all Travel Business January 2011all Travel Business

Search This Blog

Pages

Desenmascaran al dudoso sujeto nombrado “periodista independiente” Ricardo (Richard) Roselló Socorro.

Nota: nunca despliego contenciosos entre opositores en mi blog porque lo considero contrario a los intereses de la causa de la libertad de Cuba, pero ese sujeto, el tal "Richard", tiene una pinta de infiltrado castrista que me siento animado a publicar su desenmascaramiento. Gracias, Octavio.

Respuesta al “periodista independiente” Ricardo (Richard) Roselló Socorro.

Caríssime

Tu carta fechada 28 de Sep. 2010, aniversario de los Comités de Defensa de la Revolución (CDR), la organización de masas más deleznable y agresiva. Arma política represiva que espía a cada ciudadano cubano a nivel de cuadra, encaja perfectamente. Su texto y solapada intención así lo proclaman, por lo que alabo tu acertada intención cronológica, de una festividad que solo invoca dolor y duelo a quienes hemos sufrido sus zarpazos. Es prolífera la estirpe de las víboras. Lástima que David Orrio no te hubiera asesorado, quizás hubieras sido menos imprudente en tus excesos.

Gustosamente hubiera preferido poner la otra mejilla a tu infamante, grosera y alevosa carta, si no fuera porque incurres en la felonía de involucrar a personas y organizaciones respetables cuyo prestigio pretendes minar a mi costa, en vez de enfrentarme personalmente para poner nuestros puntos sobre las íes. Esas personas y org. a quien cuestionas con un insolente lenguaje tan despectivo como ambiguo, son PATRIOTAS por el lado de nuestros patrocinadores y editores en el exilio. Son tus propios colegas de este lado.

Tú y yo nos conocemos demasiado bien del Gabinete Arqueológico en la calle Tacón # 12, dependencia de la Oficina del Historiador en La Habana Vieja, desde la década de los 80, cuando eras el paje de Eusebio Leal Spengler.

Olvidas que ambos somos arqueólogos. Olvidas que mi difunto padre, Jorge du Bouchet y López, abogado, diplomático e historiador a quien decías admirar, mientras disfrutabas de los almuerzos y las cenas italianas a que generosamente te invitaba en el aledaño restaurant “Don Giovanni”. Ese es el pago que me das irrespetando su memoria y las enseñanzas que adquiriste de su cosecha ¡Caín!

Este es el preámbulo de mi replica que será contundente. No lo dudes. Tu bajeza moral merece una respuesta aleccionadora, para los que –como tú- pretendan intrigar y dividir nuestras filas.

La opinión pública tiene todo el derecho y conocerá de mi puño y letra con pruebas palpables, la cara oculta de Ricardo Roselló Socorro.

Basando la impugnación de tus falacias en sólidos argumentos, comienzo por anticiparte que la organización PLANTADOS, a quien acusas de abandonarme en mi situación inicial, envió de inmediato en el propio mes de mayo 2009 apenas recién llegado a prisión, un giro de 150:00 USD, a la periodista independiente y amiga incondicional Miriam Herrera Calvo. Esto lo pueden confirmar personalmente Maritza Lugo y Ángel de Fana, a quienes agradezco infinitamente su inmediatez espontanea.

Dices literalmente: “nunca existió esa ayuda de la organización PLANTADOS” posteriormente añades: “en julio (3 meses atrás) llegó tu esperada ayuda de PLANTADOS. Se hicieron las nuevas coordinaciones vía telefónica, y volví pero no con la salud de antes. La visita estaba destinada a ti y me acompañaban Miriam Herrera Calvo y Carlos Martin Espinosa como lo pediste. Más no se te pudo ver. Allí estuvimos 7 horas bajo el sol, reclamando los derechos que tanto defendemos, pero tuvimos finalmente que retractarnos, la razón estaba de parte del penal y no de du Bouchet. Eso lo confirmamos en medio de un grupo de familiares y oficiales en una oficina del penal”. Sí, Richard, mi destac. El # 8 SÍ tenía visita (de estímulo) pero Santiago du Bouchet es un contrarrevolucionario y no me concedieron los 20 minutos prometidos por la jefatura militar del penal ¡sabes! –promesas de revolucionarios- Sin embargo, ¿qué se hizo de la ayuda que bien SI pudiste hacerme llegar? No recibí ni un bizcocho. ¿Regresaste con la carga al hombro? Acaso pesaba tan poco como los 3.00 CUC, los contados medicamentos, el bloc y un bolígrafo que efectivamente fue todo cuanto recibí de ti ¡en meses!

