Chinese News Station- speaks of the Energy and Arms relationship between China and Iran, and suggests that an attack on Iran will lead to a third world war as China would protect Iran. 

For Liberty- Ron Paul Video

Posted: November 22, 2011 in Uncategorized

I encourage anyone that comes to this site to take just 2 hours of your time to view this video.  Realize the signifigance of this election, and Ron Paul’s contribution.  He is the only candidate that sounds different from the rest, and actually makes sense.  His views are for liberty, economic reform, and returning to constitutional principles.  If you vote for any other candidate and expect the direction of this country to change, you are sorely mistaken.  Ron Paul 2012 ~ John F. Haettich AUTF

By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY, Oct 24 (Reuters) – – The Vatican called on Monday for the establishment of a “global public authority” and a “central world bank” to rule over financial institutions that have become outdated and often ineffective in dealing fairly with crises.

The document from the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department should please the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators and similar movements around the world who have protested against the economic downturn.

“Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of a Global Public Authority,” was at times very specific, calling, for example, for taxation measures on financial transactions.

“The economic and financial crisis which the world is going through calls everyone, individuals and peoples, to examine in depth the principles and the cultural and moral values at the basis of social coexistence,” it said.

It condemned what it called “the idolatry of the market” as well as a “neo-liberal thinking” that it said looked exclusively at technical solutions to economic problems.

“In fact, the crisis has revealed behaviours like selfishness, collective greed and hoarding of goods on a great scale,” it said, adding that world economics needed an “ethic of solidarity” among rich and poor nations.

“If no solutions are found to the various forms of injustice, the negative effects that will follow on the social, political and economic level will be destined to create a climate of growing hostility and even violence, and ultimately undermine the very foundations of democratic institutions, even the ones considered most solid,” it said.

It called for the establishment of “a supranational authority” with worldwide scope and “universal jurisdiction” to guide economic policies and decisions.

Such an authority should start with the United Nations as its reference point but later become independent and be endowed with the power to see to it that developed countries were not allowed to wield “excessive power over the weaker countries”.

Asked at a news conference if the document could become a manifesto for the movement of the “indignant ones”, who have criticised global economic policies, Cardinal Peter Turkson, head of the Vatican’s Justice and Peace department, said:

“The people on Wall Street need to sit down and go through a process of discernment and see whether their role managing the finances of the world is actually serving the interests of humanity and the common good.

“We are calling for all these bodies and organisations to sit down and do a little bit of re-thinking.”


In a section explaining why the Vatican felt the reform of the global economy was necessary, the document said:

“In economic and financial matters, the most significant difficulties come from the lack of an effective set of structures that can guarantee, in addition to a system of governance, a system of government for the economy and international finance.”

It said the International Monetary Fund (IMF) no longer had the power or ability to stabilise world finance by regulating overall money supply and it was no longer able to watch “over the amount of credit risk taken on by the system”.

The world needed a “minimum shared body of rules to manage the global financial market” and “some form of global monetary management”.

“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks,” it said.

The document acknowledged that such change would take years to put into place and was bound to encounter resistance.

“Of course, this transformation will be made at the cost of a gradual, balanced transfer of a part of each nation’s powers to a world authority and to regional authorities, but this is necessary at a time when the dynamism of human society and the economy and the progress of technology are transcending borders, which are in fact already very eroded in a globalised world.” (Reporting By Philip Pullella; editing by Elizabeth Piper)

BY PETER KRAUTH– From Money Morning

Is it really so preposterous to believe the United States and Europe would conspire to keep pole position in the global financial system?

I don’t think so – and neither does China.

That much was revealed in a diplomatic cable recently uncovered by Wikileaks.

According to the 2009 cable from the U.S. embassy, China believes the United States and Europe have, as a matter of policy, suppressed the price of gold to discourage its use as a reserve currency.

And there’s a pretty compelling case to be made for a gold price conspiracy.

The Gold Price Conspiracy

The cable summarized several commentaries in Chinese news media sources on April 28, 2009.

“The U.S. and Europe have always suppressed the rising price of gold,” it reads. “They intend to weaken gold’s function as an international reserve currency. They don’t want to see other countries turning to gold reserves instead of the U.S. dollar or Euro. Therefore, suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar’s role as the international reserve currency.”

