(Editor’s Note: I will be posting seemingly unrelated articles for the information and names contained therein for reference in the ‘noose’ articles. Take notes if you wish. Emphasis is mine.)
I have been waiting to see the logistics of the global banking bureaucracy beginning to take shape. The world’s central banks cover governments; private banks cover private international elites. Please keep in mind that Jamie Dimon is on the board of directors of the New York Federal Reserve, and assisted with the loan to take over Bear Stearns, and was part of the Washington Mutual deal. Mr. Dimon has also had almost unfettered access to Timothy Geithner, and until recently, Barack Obama has had nothing but praise for Mr. Dimon.
The bank’s chief executive, Jamie Dimon, announced a series of management changes toward that end on Tuesday, appointing one of his closest lieutenants to a new position with a mandate to start a global corporate banking business and scout out opportunities in Europe, Latin America and Asia.
The executive, Heidi G. Miller, was named president of the bank’s international operations and chairwoman of a new global advisory committee made up of about a dozen senior bankers and regional business heads. The new role should further cement Ms. Miller’s standing as one of the most powerful women on Wall Street.
At the same time, Mr. Dimon has made expanding overseas a priority. JPMorgan Chase gets about a quarter of its revenue from international operations and has few retail branches outside the United States. Even its global investment banking and treasury services businesses focus mainly on Western Europe.
Other big banks, like HSBC and Standard Chartered, have much stronger toeholds in emerging markets. Citigroup, where Mr. Dimon and Ms. Miller rose through the ranks together, derives nearly 60 percent of its revenue from overseas and has had retail operations in China and India for decades.
With growth trends tilting toward the emerging markets and the prospect of tighter regulation from Washington, Mr. Dimon sees untapped opportunity. Analysts project that the growth rate of banking will be two to three times faster in emerging markets than the United States.
“We have got to invest locally, look at clients globally and look at new markets,” he said in the interview. “We are going to get the whole company behind it.”
Mr. Dimon, who spent the last two weeks hopscotching across China, India and Russia, had been laying the groundwork for international expansion for some time. A few years ago, he assigned two top lieutenants to scout out potential consumer banking opportunities overseas. He created a network of global advisers, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, and established a partnership with a buyout firm started by several former Citigroup colleagues to hunt for overseas acquisitions. (emphasis mine)
Mr. Dimon has already made a handful of deals to add to the bank’s international portfolio. Earlier this year, it bought a commodities trading unit from the Royal Bank of Scotland. It plans to buy Gávea Investments, a Brazilian asset management firm. And last week, it announced an investment banking joint venture with First Capital Securities of China.
But the centerpiece of his immediate strategy is to create a global corporate bank that can serve multinational clients. Mr. Dimon said he hoped to assign global corporate banking responsibilities to employees in the investment banking and treasury services units, with Ms. Miller in charge of forging cooperation among business lines and regions.
“If she comes up with a great plan, we will put a lot of money behind that,” Mr. Dimon said.
The global bank has a loose structure for its 400 employees, with spaghettilike reporting lines that some senior executives privately say could pose significant challenges. Mr. Dimon says he worries about that, too, but has concluded that having an overarching head of international operations would lead to more accountability. “The intent of this is to get less bureaucracy,” he said.
The new role for Ms. Miller, who has a doctorate in Latin American studies, puts her in charge of a far smaller business than the treasury services unit, but one that could influence the bank’s long-term prospects.
A longtime member of Mr. Dimon’s inner circle since she served as chief financial officer of Citigroup while he was president, Ms. Miller joined him again to help turn around Bank One, which would later merge with JPMorgan. (She had an eight-month stint as Priceline.com’s financial chief during the height of the dot-com boom in 2000.)
So the next two questions would be, who are Heidi Miller and Brian Moynihan, and what exactly can they do to further the agenda of the private international elites?
Glenn brings to the surface one aspect of the corruption that bloggers have been writing about since last August – the CRIME, INC. circle between George Soros, John Podesta (Center for American Progress), John’s brother, Tony who is the BP lobbyist in D.C., Obama, Petrobras (Brazilian Oil Company), and the $2 Billion dollar loan to them last year to assist them in deepwater drilling. Obama has turned off the spigot in the gulf, yet Petrobras is set to drill even deeper than Deepwater Horizon. (Doncha just love the internet? This is exactly why Elena Kagan and Janet Napolitano need to shut down our means of communication and information.)
The United Nations plays a massive role in the upcoming events worldwide, far beyond what you hear in the MSM.
G. Edward Griffin has some thoughts on this global governmental power-base.
In reality, the United Nations is a, the seat of what the member governments hope will become a true world government. It’s to be a government, and there is nothing inherently wrong with a world government, but we need to ask the question, “what kind of a world government is this going to be?” If the United Nations were going to be a government based on all of the things they said it was going to be; peace and prosperity and protecting individual rights, and all of these things, I think it’d be pretty hard to oppose it. But in reality, it’s being built as an model of collectivism.
