP audit commissioned by the chamber and released May 9. In a statement the same day, Duffy said he claimed the expenses in ‘‘good faith’’ and won’t seek to have any part of his repayment returned to him.

Duffy, a former reporter and broadcaster appointed to the Senate by Harper in 2009, quit the Conservative caucus May 16, saying in a statement he will sit as an independent senator ‘‘pending resolution of these issues.’’ Senator Pamela Wallin, another former broadcaster appointed to the Senate by Harper, announced a day later that she also left the Conservative caucus until an audit of her travel expenses is complete.
Private Equity

Wright, a one-time adviser and speech writer to former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, was a managing director at Toronto-based Onex Corp. (OCX), Canada’s largest private-equity firm, before becoming Harper’s third chief of staff more than two years ago. At the time, he said he was taking temporary leave from Onex until January 2013.

Wright, who has been an organizer with the Conservatives since at least 1983, also resigned from the boards of Hawker Beechcraft and Spirit Aerosystems Holdings, two Onex units, to join the prime minister’s office.

Before joining Onex, he worked as a lawyer at the commercial firm Davies, Ward, and Beck.

Wright told lawmakers at a hearing before taking the job that his values ‘‘align” with the prime minister’s “in every single way.”

Wright was chief of staff during a period where Harper headed a majority government, a luxury previous chiefs of staff didn’t have. During this time, Harper has shifted policy toward global competitiveness issues and pressed ahead with efforts to bolster business investment, as the country’s economy struggles to build steam amid tepid demand for exports and slowing consumer spending.

That policy agenda has included legislation to expedite the environmental review of Enbridge Inc. (ENB)’s Northern Gateway pipeline and other resource infrastructure projects.