Tsar Trek and Pump and Dump

Two new unreal reality shows are in motion now ...but they're not reality tv shows ...they're playing out on the Hill and spreading through every nook and cranny of our country.

Enter unreal reality show #1...

Tsar Trek

You remember the intro to those first Star Trek shows?

Well, this new show, "Tsar Trek," goes something like this:

States. --- The final frontier. --- These are the voyages of the U.S. Federal Government.

Its four-year mission; to explore deranged, new ways to control its industry, to shape industry policies and force other businesses to follow their lead, without fear of House or Senate intervention. To boldly go where no Administration has ever gone before.

Ha-ha-ha-ha...

Sorry. I just couldn't resist the above.

I'll bring you more on that unreal reality show in future posts as the drama unfolds.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...

Ahem.

Enter unreal reality show #2...

Pump and Dump

In "Pump and Dump" we have the most extraordinary market interventions ever seen in the history of the stock markets -- not hidden -- but instead, playing out in plain sight.

If you invest in stocks (through a pension plan or directly), this might be the most important article you read today... "Manipulation: How Markets Really Work"

In the article you will learn a little bit about:

• the Working Group on Financial Markets (WGFM), also more commonly and often referred to as the Plunge Protection Team (PPT) which could easily be renamed as the Plunge Protection/Destruction Team (PPDT)
  
• the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF)
  
• the Countyparty Risk Management Group (CRMG)

And the curtain is drawn back a wee bit to reveal how other entities interact to intervene (and/or how they are intertwined) ...like the IMF, SEC, CFTC, etc., etc.

Look.

You simply won't find the mainstream media covering the "Pump and Dump" show -- happening LIVE, right now, real time.

Not even Fox News.

You have to remember that Newscorp owns the DJIA, so even Fox News will NOT be able to cover the "pump and dump" show... at least, not transparently.

But you will notice -- people reporting in the financial industry are nervous.

They see "The Visible Hand of Uncle Sam."

Read the article.

Know how "Pump and Dump" works.

That's when other stories start making so much sense... how you can tie seemingly unrelated stories together to get the full picture being painted so carefully -- and strategically -- to suck the wealth out of American citizens as boomers approach retirement age and the boomer echo generation steadfastly marches toward their destiny.

You see... "triggering market collapses can be a very profitable undertaking."

Just as Morgan (J.P. Morgan) understood very well before his death:

Morgan died early that year but profited hugely from the 1907 Panic. It let him expand his steel empire by buying the Tennessee Coal and Iron Company for about $45 million, an asset thought to be worth around $700 million. Today, similar schemes are more than ever common in the wake of the global economic crisis creating opportunities to buy assets cheap by bankers flush with bailout cash. Aided by PPT market rigging, it's simpler than ever.

Goldman Sachs knows it very well, too. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts. If you didn't read the article then, now is a good time.

"Did Goldman Goose Oil? - How Goldman Sachs was at the center of the oil trading fiasco that bankrupted pipeline giant Semgroup."

I wonder who Goldman are gunning for next? It has to be someone key in the great scheme of gas, oil and pipelines as I notice the same play on oil happening these past few weeks as the fiasco that occurred last summer during the primaries.

They're getting ready to do yet another BS hike through market manipulation.

Gotta be careful this time, or they could crush those "green shoots" that the Admin is pretending are signs of economic recovery.

Sheesh. Green shoots, indeed. Where even bad news is good news in the revisionist reporting zones. Who's afraid of the big bad wolf? Watch the news and you will see.

IMHO, the major players pulling the strings on the American economy know full well how to fleece the market to their own ends. They're probably fleecing markets to rake in enough coin to cover their shorts on gold before it cuts loose and skyrockets out of their manipulative control ... heh-heh ...oh, yeah. Like that's not happening, right?

Some funds will do quite well. Others are about to be fleeced. None, in my humble opinion, are safe right now because, quite frankly, I truly believe the worst is yet to come. It's all part of the Big Fat Lie they told us. (You're better off to invest in a slot machine about now. LOL)

But glimmers of truth are coming out.

