http://www.economicnoise.com/2012/11/06/the-one-hour-meltdown/
and does Israel over react to an Obama victory and fears that Obama's " revenge " ( due to Bibi' intervention in the US Election ) may include allowing Iran a nuclear weapon program ?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4302597,00.html
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4302434,00.html
Following the negative responses, Ynet has learned, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered all of his party's ministers and Knesset members to avoid commenting on Obama's re-election without coordinating their statements with the Prime Minister's Office.
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-tsa-plans-to-track-all-of-your-daily-travels-whether-to-social-events-grocery-store-or-work/
A collapse is coming. When it occurs, it will be sudden and instantaneous, much like a light switch being flipped. Most people writing about the effects of an economic and financial collapse focus on the big picture, describing the devastation that will be incurred at a macro level to the economy. Sovereign debt, private debt, financial systems, law and order etc. dominate such discussions.
Many have difficulty translating such a top-down approach to their own individual circumstances. The macro events are in a sense abstractions to which they do not relate. Ultimately they know a dismal big picture will mean dismal personal circumstances but do not comprehend exactly what that may mean.
Robert Wayne Atkins approaches the event in a unique fashion. Instead of focusing on the macro events, he views what is about to occur from the individual’s perspective. He does so by explaining what things will “feel” like in the first hour. Here is an excerpt from his long and recommended article as to how individuals will know the feces has hit the fan:
The One-Hour Meltdown
However, my personal opinion is that once the meltdown begins then in less than one-hour it will quickly escalate far beyond anyone’s ability to control or manage it on a worldwide basis. The five basic assumptions that cause me to believe in my “one-hour meltdown theory” are as follows:
- Banks: The financial institutions around the world cannot withstand a full-scale worldwide bank run. Therefore, they have already made plans to immediately shut down the instant they are told to do so. Within minutes, all across the globe, all the ATM machines will be offline, all credit card and debit card verification transactions will be halted, and all banks will have their vaults locked and their doors locked and their building emptied of all personnel, except perhaps for some special security guards. All high-level bank executives will immediately disappear to a wide variety of remote safe unknown locations. All telephone call inquiries to any of the financial institutions will be automatically answered by a computer with a pre-recorded message similar to the following: “Our system is currently experiencing an extremely high call volume and therefore we are unable to answer your call at this time. Please try again later when our call volume returns to normal.”
- Governments: The vast majority of our government leaders all over the world are relatively intelligent individuals. They completely understand the ramifications of a “bank holiday” in our computer controlled financial economy. Therefore, all government offices will also be immediately shut down, and they will empty their buildings and lock their doors. Any transaction in progress, including any trials in progress, will be immediately halted and postponed until some future date. All high-level government officials, including all judges and tax officials, will immediately disappear to a wide variety of remote safe unknown locations.
- Retail Businesses: Since they will be unable to process even simple transactions, all retail establishments, both large and small, will immediately lock their doors to prevent anyone else from entering. If possible, they will complete any transactions for customers already inside their building if those customers have enough cash to pay for their purchases. Any customers wishing to pay by check or credit card or debit card will be told that the verification system is down and their transaction can’t be completed. All customers will then be immediately escorted to the doors and the doors will be briefly opened and then immediately locked after they exit. In addition, in a manner similar to what happened during the World Trade Center meltdown, each store’s management may demand that their employees remain at their stations until further notice or they will lose their jobs for leaving without management’s permission. But most of the more intelligent employees will leave at the same time as the store’s last few remaining customers. The store’s special security guards may or may not remain behind in order to protect the store with their lives. Since most of these special security guards are not paid exceptionally well, a large number of them may decide that they should return home and protect their own families instead.
- Criminals: Anyone and everyone who has any criminal tendencies and who has been patiently waiting for this to happen will immediately see it as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve their financial situation. More than likely the vast majority of these criminals have already made very detailed plans that includes exactly which businesses they are going to rob first, second, third, and so on. Any business with a reasonable level of cash-on-hand will be very high on every criminal’s list. Every jewelry store and pawn shop that has any type of silver or gold jewelry, or precious stones (diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc.), will be very high on everyone’s list. The warfare that breaks out at these establishments between competing criminals will not be pleasant.
- Normal People: Normal average people will begin looting. Grocery stores will be broken into and they will be completely emptied from wall-to-wall, including the rear storage area, in less than one-hour. Stores that have firearms, ammunition, appliances, clothing, shoes, or anything else needed by the average citizen will be emptied in less than one-hour. In skirmishes over the few remaining resources, normal average people will begin killing one another inside the stores, and in the parking lots outside the stores, and on the streets as these fully loaded vehicles try to escape with their loot.