Así que “la razón estaba de parte del penal”. Se ve que no conoces una prisión por dentro. Visita Google Earth en Internet: quizás las puedas admirar desde el satélite, así no tendrás que poner chinchetas en un mapa de Cuba. La computadora te ahorrará el trabajo.

Alexis Gaínza Solenzal, el prestigioso Director de la revista Misceláneas de Cuba, un perfecto caballero adalid de nuestra causa, recibió por correo ordinario –milagrosamente- una carta mía. Eso te tomó de sorpresa y cuando recibiste los 200 CUC que te enviara amablemente para ambos, te adjudicaste mi parte a sabiendas de mi crítica situación. Eso fue en junio 2010. Te convoqué por diferentes vías a la visita que me correspondía el 2 de agosto. Todo fue en vano. Richard Roselló Socorro brilló por su ausencia.

¿Dónde fueron a parar los correos, las noticias y los trabajos manuscritos que yo mismo puse en tus manos personalmente meses antes para Gaínza? ¡Al crematorio! O se los diste de comer a “la prenda” (G-2)

Roberto de Jesús Guerra, el joven periodista independiente creador del blog “HABLEMOSPRESS” cuya trayectoria tanto política como profesional deberías de elogiar en vez de denigrar con tus diatribas e insinuaciones. Y te lo reitero para recalcártelo ya que tanto te molestó: “DE PROBADO CALIBRE”, me logró hacer llegar mediante su hermano Rolando, también preso acá, una ayuda de su bolsillo que le agradecí de corazón. Gracias a él, después de un año y tanto de estar preso pude disponer (por primera vez) de un desodorante, aseo personal, alimentos y no en calidad de limosnas si no con el calor y la fraternidad que lo caracterizan.

Su hermano Rolando Guerra, “Coqui” ha compartido durante meses mi infortunio y por él Robertico conoce de mis vicisitudes, sabe de mi comportamiento, del respeto que me he ganado entre los presos y los propios militares, por mi postura política y la firmeza de mis convicciones ante los verdugos entre los cuales te has ganado un puesto.

Afirmas literalmente que le otorgué a Guerra “méritos publicitarios”. No creo que los necesite por su trabajo encomiable y laborioso, es más, creo que al atacarlo individuos como tú lo enaltecen. En su propia inocencia a tus infundios tiene la absolución anticipada.

De 10 años en el Periodismo Independiente, casi la mitad los he pasado preso. En 2 meses apenas, Roberto de Jesús Guerra ha tenido para conmigo atenciones que tú jamás me has dispensado en todos esos años tras las rejas. Con tu malintencionada y deplorable carta has cavado tu propia fosa. Pero no seré yo quien te arroje en ella, caerás por tu propio peso y escaso valor humano.

Esta misiva tiene segunda parte. Dice el refranero popular que “nunca segundas partes fueron buenas”. Espero hacerle honor, porque lo peor de ti está por ver.

Vale

Albert Santiago du Bouchet y Hernández de Larra

Por: Santiago du Bouchet, Prisión Melena II, La Habana, Cuba, 3 de diciembre 2010.

My Zimbio

Les presento a esta bella dama, Natalia, colega abogada, es una de mis seguidoras en Twitter. Mi bella seguidora, Natis, tiene todo, es preciosa e inteligente


My Zimbio

Domingo 30 de Enero, 2011. Blogs cubanos más populares, según ranking de Alexa de hoy, en Estados Unidos y el mundo.

Nota: Primero aparece el ranking de Estados Unidos y luego el mundial. El primer lugar es el de más alto ranking mundial (cifra menor). Aclaramos que mientras menor sea el número mejor es el lugar en este ranking mundial, es decir, Google es el 1, Facebook el 2, YouTube el 3, Yahoo el 4, Windows Live el 5, etc.