Let's see how long it takes before the full picture is revealed.

One thing is for certain... we'll probably never know the truth behind the Federal Reserve's actions in all of this, as this Bloomberg story states -- quite clearly.

Who Framed Senator Ted Stevens?

As the charges against Senator Ted Stevens are dropped, one has to ask the most important questions:

First question: Who framed Senator Ted Stevens?

Second question: What was their purposed in making him a target?

Third question: When did they decide to target him?

Fourth question: Where was the decision to target him made?

Fifth question: Why did mainstream media reporters back away from this pivotal case?

And sixth question: How did "they" manage to get away with removing Sen. Ted Stevens from office without having a single spotlight shining down on "them."

Ah yes, the basic tenets of investigative reporting: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How.

I'm not a reporter. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a judge. I'm not a private investigator.

But I do have access to the Internet... and I have an intensely curious mind. When the Ted Stevens story hit the mainstream media headlines, I had my suspicions that something was fishy.

What I "tripped across" yesterday in my travels on the information highway investigating a few interesting financial "secrets" being hidden behind the gas price spikes of last year (and the parties involved) shocked me -- because it immediately triggered in my mind that Senator Stevens was FRAMED. He opened his mouth and landed directly in "their" target sights. He had to be removed from the Senate -- as FAST as HUMANLY POSSIBLE. Or at least, that was the "gut feeling" I got.

You see... he was asking some questions -- questions that some very powerful people do NOT want to have answered -- and making some comments that possibly were far too close to the truth for comfort -- at least for one financial giant that protested loud and clear (perhaps their first BIG mistake and everyone missed it).

Stay with me here.

I'll explain shortly.

So, when the headlines came out this morning that the charges against Sen. Stevens were being dropped, a part of me had already expected it.

What disgusts me is the "reasons" they give for dropping the charges.

They cite "his age" and the fact that "he's no longer in office" as being a good reason to let it go.

Uh, yeah, sure...

Amazing how the media choose to ignore the 8-page FBI "whistle-blower" agent complaint officially filed in this case. Names were named. Actions fully described. And almost the entire document red-acted. I'd say there is a bigger story here, wouldn't you?

For the record -- I'm not a registered Republican. I'm not a registered Democrat. I am a seeker of truth... plain and simple.

With that said, I don't think the "sting" was orchestrated solely to help the Democrats and sway undecided votes in favor of Obama (although it most likely helped because Senator Stevens was from Alaska and in the same party as was vice-President-elect Sarah Palin whom they are still attacking and using Internet zombies and mainstream media as weapons against her -- man-oh-man, are the zombies ever getting played -- what morons).

The timing of the targeting and pursuant smear campaign against Senator Ted Stevens was simply convenient ...having it all came down at a critical time during the 2008 elections.

And a critical time for a very well known and powerful financial giant -- one financial giant that is so embedded inside the White House (for decades) that it is often assumed they are a stepping stone into Government positions.

Call me crazy if you want... but with respect to the Ted Stevens case, I sincerely believe something far more sinister was/is going on here.

It involves MONEY.

It involves OIL.

It involves POWER.

Forbes broke the story. "Did Goldman Goose Oil? - How Goldman Sachs was at the center of the oil trading fiasco that bankrupted pipeline giant Semgroup." [LINK]

Now, some of you reading this might be slapping your forehead and going,
"Ah, yes! I remember the gas price spikes at the time."

Remember?

We were still in the heat of the Democratic primaries when gas prices were going through the roof. And now, a few short months later it seems like so many out there have completely forgotten it.

What does this have to do with Ted Stevens and what did he say which would make him an enemy of the "Goldmanite shadow government" that would paint a target on his back?

When oil prices spiked last summer to $147 a barrel, the biggest corporate casualty was oil pipeline giant Semgroup Holdings, ... some of the people involved in cleaning up the financial mess are suggesting that Semgroup's collapse was more than just bad judgment and worse timing. There is evidence of a malevolent hand at work: oil price manipulation by traders orchestrating a short squeeze to push up the price of West Texas Intermediate crude to the point that it would generate fatal losses in Semgroup's accounts.