The above events will all happen simultaneously during the first one-hour of the meltdown. After that first hour has passed, things will really begin to get nasty. Everyone will quickly realize there are not are not enough law enforcement personnel to protect everyone and everything. Although the military will probably be ordered to protect specific high priority establishments and resources, there will simply not be enough military personnel to protect individual civilians or businesses.You may read his entire article here.
and does Israel over react to an Obama victory and fears that Obama's " revenge " ( due to Bibi' intervention in the US Election ) may include allowing Iran a nuclear weapon program ?
Barack Obama wins reelection: Mid East faces nuclear Iran, Brotherhood grip
DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis November 7, 2012, 7:04 AM (GMT+02:00)
US election's winners and losers
Barack Obama has won re-election as President of the United States, according to all the projections of the Nov. 6 vote - albeit ahead of the final count of ballots. The prospect of another four years of Obama in the White House fills some Middle East nations, including the Persian Gulf and Israel, with trepidation.
They envisage a foreign policy that continues to focus on hitching US influence in the Muslim world – Sunni and Shiite alike – on to a wagon led by Iran as the first Islamic Shite Muslim nuclear power and the sponsorship of Muslim Brotherhood rule of Sunni Arab nations.
For Israel, this policy translates bleakly into American backing for the two most forbidding ideological foes it has faced in all its 63 years: Iran, whose leaders call openly for Israel’s extinction - even from the UN platform – although this is achievable only by nuclear aggression; and the hostile Muslim Brotherhood.
Only four days ago, senior Israeli Defense Ministry official Amos Gilead called the Brotherhood-ruled Egyptian government “a terrible dictatorship.” After years of close ties with Egyptian rulers and military chiefs, Gilead said: “There is no official contact between the top tiers of Egyptian and Israeli government, and I don’t think there will be.”
For Israel, this policy translates bleakly into American backing for the two most forbidding ideological foes it has faced in all its 63 years: Iran, whose leaders call openly for Israel’s extinction - even from the UN platform – although this is achievable only by nuclear aggression; and the hostile Muslim Brotherhood.
Only four days ago, senior Israeli Defense Ministry official Amos Gilead called the Brotherhood-ruled Egyptian government “a terrible dictatorship.” After years of close ties with Egyptian rulers and military chiefs, Gilead said: “There is no official contact between the top tiers of Egyptian and Israeli government, and I don’t think there will be.”
According to DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources, Gilead offered a glimpse of a grimmer prospect which Israeli leaders are discussing behind close doors: They fear that the second Obama term will usher in a nuclear-armed Shiite Iran which will quickly reach out to the Sunni Muslim Brothers, starting with Egypt, for a joint bid to terminate the life of the Jewish state.
Before dismissing this scenario as paranoid hyperbole, it is worth taking a look at an opinion poll conducted in Egypt in late August of this year by the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Institute. It aimed at canvassing popular ratings of Iran after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Cairo.
Stanley Greenberg, who is close to Democratic Party leaders, was recently hired by Israel’s Labor Party as senior campaign strategist for the Jan. 22, 2013 election.
This American pollster found that 61 percent of the Egyptians surveyed approved of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, compared with 30 percent who disapproved. In 2009, the comparable figures were 40 percent for and 34 percent against a nuclear Iran.
The same poll in 2012 found 65 percent of Egyptians in favor of resuming the long-severed diplomatic ties with Tehran, as against 30 who were against.The undisguised discord between Barack Obama and Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu is usually presented as sparked by their falling-out over military action for preempting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This is both simplistic and misleading. Their differences are far broader in scope: Netanyahu and most other Israeli leaders contest Obama's signature Middle East objective of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya - and ultimately Syria - by presenting the MB as a moderate movement with whom America can do business and conduct a balanced Middle East policy.
Before dismissing this scenario as paranoid hyperbole, it is worth taking a look at an opinion poll conducted in Egypt in late August of this year by the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research Institute. It aimed at canvassing popular ratings of Iran after the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Cairo.
Stanley Greenberg, who is close to Democratic Party leaders, was recently hired by Israel’s Labor Party as senior campaign strategist for the Jan. 22, 2013 election.
This American pollster found that 61 percent of the Egyptians surveyed approved of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, compared with 30 percent who disapproved. In 2009, the comparable figures were 40 percent for and 34 percent against a nuclear Iran.