Los diez blogs aquí mostrados están en el grupo de los dos millones más visitados a nivel mundial, de un total de decenas de millones.

Algunos de los blogs que aparecen en esta lista pudieran estar financiados con el propósito de "inyectar" visitantes para "inflar" sus resultados, o usar el truco de los foros con el mismo fin

1ro -- Desde Cuba* ------------(USA) 065 155 --- 0 081 608
2do -- Cubanet --------------------- 078 939 --- 0 200 613
3ro -- Babalú ---------------------- 091 167 --- 0 404 647 
4to -- Zoe Valdés ------------------ 223 198 --- 0 430 336
5to -- The Real Cuba --------------- 227 002 --- 0 845 531
6to -- Cuba Independiente ---------- 280 667 --- 0 685 592 
7mo -- Octavo Cerco ---------------- 304 625 --- 0 716 596
8vo -- Dr. Octavio Dilewis --------- 328 967 --- 1 466 204
9no -- Cuba Inglesa ---------------- 412 209 --- 1 983 804
10mo - Guije ----------------------- 574 314 --- 0 224 279

Nota (fuera del TOP TEN de Estados Unidos): La Nueva Cuba con 0 847 431, Cuba Matinal con 0 935 386, Misceláneas de Cuba con 0 842 334, Baracutey Cubano con 0 771 706, Cuba Democracia y Vida con 0 881 745, Firmas Press con 1 108 551, Neoliberalismo con 1 369 045, AmigosPaís Guaracabuya con 1 255 817, Radiografia Mundial con 1 555 293, Auténtico con 1 854 751, El Veraz con 3 255 096, Cuba Española con 3 183 686, Cuba Libre Digital con 2 574 270, Directorio con 3 122 380, Cuba Europa con 2 535 625, Damas de Blanco con 2 909 087, Trinchera Cubana con 4 229 568, Nuevo Acción con 4 094 199 y la Fundacion (FNCA) con 4 773 568, están dentro del rango de los cinco millones.

* Colgados de ese dominio hay varios blogs.

My Zimbio

Rare footage of Havana, Cuba in the 1950's. La Habana antes de la noche castrista

My Zimbio

How Lehman, With The Fed's Complicity, Created Another Illegal Precedent In Abusing The Primary Dealer Credit Facility

Five months ago, Zero Hedge observed the nuances of the Federal Reserve's Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) and concluded that this artificial liquidity boosting construct was nothing more than yet another scam to allow banks to extract ever more money from taxpayers, with the complicit blessing of the Federal Reserve Board Of New York (as the original piece also provided an in-depth discussion of the triparty repo market which is now a parallel to the buzzword of the day in the form of Lehman's "Repo 105" off balance sheet contraption, it should serve as a useful refresher course to anyone who wishes to understand why while Repo 105 with its $50 billion in liability contingency may have been an issue, the true Repo market, with over $3 trillion of likely just as toxic assets, is where the real pain in the future will come from). The PDCF would allow assets of declining and even inexistent value to be pledged as collateral, thus making sure that taxpayer cash was funneled into sham institutions holding predominantly toxic assets, and whose viability was and is limited, yet still is backed by the Fed, which to this day continues to pour our money into them. Today, with a tip from the NYT's Eric Dash, we demonstrate just how grossly negligent the Federal Reserve was when it came to Lehman's abuse of the PDCF, and how the trail of slime of Lehman's increasingly obvious manipulation of its books goes to the very top of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and its then governor - a very much complicit Tim Geithner.

1. The Liquidity Conundrum And the PDCF

In our original piece, we posited the following observation on the Fed's constant involvement in liquidity provisioning, particularly in the context of the repo market:

Here is the liquidity crunch in its full flow-chart glory:

1.If can not obtain short-term (overnight or term) funding in repo market, go to Eurodollar market
2.If can not obtain short-term funding in Eurodollar market (LIBOR), go to asset sales
3.If asset sales are impossible due to lack bids, illiquid markets, and collateral consists of toxic MBS and CCC-rated junk bonds, yet margin calls are streaming and repo counterparties are demanding their cash back, go to bankruptcy
4.File for bankruptcy
This would be natural chain of events in a normal capitalist country. However, America in times of stress is anything but - which is why enter 3.5 (after 3 and before 4): the Federal Reserve. What the Fed did was to basically extend credit, first to Bear Stearns (through JP Morgan which ended up acquiring Bear's toxic asset mess, now better known as Maiden Lane as it continues to reside on the Fed's balance sheet), and second to Lehman Brothers (here JPMorgan was not the ultimate beneficiary of the "good bank," and instead it was merely the clearing agent of the triparty repo which had a very nervous Fed on one side, stuck with nearly $70 billion in worthless securities consisting of anything from defaulted CRE whole loans, to stock in hundreds of bankrupt companies.