I know you have heard that word; collectivism; right here on this site when I asked the question about how many genocides the United Nations has actually stopped…zero. Mr. Griffin explains exactly what collectivism means.
Has not my prescription changed enough reading the Obamacare and financial takeover bills, we now have the next bill in the Borg absorption; Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act brought to you by Lieberman, Collins, and Carper. Though the senators state, in their press release for the bill, “The bill does not authorize any new surveillance authorities or permit the government to “take over” private networks”, I’ll believe when I do not read it.
It just comes down to a trust issue; there just isn’t any anymore.
Some readers have wondered why LM has not been running down rabbit holes lately. Rest assured, I have been, and my spousal unit, the RedLemur has joined me in the labyrinth. Readers and researchers that have been down rabbit holes chasing the truth will understand the need to take a break from the darkness once in a while, as it has a tendency to make one physically and emotionally ill.
We have been trying to post the first article in a new series for the last three days, but every time we actually get a handle on the beast, another doorway in the labyrinth opens with even more connecting facts. The age and tentacles on this particularly wicked creature even surprised me, and that is why we have spent extra time connecting the dots before publishing.
Slowly but surely, the American public is awakening to the ‘Master Class’ and their control of the ‘little people’s’ lives through the debt burden of the Federal Reserve and the US Government. A major aspect of the progressive movement that brought us the Fed and the progressive income tax has been and still is eugenics.
The people involved in the following stories are by no means the starring actors, they are just carrying out the tenets of long dead elitists. Also, keep in mind that the Bilderberg Group is the distraction meant to draw your attention away from the other groups hiding in plain sight, (and I am working to prove that they are being funded with your tax dollars).
I wish that I could say that this is just the imaginings of an overactive researcher mind, but after looking at the cast of characters, the organizations, and the money – I cannot.
America’s richest people meet to discuss ways of tackling a ‘disastrous’ environmental, social and industrial threat
John Harlow, Los Angeles SOME of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world’s population and speed up improvements in health and education.
The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.
Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.
These members, along with Gates, have given away more than £45 billion since 1996 to causes ranging from health programmes in developing countries to ghetto schools nearer to home.
They gathered at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, a British Nobel prize biochemist and president of the private Rockefeller University, in Manhattan on May 5. The informal afternoon session was so discreet that some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at “security briefings”.
Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy, said the summit was unprecedented. “We only learnt about it afterwards, by accident. Normally these people are happy to talk good causes, but this is different – maybe because they don’t want to be seen as a global cabal,” he said.
Some details were emerging this weekend, however. The billionaires were each given 15 minutes to present their favourite cause. Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.
The issues debated included reforming the supervision of overseas aid spending to setting up rural schools and water systems in developing countries. Taking their cue from Gates they agreed that overpopulation was a priority.
This could result in a challenge to some Third World politicians who believe contraception and female education weaken traditional values.
Gates, 53, who is giving away most of his fortune, argued that healthier families, freed from malaria and extreme poverty, would change their habits and have fewer children within half a generation.
At a conference in Long Beach, California, last February, he had made similar points. “Official projections say the world’s population will peak at 9.3 billion [up from 6.6 billion today] but with charitable initiatives, such as better reproductive healthcare, we think we can cap that at 8.3 billion,” Gates said then.
Patricia Stonesifer, former chief executive of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which gives more than £2 billion a year to good causes, attended the Rockefeller summit. She said the billionaires met to “discuss how to increase giving” and they intended to “continue the dialogue” over the next few months.
Another guest said there was “nothing as crude as a vote” but a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat. (emphasis mine)
“This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers,” said the guest. “They need to be independent of government agencies, which are unable to head off the disaster we all see looming.”
Why all the secrecy? “They wanted to speak rich to rich without worrying anything they said would end up in the newspapers, painting them as an alternative world government,” he said. (Remember that phrase.)
No surprise here. More on Center For American Progress, here; John Podesta, here.
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: “The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros’ Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders.”
If you want to see where President Barack Obama’s response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster is heading, try following the urgings of the Center for American Progress.
The liberal think tank with close White House ties appears to have more influence on spill policy than the president’s in-house advisers. On May 4, for instance, the CAP’s energy and environment expert, Daniel Weiss, called on the president to name an independent commission to look at the causes of the Deepwater Horizon disaster. On May 22, he did just that.
On May 21, CAP president, John Podesta, privately implored White House officials to name someone to be the public point person for the spill response. A week later, the White House announced that Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen would hold daily briefings on the spill, wherever he would be on any given day.
On May 26, Weiss said the White House needed to demand that BP immediately set up an escrow account with billions of dollars from which claims for Gulf state residents would be paid out.
Glenn covers the revolutionaries who are currently at the center of the power web in Washington, D.C. He recaps how the politicians and the revolutionaries are using each other to gain control of the country (like the rest of us don’t even exist). He also shows a video of Larry Grathwohl, the FBI agent that infiltrated the Weather Underground and found out how they were going to take over the country and ‘re-educate’ the capitalists in centers. Those that would not relearn the socialist way would be terminated. I was shocked that Glenn had finally shown the video that most PUMAs and anti-Obama conservatives knew about before Barry got a lock on the nomination. I have re-embedded it in the Vodpod in the sidebar or leaderbar depending on the page you are on.