The same poll in 2012 found 65 percent of Egyptians in favor of resuming the long-severed diplomatic ties with Tehran, as against 30 who were against.The undisguised discord between Barack Obama and Israel’s Binyamin Netanyahu is usually presented as sparked by their falling-out over military action for preempting Iran’s nuclear weapons program. This is both simplistic and misleading. Their differences are far broader in scope: Netanyahu and most other Israeli leaders contest Obama's signature Middle East objective of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya - and ultimately Syria - by presenting the MB as a moderate movement with whom America can do business and conduct a balanced Middle East policy.
This goal actuated the Arab Revolt – or Spring - which erupted in December 2010. It has condemned Israel to an ever-tightening Islamist noose around its borders with worse to come: The last gap will be filled after the Brothers attain power in Damascus and ultimately set their sights on Jordan as the springboard to Saudi Arabia.
Whenever he is confronted with this allegation, Obama answers undeniably that he has done more than any American president for Israel’s security and raised US-Israeli military and intelligence cooperation to an unmatched level.
This cannot be gainsaid, but in the view of DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence experts, it is only one aspect of the general picture: While bolstering Israel militarily, the US president has also bolstered its worst Middle East enemies and enhanced their ability to strike at the foundations of Israel’s national security. The emergence of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, which Israel may soon despair of thwarting, would nullify all the military or intelligence assistance the Obama administration has rendered the Jewish state to guarantee its survival.
No Israeli leader, political or military, is willing to go further than Amos Gilead and publicly admit that Israel is laboring under a dual compulsion; It is being forced to contemplate active measures for extinguishing Iran’s nuclear program while at the same time standing ready to challenge Egypt over Sinai which has swung out of Cairo’s control and deteriorated into a lawless terrorist springboard against both countries.
This cannot be gainsaid, but in the view of DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence experts, it is only one aspect of the general picture: While bolstering Israel militarily, the US president has also bolstered its worst Middle East enemies and enhanced their ability to strike at the foundations of Israel’s national security. The emergence of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic, which Israel may soon despair of thwarting, would nullify all the military or intelligence assistance the Obama administration has rendered the Jewish state to guarantee its survival.
No Israeli leader, political or military, is willing to go further than Amos Gilead and publicly admit that Israel is laboring under a dual compulsion; It is being forced to contemplate active measures for extinguishing Iran’s nuclear program while at the same time standing ready to challenge Egypt over Sinai which has swung out of Cairo’s control and deteriorated into a lawless terrorist springboard against both countries.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4302597,00.html
Olmert: Netanyahu broke the rules in US elections
In meeting with New York Jews, former PM says 'I'm not sure our prime minister has a friend in the White House' and slams Netanyahu's intervention in the US elections
"Obama was a friend of Israel before he was elected and will remain so now," Olmert said. The former prime minister told members of the Jewish Federation of New York that while relations between Israel and the US are solid and based on common values, the level of trust between the two leaders plays an important role.
"After what Netanyahu has done in the past few months – it needs to be asked whether the prime minister has a friend in the White House? I'm not sure."
Olmert stressed that this could have a tremendous effect in critical points in the future. Netanyahu had turned Israel from a bi-partisan issue to one that is at the heart of the US political debate, he added.
Asked if Israelis are bothered by Netanyahu's intervention in the US elections, Olmert replied that it is the prime minister's right to have a preference in terms of the candidates "but it's better if he kept it to himself."
The former prime minister claimed that rules were broken when Netanyahu intervened in the elections on behalf of "an American billionaire" with a clear interest in the race.
"That same billionaire used the prime minister to promote his own presidential candidate. This is a serious violation of the basic bilateral rules, especially when it comes to allies such as Israel and the US."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4302434,00.html
PM to ministers: Don't talk about Obama
Following series of undiplomatic statements by Likud MKs, Netanyahu orders party's lawmakers not to comment on US president's re-election without coordinating statements with his office
Related stories:
- Peres: Obama to serve future of peace, prosperity
- Netanyahu: I'll continue working with Obama
- US Jews stay strongly with Obama
Knesset Member Danny Danon was one of the first to express his disappointment with the election results, saying that Obama cannot be trusted. "The State of Israel will not surrender to Obama. We have no one to rely on but ourselves," he argued.
Another Likud lawmaker said that "Obama is not good for Israel and we're concerned that he will try to pressure Israel into making concessions because of his chilly relationship with Netanyahu."
