Hoax busted: There is no US-Saudi relationship

Hoax busted: the American people have NO relations with the Saudis

 

by Don Hank

 

A Neocon article titled Analysis: Russian jets in Iran change Mideast game – Middle East criticizes the new “game changing” arrangement between Iran and Russia in which the latter uses Iran’s airport facilities as a home base for its anti-ISIS bombing missions. While the author calls his piece an analysis, it is in fact blatant propaganda, distorting the nature of the “game change” he describes.

 

QUOTE:

“…this type of change is definitely not in the interests of the US, America’s traditional Sunni-Arab allies in the region, nor Israel.”

 

In fact, the US-Saudi relationship touted by the author is not a relationship between the US people and the Saudis, although the sneaky author would like us to believe it is. We the People obviously have no interest whatsoever in a relationship that spawned the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, destroyed previously stable partner countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria and seriously threatened Egypt until el-Sisi stepped in, all of which has served only to erode US prestige and credibility in the world. The American people have, in fact, an existential interest in ending this ill-conceived US Establishment-Saudi relationship as soon as ever possible, while the financial elites, notably the Federal Reserve Board, know that the Saudis are the key to propping up a dollar that has practically no other support in our debt-based economy and government. It is known that, under the secretive petrodollar agreement between the US elites and the Saudis, the US government has promised to protect the Saudi royals and their oil fields in exchange for their charging only US dollars for their oil and buying US sovereign bonds as financial reserves, all of which have been, since the early 70s, keeping the value of the US dollar artificially high. But what is not known is how much further that agreement goes in reality, thanks to terms brokered in secret, either since the original deal or at the time Richard Nixon and King Faisal signed it. What is known, however, is that all US wars outside the New World, without exception (ie, even the Kosovo war), have clearly benefited violent and intolerant Saudi Wahhabism, but in no way benefited the US people, and this is all a sinister indication that the agreement goes much deeper than is known. Indeed, looking back over the last 50 odd years of warfare, initiated by the US on the flimsiest of grounds, Washington and Wall Street appear to have sold out US interests and even the interests of civilization itself in exchange for a strong dollar worth far beyond any economy-based intrinsic value, enabling them to “print” unbacked dollars in QEs 1 through 3 and possibly beyond without having to pay for the value thereby stolen from other economies throughout the world.

By contrast with secretive US-Sunni (Wahhabi) cooperation, the Russia-Shiite relationship brought about the first sincere attempt to stop ISIS, thereby thwarting the once unchallenged Saudi-US relationship.

The US then reluctantly followed Russia’s example by attacking ISIS in Iraq, politically unable to do otherwise but knowing that in so doing it was flirting with the possible rupture of the dollar-supporting agreement described above, and hence with financial disaster for the elites.

Further, the rearrangement of the Middle East chessboard has not only led to Russia’s establishment of an airbase in Shiite Iran but, prior to this, had led to a flourishing relationship between Netanyahu and Putin, which has benefited both countries. There can be no question that Israel-US relations are now much cooler and unproductive than Russia-Israel relations. (But remember that the US and Russia have swapped roles both domestically and in terms of foreign policy).

Thus the crucial difference between US foreign policy and Russian foreign policy is that the US has so far cultivated good relations only with one side – the Sunnis and their radical Wahhabi terrorists (posing at times as “moderates”) and also with the warlike Likud Party in Israel (instead of reconciling both the hawks and the Israeli factions that want peace) – a policy that necessarily leads to the untenable situation of perpetual conflict, while Russia has taken the broader view, trying to cultivate relations with both Sunnis and Shia, and just as importantly, with Israel, in an attempt to bring permanent peace between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East and end the Palestine-Israel conflict. (BTW, there is another unseen aspect to all of this in that many Western Christians believe – in large part under encouragement from sly Neocons – that any US attempt to bring about peace in the Middle East is unbiblical and that somehow, God wants them to support, or at least passively consent to, senseless wars in order to fulfill prophecies that carry unspecified time frames and schedules. Yet this lack of specific time settings makes these prophecies hard to pin down and makes a rigid interpretation inappropriate at best. Further, there is no biblical commandment or even suggestion that Christians are supposed to consent to or participate in wars at any time in history — the way so many of them did during the Iraq invasion, believing at first — thanks to sly propaganda efforts willingly perpetrated by fooish clergy — that this disastrous war that saw the banishment of most Iraqi Christians, was godly. Thus Christianity has been used as a tool of Satanists thanks to the lack of common sense and spiritual discernment of these pawns with little grasp of the scriptures. I showed previously how these Christians are disobeying an important commandment of Jesus).

So yes, this new Russia-Iran arrangement is not in the interests of the US if we define the US as the Neocon perpetual war Establishment (including Obama and Hillary), and it is not in the interest of the Saudi Wahhabists whose ultimate goal is the total annihilation of Shia and Christians as well as civilization as we know it. But the Saudis, with their intolerance toward people with different opinions and religions, certainly do not deserve to be given by the US, through stealth or otherwise, the green light to continue founding and funding terror groups throughout the world, whether or not their rampaging props up the greenback, because such is obviously immoral unless you are a Neocon or central banker. Thus, Washington’s oft-times schizophrenic foreign policy is precisely due to the fact that, while the elites have constantly supported the barbaric Saudi regime and its thinly veiled terror campaign (for the reasons enunciated above), the ordinary people whom they despise sense that this policy is insane and threatens civilization.

The Establishment has been playing the mischievous wizard behind the curtain. But thanks in large part to Donald Trump, and to alternative media, this curtain is now in tatters and ordinary people can easily discern the wizard and his evil machinations. Whether or not Trump wins the presidency, it is only a matter of time before the wizard’s workshop will be permanently closed down.