He also urges his viewers to read Van Jones’ STORM: Reclaiming Revolution. I have embedded a Scribed Doc of it after the vids.
Glenn starts this program with the message that Bambi was sending when he used ‘salty language’ in reference to kicking tush earlier in the week. This was an outstanding episode on the civil war raging inside the Democratic party and the liberal left who are now heckling and throwing things at Nancy Pelosi. Unfortunately, in Glenn’s perspective, we are stuck in the middle of the war between the hyenas fighting over a our dead carcass. I don’t personally think that because I know that numbers and high ground trump almost everything.
The rewriting and sanitizing of history marches on. In our upside-down, inside-out world of transformation, it is no longer unbelievable that Americans would commemorate Joseph Stalin, murderer of 40 million Soviet citizens with a bust on D-Day (of all days). Where else in the free world is this supposed to be happening, if not here, where the MSM spins everything and unions run the rest?
The National D-Day Memorial has added a bust of Joseph Stalin.
This past Sunday marked the unveiling of a very curious bust at the National D-Day Memorial in Bedford, Virginia. The memorial’s board chose the 66th anniversary of the Normandy invasion to add a bust of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin to accompany the busts already in place of FDR, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill.
Lee Edwards, chairman of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, minced no words about what he regards as an inexplicable addition: “Since the fall of the Soviet Union, statues of Joseph Stalin have been torn down all over Europe. The world is closer than ever before to a consensus on the evils of communism and Stalin’s primary role in the worst crimes of the last century.”
Added Karl Altau, head of the Baltic American National Committee: “No matter what they do to explain [Stalin’s presence], it’s still going to put him on the same kind of level as the other leaders and their troops who were there at D-Day.”
A last-minute plaque was added noting Stalin’s crimes as well as his role as a WWII ally, but critics still wonder what can justify the presence of a tyrant whose troops didn’t even play a role in the D-Day landings. William McIntosh, president of the D-Day Memorial Foundation, hasn’t been returning calls from reporters, but previously said his group merely wanted to note Stalin’s role in winning the war. That answer is not likely to quiet the furor.
Stalin’s role in winning the war was accidental as he was attempting to do what Hitler was doing.
Stalin murdered 40 million Soviet Citizens. He imprisoned tens of millions more for such political offenses as “defeatist comments” during World War II, and for criticism of his own incompetent and cowardly conduct of the war’s early stages. Soviet soldiers were frequently surrounded by Germans early in the war, because Stalin had arrested and murdered all of his army’s competent generals before World War II began. And when the surrendered Soviet POWs were repatriated after the war, they were sent directly to Stalin’s prison camps.
A ten-year sentence in the Gulag was the typical punishment for “anti-Soviet agitation,” also known as criticism of the Soviet government. Neighbors were forced to snitch on neighbors, under pain of blackmail, extortion, and threat of arrest by their own government. Political prisoners were forced into slave labor on such massive, useless public works projects as the White Sea Canal (in whose construction some 100,000 died, by conservative estimates).
Both sides of the aisle are getting frustrated with the White House and the DoJ? Imagine my surprise! Do you think Congress has come to the conclusion yet that they are irrelevant now that the Executive Branch has gone off the reservation with czars by the dozens, and federal agencies calling the shots?
I know y’all will be alot happier when we see perp walks with handcuffs coming out of the White House, but I’m not betting that will be happening anytime soon.
Bipartisan criticism of the Justice Department is soaring on Capitol Hill as the executive branch has repeatedly balked at answering congressional requests for information, according to lawmakers and aides.
According to documents obtained by The Hill and more than a dozen interviews with Democratic and Republican members and staffers, the Department of Justice (DoJ) is rebuffing Congress and its investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
In a statement to The Hill, a spokeswoman for the DoJ said that the department makes every effort to respond to lawmakers in a timely and thorough manner. We regularly provide briefings on topics upon request as well as send written replies to members of Congress based on individual inquiries.”
Congressional Democrats privately acknowledge that DoJ has not been as forthright as they would like, and letters signed by Capitol Hill Democrats to the department indicate their frustration.
However, House and Senate Democrats say they are close to receiving data they sought months ago on various topics, expressing hope that DoJ will work more cooperatively with them.
But Republican claims of DoJ’s “stonewalling” have them questioning whether Attorney General Eric Holder is living up to the pledge of responsiveness and transparency he made during his Senate confirmation hearing nearly 18 months ago.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has expressed concern that since 2009, the DoJ has refused to hand over information to the GAO on personnel vacancy trends within the FBI’s counterterrorism division.
At a standstill, the GAO, acting on a bipartisan request from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Grassley, wrote to the DoJ three weeks ago in an attempt to resolve the issue.
In the letter, the GAO referred to the DoJ’s continuous denial of information as “a systemic problem.” The DoJ, citing legal statutes, refused to deliver the data.