According to a senior Likud official, the Prime Minister's Office was alarmed by the negative reactions to Obama's re-election, which could intensify the cold relationship between the two leaders – and therefore decided to begin damage control and prevent uncoordinated responses.
On Wednesday afternoon, the ministers' spokespersons and advisors received text messages from Netanyahu's office, asking them not to comment about Obama's re-election. The Likud spokespersons were requested to stick with the statements issued by Netanyahu's office.
During the US election campaign, Netanyahu took a stand which many in the political system saw as gross intervention in America's internal affairs. He hosted Republican candidate Mitt Romney in Israel and was even included in the Republican Party's election ads.
Interior Minister Eli Yishai, chairman of the Shas party, was the first minister to admit Wednesday that Obama's re-election did not benefit Netanyahu. "This is probably not a very good morning for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu," Yishai said during a local authority spokespersons' conference in Eilat.
Asked whether Israel was wrong to intervene in the US elections, he responded: "I don't know if Israel interfered in the elections or not, but in general we should not interfere in elections taking place in another country."
President Shimon Peres, who is visiting Russia, was also asked whether did not damage Israel's relationship with the US by interfering in the American election campaign.
"There are many wise people in Israel and there are many people who think differently. I prefer to be part of the right minority than of the wrong majority," the president replied.
Former Kadima ChairwomanTzipi Livni wrote on her Facebook page that she congratulates Obama, "who moved America once again. The US has put its future in Obama's hands, and that means a lot as far as we are concerned as well.
"Israel's security is based on the strategic relations between Israel and the US, which are also built on the trust between leaders that is missing today. Self-examination and deep reparation are required."
http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/who-is-valerie-jarrett-valerie-jarret-after-we-win-this-election-its-our-turn-payback-time-video-2467496.html
Valerie Jarret – “After We Win This Election, It’s Our Turn. Payback Time! ”
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/11/08/1251561/wall-street-and-the-elections/
Final tallies via Open Secrets:
The note attached to the chart says: “The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.” And if you want to get the final breakdown on the Finance, Insurance & Real Estate category, it was Obama $18,718,167 vs Romney $52,108,339.
Paul Krugman writes enthusiastically that there’s a sense in which Wall Street backed the wrong horse, and that everybody knows it. Make of it what you will. Bank stocks, it seems, made a lot of it, with the S&P 500 financials falling 3.5 per cent on a day when the overall index was down 2.4 per cent.
But given our views on post-election markets, we’d rather focus on what the elections could mean for financial institutions and, especially, regulatory reform, the relevant government agencies and the ongoing rule-writing process.
Many others already have, but you’ll have trouble doing better than to start with thisJohn Kemp column:
President Barak Obama’s re-election ensures the Democrats will retain their 3-2 majorities on the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the agencies charged with implementing the controversial derivatives portions of the 2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.Senate Democrats and the president will block any attempt to re-write the Dodd-Frank Act, and the continuing Democratic majority in the Senate will leave the president with a relatively free hand to nominate regulators committed to a fairly aggressive interpretation of the landmark financial law. …Wall Street and the fossil energy industry now must decide how to cope with the new reality that the White House and the executive branch will remain under Democratic control for the next four years, while Democrats will control the Senate until the start of 2015.One option is to maintain a strong oppositional stance. The U.S. House of Representatives remains in the hands of a solid Republican majority and can be counted on to block any attempts to pass fresh legislation on energy or financial services that the industries do not like.The U.S. District Court and Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which review most financial and environmental regulations, remain in the hands of conservative judges, most appointed by Republican presidents, and will continue to review regulations critically.Lobbying groups such as the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA), the API and the U.S. Chambers of Commerce have mounted a series of legal challenges to regulations implementing Dodd-Frank and in some cases have won the first round. …But most of the legal victories that the industries have won so far have been on peripheral issues, such as lack of adequate cost-benefit analysis. They have been unable to prevail on the substance of the new laws and regulations. And regulators now have four more years to redraft any regulations that the courts find deficient. …By 2016, Dodd-Frank and the administration’s energy policies will be well entrenched and the argument may not have so much resonance with the electorate.So industry leaders will come under intense pressure in the weeks and months ahead to bury the hatchet and take a more conciliatory approach to the administration and Senate Democrats.Shahien Nasiripour’s overview in this morning’s FT is worth a read as well.Also on Tuesday, Elizabeth Warren won the Massachusetts senate seat from Scott Brown. It’s easy to imagine Warren finding her way into a seat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs given that two Democrats currently on the committee, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, are retiring.Warren has a deeper knowledge of finance than most of her colleagues (insert bar not very high joke), is known for holding her ground, and has a relatively high media profile — so it’s likely that she’ll make her presence felt quickly. Here’s how Mike Konczal describes her expected role:Conservatives and lobbyists are focused on removing the CFPB’s funding, single directorship, and sole focus on consumer financial protection. Republicans have explicitly stated that they’ll block any director until these changes are made. Warren, who came up with the idea for the agency and fought for its creation, will understand how important the mission and the legal structure for how the agency is funded and organized are, and fight for that as well.Another important financial reform issue is that people are still nervous about how resolution authority, or the FDIC forcing a major financial firm to fail, will work in practice. Warren is one of the major experts on bankruptcy law — she’s the third most cited scholar on bankruptcy law in the country — and also would like to see Too Big To Fail ended, so I believe she can work productively with FDIC to implement a resolution regime best capable of handling the problem.And expect some fireworks when finance executives come to testify before the banking committee.