According to the cable, China believes that by building its gold reserves, it can not only safeguard itself against the declining value of the dollar, but encourage central banks around the world to expand their gold purchases, as well. 

“China’s increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold,” the cable said. “Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB.”

Now, if all we had were the Chinese claiming the U.S. and Europe were suppressing gold prices, it would be easy to disregard as superficial propaganda.

But in fact, there’s evidence that supports this claim. 

In the decade between 1999 and 2009, central banks – dominated by the West – were net sellers of gold in every single year. And that’s despite the fact that gold in that time soared from $250 an ounce to $1,200 per ounce – a nearly 400% gain. 

Then there’s the infamous “Brown Bottom.”

Between 1999 and 2002, Gordon Brown, then U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer (and later Prime Minister), decided to sell nearly half of his nation’s gold reserves. At the time, just the advance notice of these substantial sales drove gold’s price down from $282.40 an ounce to $252.80. 

Those gold sales yielded an average price of $275 an ounce, raising a total of $3.5 billion. Today, those 395 tons of gold would be valued more than $19 billion.

You have to admit, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to sell a solid asset whose price is moving steadily higher each year – especially when the United Kingdom’s debt problem then wasn’t nearly as bad as it is today.

The answer: Because there’s a conspiracy afoot. 

Gold Dust on The Fed’s Hands

Here’s more damning evidence. 

A U.S. District Court this year ordered the U.S. Federal Reserve to disclose to the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee (GATA) the minutes of an April 1997 meeting of the G-10 Gold and Foreign Exchange Committee, as compiled by an official Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

And it’s a bombshell. The minutes suggest that officials from the G-10 governments and their central banks were, in fact, conspired to synchronize their policies to affect the gold market.

It turns out that U.S. policymakers aren’t just worried about preserving the dollar’s role as the world’s main currency reserve. They’re also worried about the effects higher gold prices could have on the nation’s debt burden.

The minutes include comments by a U.S. delegate identified only as “Fisher,” which is likely Peter. R. Fisher, head of open market operations and foreign exchange trading for the New York Fed. 

Fisher, the minutes say, made the case that rising gold prices would increase U.S. debt.

Fisher “explained that U.S. gold belongs to the Treasury. However, the Treasury had issued gold certificates to the Reserve Banks, and so gold also appears on the Federal Reserve balance sheet,” the minutes say. “If there were to be a revaluation of gold, the certificates would also be revalued upwards; however [to prevent the Fed’s balance sheet from expanding] this would lead to sales of government securities. So the net benefit to Treasury would need to be carefully calculated, since sales of government securities would expand the public portfolio of government securities and hence also expand the Treasury’s debt-servicing burden.”

Indeed, Fisher’s remarks are an open acknowledgement that the United States has an interest in suppressing the price of gold. 

So, clearly, there is a growing body of evidence that Western governments, central banks, and even some of the largest investment banks have a vested interest to subdue the price of gold. Furthermore, they’ve already acted on behalf of that interest.

But now the tide is turning. The dollar and the euro are on the ropes and emerging markets have been steadily increasing their gold purchases.

While authorities in developed countries are making it more difficult for investors to build gold holdings, large China and other developing markets are doing just the opposite. They’re actually encouraging their populations to adopt physical gold and gold investments like futures and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). 

So I think it’s high time the average Westerner looked to the East for cues on wealth preservation and their attitude towards gold.

by Stewart M. Patrick- Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2011- CFR Internationalist Blog

It’s rare that the head of a lumbering international organization delivers a visionary speech about a new world order. But when that person is a polymath and strategic thinker like Robert Zoellick, it pays to sit up and take notice. In a sweeping address at George Washington University earlier this month, the World Bank president identified a “critical inflection point” in world history. Global affairs have been so transformed, he suggested, that we need new paradigms for global governance and global development. Since the speech attracted little media attention, The Internationalist thought it opportune to take a closer look.