Keep in mind this is not the first time the Fed has found itself in this situation: in 1998, when LTCM blew up, it was a dress rehearsal to the dot, along with the same feedback-loop driven evaporation of liquidity, as haircuts collapsed and nobody wanted to be on contingent to anyone else making rash decision. Yet there was one notable difference between 1998 and 2008: roughly $3.5 trillion (or 350% more) in outstanding repos: a number equal to about 30% of the US GDP, and a number sufficient to bring down the entire financial ponzi house of cards. Enter the Federal Reserve and the doctrine of encouraged moral hazard.

The Fed's response to point 3.5 - the emergence of the Primary Dealer Credit Facility.

The PDCF is mostly notable for the one fact that on the eve of Lehman's bankruptcy, the PPT officially came out to play. On September 14th the original, "stricter", terms of the PDCF were modified to expand the collateral package from investment grade securities to pretty much anything that was not nailed down, including equities. In this way the Fed was basically acting as the Plunge Protection Team once removed: it would lend money to banks so they could buy equities. If anybody was confused about the existence of the PPT, it became completely evident on September 14th. This was also previously discussed on Zero Hedge:

All through the spring and summer of 2008, the Fed was confident it had managed to glue the pieces together, and retain some semblance of stability. Then came that fateful weekend of September 13th about which so much has been written. In advance of the Lehman collapse, and what the Fed knew would quickly become a lock-up of not just money markets (which nearly occurred), but of the entire repo system, bringing practically all leveraged institutions to a halt and prompt liquidation, the Federal Reserve announced this little discussed amendment to the Primary Dealer Credit Facility:

The collateral elligible to be pledged at the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (PDCF) has been broadened to closely match the types of collateral that can be pledged in the tri-party repo systems of the two major clearing banks. Previously, PDCF collateral had been limited to investment-grade debt securities.

The bolded text is all you need to know to find the smoking gun for any and all allegations of "plunge protection" or however one wishes to frame the invisible market bid. On September 14th, 2008 the gloves cames off, when the Fed, stated in a press release no less, that it would provide virtually free taxpayer capital to banks so that they could go to the market and purchase equities!

And while the gloves really came off after Lehman's failure, there was a sense that in the period between the PDCF's inception in March and the September crisis amendment, the Fed was acting with at least a borderline fiduciary obligation to taxpaying Americans, by at least being true to its words of accepting only "investment grade rated securities."

On March 16, 2008, finding itself in a quandary as to how to unclog frozen repo markets, the Federal Reserve Board announced the Primary Dealer Credit Facility. Most notably from the press release is the disclosure on collateral: "Credit extended to primary dealers under this facility may be collateralized by a broad range of investment-grade debt securities." Note: not junk bonds, equities or any other toxic trash. At least at this point the Fed, while acting to preserve liquidity, still retained some semblance of fiduciary responsibility to the U.S. taxpayer.

We have now discovered that this was absolutely not the case.

When analyzing the Lehman failure, the Lehman Examiner spends a substantial amount of time on the PDCF, and the interplay between it, and Lehman's "assets":

On March 16, 2008, “at the height of the Bear Stearns crisis” the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve granted the FRBNY the authority to establish the Primary Dealer Credit Facility (“PDCF”)...Under the PDCF, the FRBNY would make collateralized loans to broker-dealers, such as LBI, and in effect, act as a repo counterparty. Unlike a typical counterparty, though, with the creation of the PDCF, the FRBNY was generally understood by market participants to be the “lender of last resort to the broker-dealers.” Reflecting the fact that broker-dealer liquidity had become increasingly dependent on overnight repos to obtain short-term secured financing, the PDCF was structured as an overnight facility.