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

French mainstream press confirms our assessment of the financial crisis

 

Some American news consumers insist that anything not based on mainstream reports is not worth their while reading. In fact, I just heard Alan Colmes attacking Jerome Corsi on his book The Obama Nation and one of his chief criticisms was that Corsi uses conservative media as factual support.

Now, I have previously refuted at this site the leftist view that our current financial crisis is due to rampant laissez-faire free-market finance. I have shown, based on various sources, that in fact, the blame lies squarely with the government, and particularly with the CRA and its beefed up enforcement under Clinton, and unfortunately, under second-term George W. Bush as well. Certainly, some readers who think like Alan Colmes were skeptical and dismissive of my facts, even though most come from neutral sources.

That is why I was delighted when a French colleague recently sent me an article from the online version of the daily newspaper Figaro confirming my assessment of the financial crisis and its origins.

Now, while the Left in France does classify Figaro as right of center, you need to understand that this is a highly respected century-old publication that enjoys a very large hardcopy readership, with over 400,000 copies distributed and with an amazing 4.224 million unique on-line visitors, making it the number one news site in France today.

By contrast, the newspaper at the other end of the political spectrum, Libération, has a hardcopy readership of only 160,000 and claims only 150,000 visitors to its web site.

Clearly, French readers on both the Left and Right trust and prefer Le Figaro.

 This is why I took the pains to translate Figaro’s recent article “Subprime accused, State guilty” by Vincent Bénard.

This translation is one item you can safely forward to your most skeptical friends.

Donald Hank

 

 

Translation  of :

Subprime: market accused, State Guilty

 
09/09/2008 | Updated : 10:43 |

 

Vincent Bénard, President of the Hayek Institute of Brussels, author of “Le Logement, crise publique, remèdes privés” (Romillat), reviews the subprime lending crisis and takes the side of the free economy when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two mortgage refinancing agencies, are placed under the conservatorship of the United States government.

The cause is understood by many observers: the subprime financial crisis is due to the madness of the markets and shows the limits of unbridled finance.  And they urge more public regulation of financial institutions.

Free enterprise is the whipping boy again, because there is no market more perverted by the intervention of the federal government than that of mortgage credit in the United States.

The two institutions with the cute nicknames Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FHLMC) bear a heavy weight of responsibility in the financial unmooring of the American banking system.  The former was initially a government agency created in 1938 by the FDR administration to issue low interest mortgages thanks to federal guarantees, which supplied liquidity to a home loan market at low rates accessible to lower-income families.

In 1968, the Johnson Administration, realizing that the State-guaranteed commitments of Fannie Mae were becoming broader and would be subject to the lending capacity of a treasury department mired in financing the Vietnam War, arranged for it to be privatized.  Then in 1970, the Nixon administration created Freddie Mac to provide a semblance of competitiveness in this mortgage credit refinancing market.

This background provided Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a hybrid status of Government Sponsored Enterprise (GSE).  Thus, they were private but legally bound to deal exclusively in home loan refinancing under federal control in exchange for tax breaks.  Worse yet, while being officially private, the two agencies have always been considered – thanks to their public sponsorship and their social role, to benefit from an implicit guarantee on the part of the American Treasury!

Privatized benefits, collectivized losses: such a cocktail was bound to prompt the executives of the GSEs to take excessive risks if the state sponsorship came up short.  This is exactly what happened in the 1990s.  It was reminiscent of a famous French scandal…[The author is referring to the Credit Lyonnais scandal in which the French government bailed out that bank]

The sponsorship of these two enterprises was transferred to the US Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) in 1992, because that agency wanted to influence GSE-financed loans to satisfy a major objective of any self-respecting politician in America, namely, increasing the home ownership rate among low-income populations, notably minorities.

Thus, the HUD forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase both the volume and the proportion of refinanced subprime credits (up to 56% in 2004).  To make matters worse, one of the HUD bosses, fearing that the declaration of risks taken by the two GSEs in order to satisfy these rules, would cause the markets to lose confidence in them, solved the problem by making it perfectly legal for them not to disclose too many details about their exposures.

Thus, using increasingly complex mortgage products, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refinanced more than five trillion dollars in credits, or 40% of American homes, including more than half of subprime credits even though they did not have enough of their own funds to commit to such amounts.  As a result, the banks issuing these credits could afford not to be too particular about the loans they authorized, because there were two refinancers on the stock market to back them up.  Countrywide, the bank whose lending policies to lower-income families is now vilified, was incensed only three years ago by the executives of Fannie Mae for their brash subprime lending policies.

But the downturn in the economic boom multiplied borrower defaults, and the two GSEs are threatened with not being able to meet their obligations, which could spread to all institutional investors.  Now the State is urgently calling for their rescue, which will cost the taxpayer several hundred billion dollars.

A second public intervention expanded bank excesses in granting credits to insolvent families.  In the 1990s, studies showed that members of black and Hispanic communities had loan applications turned down somewhat more than whites or Asians, although these refusals only amounted to one application out of four.  Certain lobbies saw in this not a logical reflection of less wealth in these communities but rather proof of purported racism in the financial world.   

An antidiscrimination law of 1977, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), was thus strengthened in 1995 to crack down on banks refusing credit to minorities under penalty of greater sanctions.  The banks were thus obliged to partially relinquish the precautionary role they normally play when refusing a loan to a person who is objectively less solvent.  No big deal: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were there to refinance these shaky loans!

Today, many experts believe that, without the CRA, and without the GSEs, minorities would have more access to property than they now do, less quickly but more soundly.  By trying to artificially accelerate what the free economy accomplished at its own rate, it was the State that, through both regulations and legislation, led the actors in the credit chain to behave irresponsibly, causing a serious financial crisis and resulting in the failure of many families it purported to help.

Translated by Donald Hank

 


[1]