When confronted with contemporary dilemmas, Zoellick noted, policymakers are tempted to look to supposed “lessons of the past.” In the current economic and political crisis, many have invoked the post-World War II settlement—including the Dumbarton Oaks and Bretton Woods conferences that created the United Nations, World Bank, and IMF—for guidance. But such nostalgia is misplaced, Zoellick suggests, for the global conditions and problems we confront today are vastly different, both qualitatively and quantitatively. The real relevance of history is to give people a better understanding of how their circumstances have changed from the past.

And change they have. Zoellick makes clear just how much the world has transformed since the days of FDR and Truman—and why the world needs a new multilateralism for a new age:

-The ground is shifting under our feet. Economic and political power is flowing to developing countries at an unprecedented speed. In the 1990s, developing countries collectively accounted for a fifth of global growth. By 2025, six of the biggest emerging economies—China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Russia and Indonesia­­—will account for half. Based on its current trajectory, China may quadruple its per capita income to $16,000 by 2030—“equivalent to adding sixteen South Koreas each year.” For the world to absorb such dramatic changes, China and other rapid ascenders must shift from export-led to more balanced growth. Simultaneously, mature economies like the United States, the European Union, and Japan need to overcome political gridlock and make difficult fiscal choices—or face inevitable decline.

-The time has come to retire old labels and habits. Five decades after decolonization (and two after the Cold War), the shopworn labels “First World” and “Third World” and “North” and “South,” make no sense. It is time to stop treating developing nations as mere aid “supplicants”—wards of the wealthy nations—and start treating them as full partners in the pursuit of shared global growth. Nor can the rich world continue to pretend that it has all the answers, patronizing developing nations with aid conditions and policy guidance when its own recent performance has been so dismal. Increasingly, developing countries are looking to one another for innovative economic ideas and development models—whether it is Brazil’s successful program of conditional cash transfers or Colombia’s mass transit system—and as sources of investment and even foreign aid.

-Tomorrow’s multilateral order will be fluid and volatile. In the twenty-first century, global governance will be more flexible, but also more subject to shocks. Old hierarchies will be pushed aside, as emerging economies join “new networks—of countries, international institutions, civil society, and the private sector—in diverse combinations and changing patterns.” Long-established patterns of Western privilege will fade: “The New Normal will be about countries continually earning their place in world economic affairs, not presuming it because of past standing or official prerogatives.”

-Responsibility applies to everyone. Western officials and analysts tirelessly call for emerging nations to become “responsible stakeholders”—that is, assume the global obligations inherent in their burgeoning power. But Zoellick, who pioneered the phrase in a speech about China in 2005, makes it clear that “This is not just about China. Europe, Japan, and the United States must be responsible stakeholders, too.” This means an end to procrastination in dealing with internal problems like sovereign debt crises, deferred structural reforms, and runaway deficits.

-Development cooperation must move beyond aid. The past quarter century has seen the greatest reduction of poverty in world history, with the number of poor in developing countries being cut in half. Africa, so long an economic backwater, actually grew 5-6 percent in the decade before the global financial crisis—and it is booming again, attracting record trade and foreign investment. To be sure, the “bottom billion” of humanity living in fragile and conflict-affected states will continue to require foreign assistance. But the time has come to envision “a world beyond aid,” Zoellick contends. Such a world would shift from the paradigm of charity to one of mutual economic benefit. It would provide poor countries better access to rich world markets, while allowing them to hedge against fluctuating commodity prices, spiking fuel costs, and natural disasters. It would facilitate foreign direct investment, innovative financing, and technological transfer so that developing countries can modernize industry, agriculture, and services. It would also support good governance and transparency, so that private sector initiative is rewarded, basic services are delivered, and prosperity is broadly shared.

-Women remain the untapped wealth of nations. The evidence is irrefutable. Countries that value women as much as men and girls as much as boys are not only more just, they are also more successful economically. And yet globally, Zoellick notes, women own just one percent of the world’s wealth. Within developing world, girls experience higher child mortality than boys, and women die in childhood in appalling numbers. Women are routinely denied the right to own property, participate in business, gain an education, control family resources, and inherit family wealth. Societies that fail to provide girls and women with their fundamental rights not only commit gross injustices, they also fail to unleash half of their countries’ productive potential.   