As to the acceptable collateral qualifier, Valukas notes:

Pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act’s requirement that a Federal Reserve Bank lend only on a secured basis, and according to the convention in repo lending, the FRBNY advanced funds against a schedule of collateral. Collateral accepted by the PDCF initially consisted of: Treasuries, government agency securities, mortgage-backed securities issued or guaranteed by government agencies, and investment grade corporate, municipal, mortgage- and asset-backed securities priced by clearing banks.

Wall Street immediately greeted the arrival of the PDCF as the panacea that would bail out the world.

Citigroup’s Global Markets Equity Research division upgraded Lehman to “buy” on the back of the expansion of the PDCF. Referring to the PDCF, the Citigroup analysis states: “In our view, it’s tough to have a liquidity-driven meltdown when you’re being backed by government entities that have the ability to print money.” The Citigroup analysis elaborated on that point: “With $34b in liquidity at the parent company, [and] the ability to get access to over $200b in liquidity from the Fed’s primary dealer credit facility, . . . access to liquidity is a non-issue.”

To Lehman itself, the PDCF seemed like a Bernanke Ex Machina. To wit:

A day after the PDCF became operational, Lehman personnel commented: “I think the new ‘Primary Dealer Credit Facility’ is a LOT bigger deal than it is being played to be . . . .” They mused that if Lehman could use the PDCF “as a warehouse for all types of collateral, we should have plenty of flexibility to structure and rethink CLO/CDO structures . . . .” Additionally, by viewing the PDCF as “available to serve as a ‘warehouse’ for short term securities [b]acked by corporate loans,”5345 the facility “MAY BE THE ‘EXIT STRATEGY’ FUNDING SOURCE WE NEED TO GET NEW COMPETITION IN THE CORPORATE LOAN MARKET.

Amusingly, even Lehman realized the obvious: that the Fed was locked in its "enabler" mode and would now have to serve Ponzi heroin virtually in perpetuity, as it would have no ability to withdraw the extra liquidity:

Feldkamp hypothesized that banks would be able to take advantage of the PDCF’s warehousing potential over the long term, believing the FRBNY could not discontinue the temporary program in the near term, and that the program would eventually become entrenched:

Bernanke and co may have ‘saved the day’, and JPM has a great public affairs approach to make the Bear deal look extremely positive for everyone, by emphasizing how it will be looking forward to applying this new [CDO packaging] technology to [the] resolution of this crisis. Once applied successfully, the Fed will not be able to end the facility. They’ll have to conti[n]ue it and manage it as a standard monetary policy tool.

Forget lender of last resort: everyone now saw the Fed as the "enabler of infinite resort."

The 'hope' reached to the very top, when Dick Fuld said on March 17:“The Federal Reserve’s decision to create a lending facility for primary dealers and permit a broad range of investment-grade securities to serve as collateral improves the liquidity picture and, from my perspective, takes the liquidity issue for the entire industry off the table.” [amusingly, this is taken from a quote by the now infamous Zachery Kouwe, Lehman Is Not Ready To Fuld — Chairman Bullish Despite 19% Drop, N.Y. Post, Mar. 18, 2008, at p. 37 - we wonder how many sources were trampled in the creation of this reference...]

Oh Dick, if only you knew then how wrong you are.

2. Lehman PDCF Land-Grab

The second PDCF was announced, it became Lehman's saving grace. The firm immediately took to packaging whatever questionable assets it could find, including completely worthless unsecured loans from Mozillo's defunct Countrywide Financial, securitizing them with a few rating agency kickbacks, getting a single A rating for these, and peddling them over to the taxpayers in exchange for cash, with the Fed's criminally negligent complicity:

Lehman did indeed create securitizations for the PDCF with a view toward treating the new facility as a “warehouse” for its illiquid leveraged loans. In March 2008, Lehman packaged 66 corporate loans to create the “Freedom CLO.” The transaction consisted of two tranches: a $2.26 billion senior note, priced at par, rated single A, and designed to be PDCF eligible, and an unrated $570 million equity tranche. he loans that Freedom “repackaged” included high-yield leveraged loans, which Lehman had difficulty moving off its books, and included unsecured loans to Countrywide Financial Corp.