I think the banksters who backed Romney and Israel have been put on notice - so what do they do ?
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-tsa-plans-to-track-all-of-your-daily-travels-whether-to-social-events-grocery-store-or-work/
Breaking: TSA plans to track all daily travels to social events, grocery store or work
As the lame-duck session of the 112th Congress begins, millions of Americans are looking to the elected members of the 113th Congress to fix a host of problems ailing the country. The economy and job creation aside, one of the most pressing issues is reining in out-of-control federal bureaucracies. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency comes to mind, as does the Department of Agriculture’s promotion of GM foods.
But additionally concerning is the rapid expansion of the size, scope and reach of the Transportation Security Administration, which continues to usurp authority and trample constitutional rights of more and more Americans – especially those who aren’t flying.
The TSA and its mother agency, the Department of Homeland Security, was hurriedly established during the harried, hysterical weeks following the 9/11 attacks. Once designed to replace private airport security firms that were blamed for allowing the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists to slip past checkpoints and take over four commercial airliners with razor blades, the TSA has since grown into a regulatory, bureaucratic behemoth that now claims jurisdiction over other modes of travel, including bus and train stations.
‘The future of transportation security will be gathering intelligence technologically’
In the future, the agency will want to track all of your daily travels, no matter where you go, according to predictions made by some security experts.
“Air travelers are increasingly subjected to revealing full-body scans or enhanced pat-downs – all in the name of keeping the skies safe,” writes Bill Briggs at NBC News. But apparently, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
“As America prepares to mark the 10th anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks in the U.S., securityexperts question whether freedom, speed and personal space will one day return to air travel – while still maintaining high standards of safety,” he wrote in August 2011.
Technology, which is increasingly serving as a double-edged sword these days, could produce what security experts foresee as a bumper crop of detection tools in the future. That could include biometrics, electronic fingerprinting and behavioral analysis, all of which would produce quicker, smoother and less intrusive travel screening in the years ahead.
Others; however, envision a Big Brother-type of government that gets even more intrusive, perhaps even requiring chip-embedded passports or other travel documents we’d be required to carry that would reveal to federal transportation watchdogs everything about our daily travels – commutes to work, to sporting events, shopping centers – even to social gatherings.
All, of course, in the name of “security.”
Ed Daly is one expert who sees both versions of events transpiring.
“The future of transportation security will be gathering intelligence technologically while people are moving at the speed of life, not beginning at a point where passengers are queued up, delayed, stripped down and probed,” he told Briggs.
Using technology to abuse liberty is no ‘solution’
Daly, the director of intelligence-watch operations for iJet, an Annapolis, Md.-based firm that offers risk management solutions for some 500 multinational corporations and government entities, talked about tweaks in software that can instantly read, record and categorize everything about your person – from your face to your license plate – that he says must be expanded to all public buildings and modes of transportation, from airplanes to trains, buses and subways.
“[However,] if technology fails to provide an adequate solution, the option in the face of future attacks would be further restrictions and potential for humiliating human-to-human interaction,” he said – pretty much what is taking place already, via the TSA.
Can you imagine this agency, which hires criminals and perverts, whose administrators seem to take some sort of sordid pleasure in adopting search-and-surveillance policies that seem designed to cause humiliation or subordination, having access to this kind of highly personal, highly invasive information?
The founding fathers could not have foreseen biometric technology or x-ray scanners, but they knew human nature, which is why they adopted clear-cut, unambiguous constitutional protections for American citizens.
Will the 113th Congress become the first in modern history to reaffirm them, beginning with the castration of the TSA?
No comments:
Post a Comment