Speculation? Here's another important quote from the article:

"What transpired at Semgroup was no less than a $500 billion fraud on the people of the world," says John Catsimatidis, the billionaire grocer turned oil refiner who is attempting to reorganize Semgroup in bankruptcy court. The $500 billion is how much the world would have overpaid for crude had a successful scam pushed up oil prices by $50 a barrel for 100 days.

And here is where the sinister hand of Goldman Sachs enters the picture:

What's the evidence of this? Much is circumstantial. Proving oil-trading manipulation is difficult. But numerous people familiar with the events insist that Citibank, Merrill Lynch and especially Goldman Sachs had knowledge about Semgroup's trading positions from their vetting of an ill-fated $1.5 billion private placement deal last spring. "Nothing's been proven, but if somebody has your book and knows every trade, it would not be difficult to bet against that book and put the company into a tremendous liquidity squeeze," says John Tucker, who is representing Kivisto.

What's known for sure is that Goldman Sachs, through J. Aron & Co., its commodities trading arm, was in prime position to use such data--and profited handsomely from Semgroup's fall. J. Aron was Semgroup's biggest counterparty, trading both physical oil flowing through pipelines and paper oil, in the form of options and futures.

So how does Senator Ted Stevens fit into this picture?

Another, separate story that ran back in July 2008 -- at the height of the price spikes -- demanded something be done about speculation in the oil markets by parties that have no intention of taking delivery:

"Americans are being taken advantage of not only by OPEC but by speculators right here in our own country," says Senator Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, referring to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "Historically, this has not been a bad problem. Only recently has speculation reached these unsustainable levels." [link]

Indeed, Senator Ted Stevens was one of 3 Republicans (along with Snowe and Collins) who signed on to proposals backed by Democrats to limit speculation.

What was the response from the financial community?

Surprise, surprise... it came from Goldman Sachs:

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the world's biggest securities firm, said supply and demand, rather than speculators, are responsible for oil's rally. [link]

We all now know that Snowe and Collins are both more Democratic in their leanings. But Ted Stevens... not so. He was a long-standing Republican.

And thus, I believe, he was also the most likely "target" to be removed as quickly as possible.

I somehow doubt he even realizes how close he came to opening the Goldmanite Pandora's box. And I sincerely doubt there is a politician alive, in this country and other countries, with the courage to go after them. The Goldman virus is like mold spores, with fibroids feathering out into every nook and cranny in finance, energy and beurocratic power. They're not "to big to fail"... they're too BIG to STOP!!!

How many current administration officials have ties -- directly and indirectly -- to Goldman Sachs?

Sure, all of this is speculation on my part.

And, as in every single case that others have tried to bring up with respect to securities speculation... most of the evidence can only be circumstancial, right?

Well, considering those running the finances of our country are so well connected to the "Goldmanite shadow government" are also, in many cases, guiding, advising and/or actually making the laws in this country... you decide.

Bottom line, what was the reasoning behind dropping the Ted Stevens charges?

An Alaska FBI agent has accused fellow agents and at least one prosecutor
of misconduct and unethical behavior in the public corruption investigation in
Alaska and the trial of U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens.

...The complaint had sharp words about one supervising agent, accused of getting too close to sources, including Allen. It said agents took gifts and accepted favors from
sources and revealed confidential grand jury information and investigative practices to sources and reporters.

And the complaint said that prosecutors deliberately withheld and covered up evidence favorable to Stevens during his month-long trial, contradicting their statements to the judge at the time that their errors in not producing material to Stevens were accidental. [LINK]

Hmmmm... everything from FBI agents (and prosecuters?) possibly "taking bribes" (err, gifts?) to possible "perjury" to hiding evidence favorable to the defendent.

Does it sound like Senator Ted Stevens was framed?

'Ya think?

Keep in mind, Senator Ted Stevens was "convicted" on all 7 counts.

But, even though it appears oh-so-easy to tie this together and paint a picture of voter manipulation against the Democratic party, I still believe it is far deeper, far more sinister ...and far more dangerous to this nation. I'm giving the Democratic machine a walk on this one (but I'm paying very close attention to the Goldmanites in their Administration).