The rub here is that unlike any traditional "asset", there was no roadshow, no market, no way to determine the price for the CLO - it was all just Lehman's word. Yet the kicker is that the only reason the CLO was created was to abuse the PDCF's generosity.

Lehman did not intend to market its Freedom CLO, or other similar securitizations, to investors. Rather, Lehman created the CLOs exclusively to pledge to the PDCF. An internal presentation documenting the securitization process for Freedom and similar CLOs named “Spruce” and “Thalia,” noted that the “[r]epackage[d] portfolio of HY [high yield leveraged loans]” constituting the securitizations, “are not meant to be marketed.” Handwriting from an unknown source underlines this sentence and notes at the margin: “No intention to market.

Where it gets much worse, and where alarm bells comparable to those in the AIG case should now start to go off, is that Lehman had every intention of manipulating its books to hide its intention of using the CLO exclusively for Fed collateral purposes. This has all the makings of another SEC-sponsored disclosure crisis, in which both the regulator and the Fed were criminally negligent and/or complicit in hiding the true state of Lehman's affairs from the broader public. And while Fuld can claim he was unaware of Repo 105, there is at least a written trail that exposes his order to make Lehman's PDCF participation hidden from the public's eye: this alone is grounds for a criminal and civil investigation.

Lehman may have also managed its disclosures to ensure that the public did not become aware that the CLOs were not created to be sold on the open market, but rather were intended solely to be pledged to the PDCF. An April 4, 2008 e-mail containing edits to talking points concerning the Freedom CLO to be delivered by Fuld stated:

"Given that the press has not focused (yet) on the Fed window in relation to the [Freedom] CLO, I’d suggest deleting the reference in the summary below. Press will be in attendance at the shareholder meeting and my concern is that volunteering this information would result in a story."

It is unclear, based solely on the e-mail, why a reference linking the FRBNY’s liquidity facility to the Freedom CLO was deleted. One explanation could be that Lehman did not want the public to learn that it had securitized illiquid loans exclusively to be pledged to the PDCF. Another reason may have been to hide the fact that Lehman needed to access the PDCF in the first place, given that accessing the securities dealers’ lender of last resort could have negative signaling implications.

While it is immediately unknown if the SEC was aware, and thus at fault as well for the this public disclosure manipulation, what is clear is that the FRBNY was well too aware of the deal:

The FRBNY was aware that Lehman viewed the PDCF not only as a liquidity backstop for financing quality assets, but also as a means to finance its illiquid assets. Describing a March 20, 2008 meeting between the FRBNY and Lehman’s senior management, FRBNY examiner Jan Voigts wrote that Lehman “intended to use the PDCF as both a backstop, and business opportunity.” With respect to the Freedom securitization in particular, Voigts wrote that Lehman saw the PDCF

"as an opportunity to move illiquid assets into a securitization that would be PDCF eligible. They [Lehman] also noted they intended to create 2 or 3 additional PDCF eligible securitizations. We avoided comment on the securitization but noted the firm’s intention to use the PDCF as an opportunity to finance assets they could not finance elsewhere."

Thus, the FRBNY was aware that Lehman viewed the PDCF as an opportunity to finance its repackaged illiquid corporate loans. The Examiner’s investigation has not determined whether the FRBNY also understood that these Freedom-style securitizations were never intended for sale on the broader market. In response to a question from FRBNY analyst Patricia Mosser on whether Voigts knew “if they [Lehman] intend to pledge to triparty or PDCF,” Voigts replied that the Freedom CLO was “created with the PDCF in mind.”

Recall that Jan Voigts, who was an Examining Officer in the FRBNY's bank supervision department, was woefully unaware of Lehman's Repo 105, as in the words of the Examiner, he had "no knowledge of Lehman removing assets from its balance sheet at or near quarter-end via a repo trade." Voigts disclosure that Lehman intended to use the PDCF as both a backstop and business opportunity" comes from a letter to none other than Tim Geithner from April 9. What is hilarious is that while the FRBNY itself acknowledges that merely the first part of the use of the PDCF, namely the use of the facility as a liquidity backstop, "could encourage risky behavior", thereby introducing "moral hazard" issues, the second part, i.e., the use of the PDCF as a "business opportunity" screams of gross FRBNY negligence when it comes to eliminating any risk on part of the borrower, explicitly guaranteed by taxpayer funds. And Tim Geithner was all too aware of not just this, but of Lehman's lack of public disclosure of this very critical component to its ongoing business model.