Zoellick’s take-home message? This is not your grandfather’s multilateralism. Modernizing global governance for the twenty-first century will require a new compact between rising and emerging powers, retiring tired labels like “North” and “South,” accepting the common responsibilities of power, shifting to a world beyond aid, and empowering women to take their rightful place beside men as the prime movers—and beneficiaries—of global interdependence.

The Telegraph

Germany and America were on a collision course on Tuesday night over the handling of Europe’s debt crisis after Berlin savaged plans to boost the EU rescue fund as a “stupid idea” and told the White House to sort out its own mess before giving gratuitous advice to others.

German finance minister Wolfgang Schauble said it would be a folly to boost the EU’s bail-out machinery (EFSF) beyond its €440bn lending limit by deploying leverage to up to €2 trillion, perhaps by raising funds from the European Central Bank.

“I don’t understand how anyone in the European Commission can have such a stupid idea. The result would be to endanger the AAA sovereign debt ratings of other member states. It makes no sense,” he said.

Mr Schauble told Washington to mind its own businesss after President Barack Obama rebuked EU leaders for failing to recapitalise banks and allowing the debt crisis to escalate to the point where it is “scaring the world”.

“It’s always much easier to give advice to others than to decide for yourself. I am well prepared to give advice to the US government,” he said.

The comments risk irritating the White House. US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has been a key driver of plans to give the EFSF enough firepower to shore up Italy and Spain, fearing a drift into “cascading default, bank runs and catastrophic risk” without dramatic action.

The danger for Germany is that America will lose patience, with unpredictable consequences. The US Federal Reserve is currently propping up the European banking system in a variety of ways, including dollar swaps.

Markets across the world ignored the mixed signals about the true scope of EU rescue measures, convinced that EU leaders have a “grand plan” up their sleeves and will unveil the details after the Bundestag has voted on Thursday on the earlier July deal to revamp the fund.

France’s CAC-40 surged by 5.7pc, led by a 17pc rise for Societe Generale. Germany’s Dax was up 5.3pc. The FTSE 100 jumped 4pc in London, the biggest one-day rise this year. Oil jumped almost $4 in New York to $88 a barrel.

In Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel was fighting for her political life as the rump of lawmakers from her coalition vowed to reject the EFSF package, though the latest tally suggests she may squeeze by with her own majority. Angry dissidents suspect that secret plans are being withheld until after the vote.

Greek premier George Papandreou told German business leaders that his country would honour its austerity pledges, but also issued a veiled warning. “The persistent criticisms levelled against Greece are deeply frustrating, not only at the political level, where a superhuman effort is being made to meet stringent targets in a deepening recession, but frustrating also for the Greeks, who are making these painful sacrifices.”

“Drastic measures have had a dramatic impact on the living standards of our citizens. Many Greeks feel they have little left to give. If people feel only punishment and scorn, this crisis will become a lost cause,” he said.  Mr Papandreou’s Pasok party passed a crucial vote on Tuesday to raise property taxes, but at a high political price. The party’s approval rating has fallen to 15pc in the latest Mega poll.

However, Greece was confronted with a new threat as it emerged that several eurozone members are demanding the private sector absorb bigger losses than originally agreed as part of a second bail-out.

A deal struck in July would see creditors taking 21pc losses on their Greek debt holdings, adding around €45bn to the €109bn proposed second rescue. However, more than a third of the 17-member single currency bloc are now said to be demanding bigger haircuts for the private sector. Talk of revisions to the second bail-out may renew default fears as the IMF has yet to re-engage with Greece over the latest €8bn tranche of its initial €110bn rescue. Greece is at risk of running out of money by October 8, though analysts say the payment is almost certain to be made whether or not Greece has complied fully with the terms.

Greece has a trump card in rescue talks with the IMF-EU “Troika”. If it opts for a “hard default”, it could set off a chain reaction. Lorenzo Bini-Smaghi, an ECB board member, said those arguing that Europe’s banks could withstand a Greek default are misguided. “Similar views were held before Lehman. Those who say this have no idea how contagion works,” he said.

Analysts say the Troika will have to approve the next €8bn tranche of aid for Athens in October whether or not Greece has complied fully with the terms. It cannot risk a showdown before Europe’s banks have beefed up their capital base, or before the EFSF is fully equipped to defend the rest of the system.

Like a forced marriage, Europe and Greece must kiss and pretend.