Oil... gold... silver -- POWER -- there's more to this story.

Don't believe everything you watch, hear and read in the news. If the critical questions have not been asked, the full story has not been told. Dig deep. Look for the story behind the story behind the story.

What "short selling" do 'ya think some of those big bailed out financial institutions were (probably still are) trying to cover using taxpayer dollars to do it? Who requested they make those "shorts" in the markets? Who is really manipulating what in this country?

Dig. Dig. Dig.

"In a world without truth, freedom loses its value." Pope John Paul II

Further Reading:
- THE ROLE OF MARKET SPECULATION IN RISING OIL AND GAS PRICES: A NEED TO PUT THE COP BACK ON THE BEAT
- Goldman Says Demand, Not Speculators, Behind Oil Gain
- Goldman Reverses Course, Says Dollar Has 'Bottomed'
- International Policy Aspects...
- The Commodity Conundrum: Securitization and Systemic Concerns (Part III)
- How Banks Can Exploit Geithner's Plan
- Goldman Takes Risks With Lending Offer
- A Senator Whom Colleagues Are Hesitant to Cross (Pay particular attention to this one. IMPORTANT: Ask yourself, why would Goldman want to hamper/prevent drilling in Alaska?)

PS: Some further "food for thought" on all of this.

The 2008 elections for the White House and Congress and state office will cost a staggering $5.3 billion. The presidential race alone, that cost will amount to more than $2.4 billion. The presidential candidates have raised and spent nearly $1.6 billion alone.

That's double the candidate's fund raising just in 2004. It has tripled the fundraising of 2000. This is also the first time the candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion in an election campaign. The biggest corporate contributor, by the way, turns out to be Goldman Sachs.

Goldman's political action committee has contributed more than $5 million to the 2008 election campaigns. Citigroup and JPMorgan are close behind contributing more than $4 million each. And you wondered why Wall Street was getting a bailout. [link]

Just wait 'til you find out what REALLY HAPPENED to those pension funds and mutual funds. And wait 'til you see what happens next in the carbon credits markets, too. Think these guys are NOT really pulling our strings?

Color Me Purple - Oil

Quick Quiz/2-Part Question: What disaster happened in November, 20, 1980, that almost sucked away an entire lake within hours of it happening... and what tiny engineering error is believed to be the cause of the disaster? (See video below for the answer.)

This is the second in a series of "Color Me Purple" posts that I will be writing leading up to the November 2008 elections.

Energy - Part 2: To Drill for Oil ...or Not?

The whole oil thing kind of reminds me of a Shakespearean drama... "To be or not to be. That is the question..."

I sincerely doubt that any single one of us knows the whole back story and behind the scenes deals that have taken place -- and HUGE deals probably taking place at this very minute -- on the subject of oil.

The brief little news soundbites that we hear throughout the day mostly revolve around pain at the pumps. Regarding the big picture, few (if any) of those newscasts have been covering stories like these:

Supply On Demand -- This is an interesting short article about the backdoor deals being made direct with drilling companies that are taking oil (and other commodities) out of the global marketplace. Could this be a large part of that "shortage" refrain we keep hearing about? In other words, is demand outstripping supply mainly because more and more of that supply is no longer reaching the market -- even though it is still there?

The Whole Afghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/Iran Thing -- Another interesting article that refers to the huge TAPI 1,680 km long pipeline project that will... "...export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west." Rather than tell you about the bizarre deals struck on this one, you're better off reading it for yourself here.

Oil and gas deals benefit from rising commodity prices - yet another type of "deal" that has proved to be lucrative for some, thanks to rising gas and oil prices. This is a side to the industry we seldom hear much about.

Drilling Rig Shortage - Is it an oil shortage, or a drilling equipment shortage? Even as Bush lifts the Federal ban on drilling, what good will it do when "the world’s existing drill-ships are booked solid for the next five years" as reported in this New York Times article.