Yet after milking the PDCF for all it was worth, suddenly Lehman got cold feet, as it realized that there is a stigma effect associated with being seen as needing this very last recourse in the lender of last resort's toolkit.

Lehman complained internally, and to the FRBNY, about the stigma attached to PDCF borrowing. In an internal e-mail, Lehman personnel appeared to view the PDCF as a net negative, writing that Lehman could not use it due to its “stigma,” owing to the fact that “should the Fed disclose the [PDCF] borrowers, it would likely further damage confidence in the institutions that tapped the facilities.” Yet, at the same time, Lehman personnel suggested that the mere existence of FRBNY facilities forced Lehman to “quell rumors and bad press,” presumably regarding whether Lehman was suffering liquidity problems or was forced to access the PDCF. Tonucci also complained of the stigma, elevating his concerns to the FRBNY. Tonucci relayed the rumor to the FRBNY, which he attributed to Standard & Poor’s, that “usage of the PDCF would cause [the rating agency] to change [Lehman’s] outlook from stable to negative.”

Here we uncover yet another stunner: in order to validate whether or not the last statement above was true, the FRBNYs Brian Peters notified the FRBNY's infamous Steven Manzari, notorious for his involvement in AIG disclosuregate, which already got Tim Geithner in hot water before Congress, that he had spoken to S&P's Diane Hinton, who had told him that the rumor was "not at all" true. This brings a whole slew of questions: how often does the Fed discuss rating criteria and policy with the rating agencies? Does the Fed exert pressure when S&P or Moody's determines a given rating? Is the Fed instrumental in "nudging" a rating agency to raise or lower a rating, as then-Tim Geithner/Ben Bernanke and now Bill Dudley/Ben Bernanke so desire? Obviously, with the fate of Greece tied to Moody's one notch downgrade, this question could not have come at a more opportun time.

Yet despite posturing about worries of being stigmatized, Lehman had really no qualms about pleding Freedom CLO as collateral to the FRBNY, and to US taxpayers. And not only that, but it once again materially misrepresented its liquidity needs and actual internal operations, the Examiner finds. Hey SEC: how much more blatant does it get?

Lehman drew on the PDCF facility sparingly prior to its bankruptcy. Lehman accessed the PDCF seven times in the liquidity stress period that followed the Fed-brokered sale of Bear Stearns to JPMorgan. Both internally, and to third parties, Lehman characterized these draws as “tests,” although witnesses from the FRBNY have stated that these were not strictly “tests,” but instances in which Lehman drew upon the facility for liquidity purposes.

After demonstrating a valiant effort in going after "psychics" and enforcing regulations when the amount of money involved is a few hundred thousands dollars (or less), The Scam Enrichment Cabal becomes very quiet when the perpetrator is someone who over the past several decades made over half a billion dollars based on repeated and gross misrepresentation and lies to the public. No, in this case the SEC is very much silent. One wonders just how complicit the SEC's Chris Cox and Mary Schapiro have been in all of this?

The above, in a nutshell, describes Lehman's repeated criminal misrepresentation to both investors, and the Fed's misrepresentation to taxpayers, about both Lehman's involvement in government backstopped programs, its intent in doing so, and the collateral the Fed would accept. We would certainly be more lenient on the Fed if it had indeed done some homework and realized the true value of Lehman collateral, which as is about to be shown, was in fact worthless.

3. The Fed's Criminal Negligence In Performing Any Collateral Diligence

Going back to the beginning, this whole debate would have been a moot point had the Fed done at least a little diligence to determine if the Lehman collateral in question was in compliance with the original PDCF terms of accepting only "investment grade" assets; if instead of blindly following the massively corrupt rating agency doctrine, the Fed's hundreds of overpaid analysts had done at least one hour worth of work; if the Fed had felt even a modest sense of fiduciary oblgiation to US taxpayers, to whom, much more so than Wall Street, it is supposed to be responsible.

This is not what happened.