Demand is so high that shipbuilders, the biggest of whom are in Asia, have raised prices since last year by as much as $100 million a vessel to about half a billion dollars.

Even though the report came on June 18, 2008... the story is not new. StockIndicator wrote about the drilling equipment (and experienced labor shortage) problem two years ago, back in 2006, stating,

"During the course of our three-month investigation, we found the labor and equipment shortage applied not only to uranium but also to coal, oil and gas, coal bed methane and precious metals exploration. ...For investors, the labor and drill rig shortage has a silver lining. As inventories dwindle lower, commodity prices will continue rising."

Well, we all know today how accurate that particular prediction became.

With all the far left and far right jibber-jabber on the oil topic, it's oh-so-difficult to wade through the hype and get to the real facts. Is it speculators jacking up the price? Is it dropping supply or just supply not reaching the marketplace? Is it really increase in demand... to the point that they truly don't believe ANY alternatives will exist by the 2012 or 2015 mark when new wells are expected to start producing? Is it groups who want to capitalize on current high prices to line their own pockets and take advantage of the perceived panic being stirred up on the issue?

I don't have the answers to any of those questions. And sadly, I doubt if I would believe the answers unless they came with irrefutable evidence -- proof that the answers I get are actually the truth.

And so, with respect to the question...

Should we open up drilling rights?

In short, if it's "PROVEN" beyond a shadow of a doubt that drilling needs to open up in areas previously banned, then I sincerely believe STRONG, IRREVOCABLE PRECONDITIONS need to be set.

CONDITION #1: Zero export condition. In other words... absolutely NONE -- and I mean ZERO -- of any oil produced from wells located in those previously banned areas can be exported in any way, shape, derivative, form, etc. Absolutely 100% of all oil and/or gas and/or other minerals would have to be sold exclusively within the U.S.A. and with the condition attached that it never leave our borders -- even after refining and/or being converted into other products (such as cooking oil, plastics, etc.).

Not a single drop goes off our shores -- period.

Furthermore, severe penalties need to be put in place -- right up front -- to ensure not a drop from these protected areas goes into the global pool.

Sounds pretty nuts, right? Maybe at first glance...

Take another look at the condition and, if the oil produced from those previously banned drilling areas couldn't be used in any way shape or form for export, how quickly do you see this condition having a positive impact on energy (even food) prices here at home? Makes me curious if it would have an impact.

Hmmmm... makes you kind of wonder how many of those companies eager to start drilling will still be in the picture if this condition were attached to the rights, doesn't it?

I'm guessing even fewer of them would stick around for this next condition...

CONDITION #2: 100% Accountability. I'm sick to death of hearing how the industry has improved and how they can do things today with little to no impact on the environment.

Therefore, I say, if they are that confident, they should be able to put up substantial performance bonds in trust and remain fully 100% accountable straight through 50 years AFTER they have ceased operations, dismantled their rigs/facilities and gone away -- LEAVING NO TRACE BEHIND. The bonds would be held in trust until that 50-year dormancy period has expired.

AND if, God forbid, anything should happen... the company has to pay for it out of their own pockets -- not the taxpayers' pockets -- and not through the performance bonds. No "name the blame campaigns" or "fingerpointing" or whatever -- just fess up and pay up. Also, if something bad does happen -- they lose their bonds. The bonds go to the taxpayers. If nothing bad happens -- the companies get their bonds back after the 50-year dormancy period mentioned above.

The above is a simplified approach. I'm sure the legal eagles can hammer out the full details of how it works to protect both environment and taxpayers while at the same time, hold companies fully accountable.

Now why, oh why, would such strong zero tolerance requirements need to be in place? Well, take a look at this video to see what can go wrong from one simple mistake. It's the answer to the QUIZ above, about the Louisiana sink hole that drained an entire lake.

Here's how one small mistake can have disastrous consequences:



CONDITION #3: Shorten "Rights" Time - They don't get 25 years. They don't get 15... They don't even get 10 years. Let's give 5 MAX and a penalty if they don't do anything at all. No sitting on the rights until the climate changes or the attached conditions can be changed by bribing (oops, did I say that?) a future administration... or whatever. Use it - or REALLY lose it - period. Once you've lost it, you can't ever bid on it again. You had your chance.

Now you might think, with the above three conditions (there are more, but those will do for now) that I'm against drilling.

Not entirely. I'm just thinking most of it is too little, too late.

With that said, I am against drilling if it's intended to line pockets of companies who think more about profits, less about this country, and least of all about the taxpayers who've had to help clean up a mess or two before. Do it right, or don't do it at all.

And do it for the reasons you "say" you want to do it, and not for some hidden agenda because maybe you've made a few backdoor deals that have supposedly caused demand to outstrip supply in recent years. Do it right AND do it for us, or don't do it at all. 'Nuff said.

So, this undecided voter has given her P.O.V. on the subject of drilling for oil.

Candidates -- don't give me the big spin on "if you're for or against it." Instead, tell me, (1) if we really have to do it first, and if so... (2) what conditions would you attach? And, for the record, (3) if we really don't have to drill, will you tell me the truth and not let them drill?

Bottom line is, what really say you?


Sidenote: For the record, I'm ALL FOR SUSTAINABLE energy solutions that do NOT require fossil fuels, particularly with respect to transportation.

As a mechanic's daughter, a retired mechanic who once owned a fairly successful company specializing in hydraulic repairs, I honestly believe there just HAS to be a better way to turn and stop a wheel. Surely the combustion engine has had it's day in the sun long enough. Surely there is a better, cleaner and safer way. I just can't believe that it still takes that many parts to ...as I said... turn and stop a wheel. Take the need for transportation fuels out of the demand loop and we'll probably see a MASSIVE difference in demand -- and price.

Necessity is the mother of invention. Today's high oil prices may bring out some of the best inventions we've ever seen to date. Wouldn't that be nice? If demand suddenly fell off a cliff, then what would happen to price?

Oil Bubbles about to Burst?

There's an old expression that goes something like this, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."

With the price of oil and gas skyrocketing so quickly over the past 18 months, there are a whole lotta wheels squeaking -- and as usual, in Washington, a whole lotta finger-pointing, name-the-blame gaming and frankly IMHO, a whole lotta dumb ideas bubbling to the surface on how to correct the problem to quiet at least some of those squeaky wheels.

In Washington, the phrase should be more like this, "The biggest squeaky wheels get the grease."

Word on the street suggests one of those "biggest squeaky wheels" -- namely the financial lobbyists -- want to keep inflating the oil bubble... at least according to this Washington Post article.

Wall Street banks and other large financial institutions have begun putting intense pressure on Congress to hold off on legislation that would curtail their highly profitable trading in oil contracts -- an activity increasingly blamed by lawmakers for driving up prices to record levels.

Naturally, these squeaky wheels are playing the same old broken record "it's all about supply and demand" ...but, supply and demand of what, exactly?

Think about it.

Their industry runs on profits and losses. How do you show your clients a good return on their dollars when you lose one of your biggest money-makers? I'm talking about those cute surprise packages stuffed with sub-prime mortgages that are still reverberating shock waves through financial sectors. (It's not over until it's over.)

Back on point.

There is a bubble here, but whether it actually bursts will depend on who keeps blowing hot air into it. And, as it looks like the biggest squeaky wheels are getting bigger, they just might be allowed to continue doing that...

"Increasing regulation on what we do will not lower energy prices," said Greg Zerzan, head of global public policy for ISDA. The association, which represents all aspects of the multibillion-dollar practice of trading exotic financial contracts outside of formal exchanges, hosts a conference call every Friday in Washington to coordinate the activities of like-minded groups.

Its latest addition: the Financial Services Roundtable, the lobby for 100 of the nation's largest financial services companies. And now the Roundtable and ISDA are courting the nation's largest business federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to join their crusade. Chamber executives said they were seriously considering the alliance.

One thing about their industry they might have forgotten. They have to rely on the "trust" placed in them by the very investors buying their products. What happens when people finally stop trusting them, too?

Grab the popcorn. We're in for an interesting show.