In fact, what did happen, is that when Lehman attempted to use the Freedom CLO as collateral with Citi a few months down the line, it was classified as "bottom of the barrel" and "junk."

In early August, Lehman offered Citi the Kingfisher, Freedom, Spruce and Verano CLOs – recently rated tranches of asset-backed securities that were backed by corporate loans and structured by Lehman – as collateral in connection with the pledge agreement. Cornejo was concerned about Citi’s reaction to Lehman proposing these assets as collateral and, according to Mauerstein, Lehman was not surprised when Citi ultimately rejected the CLOs as collateral. Citi personnel characterized the CLOs offered by Lehman in connection with the pledge negotiations as “bottom of the barrel” and “junk.”

There is far more but this is more than sufficient.

4. Total And Criminal Abdication Of Responsibility From Everyone

In conclusion what else can be said that the Fed was grossly irresponsible in its fiduciary obligation to US taxpayers, whose money it used to fund collateral which another bank (which itself would shortly need to be bailed out by taxpayers as well), made it all too clear that the Fed was playing Russian roulette with worthless assets, and admitting these to the PDCF, which at least on paper, was limited to quality collateral. The Fed basically lied to everyone, while behind the scenes allowing not just worthless collateral to be pledged, but worked in complicity with Lehman's management to misrepresent the true state of the firm's financial affairs. The Fed also conspired with rating agencies, and possibly was even instrumental in forcing the rating agencies to produce a credible threat of a major downgrade to Lehman, in order to accelerate the firm's death. Dick Fuld, in the meantime, was also willfully aware of financial misrepresentations, and that he was in violation of SEC reporting requirements, yet that did not stop him from repeatedly perverting the true nature of his PDCF involvements. And lastly, one may ask, where the fuck was the SEC in all of this? Aside from surely lamenting the fact that its only has a $1 billion budget a year, and engrossed in transvestite porn, did the agency do any work to figure out just how the common US investors was getting raped from all sides pretty much throughout 2008, and very likely, continuing to date?

ZeroHedge

My Zimbio

Observen minuciosamente a esta "parejita", piensen en el historial de ambas, y luego saquen sus propias conclusiones


Otro post en que aparece miserable de la derecha, Hugo Cancio:
http://www.octaviodilewis.com/2010/03/entrevista-al-jefe-del-epc-ejercito-del.html

Otro post en que aparece miserable de la izquierda: carnerodenal Ortega Alamino:

My Zimbio

Texting and Instant Messaging in Spanish





As I prepared recently to make a presentation about Latin America and the importance of learning Spanish to a bunch of beginning-level seventh- and eighth-grade students, I struggled to come up with topics that middle school kids could relate to. Suddenly, it dawned on me that a great way to keep their interest would be to talk about texting and instant messaging. I pulled together a list of some commonly used abbreviations used in Latin America and now — at the urging of several curious adult friends — am posting them here (needless to say, the kids loved it). Any more to share? Please let me know!







Pq or xq = ¿por qué? or porque



100pre = siempre



grax = gracias



NTP = No Te Preocupes (or sometimes, No Tengo Problema)



Vdd = verdad



Tb = también



Bb = bebe



Cam = cámara






je je je = LOL



KLK (only in the Dominican Republic, I believe) = ¿qué lo que?



TQM or TKM = Te Quiero Mucho








My Zimbio

LA CONSPIRACIÓN CUBANA (CINCO) LOS ROTHSCHILD Y EL BANCO CENTRAL DE NORTEAMÉRICA

En el artículo anterior **, hablábamos de que la estrategia de dominación de los Rothschild se basaba en el control del banco central de una nación para controlar su economía y su gobierno. Así lo hicieron en Inglaterra, Francia, Alemania y Austria, lo que les permitió expandir su poder sobre el resto de Europa y el mundo.

Como es lógico, los Estados Unidos no escapaban a los planes de dominio mundial de los Rothschild, todo lo contrario. Pero, este fue el país donde encontraron la mayor resistencia para imponer su poder dado el rechazo de los norteamericanos a subordinarse a un banco central.

Muchos conspiranoicos ven la mano de los Rothschild tras los todos los intentos de crear un banco central de Norteamérica desde los mismos inicios de la constitución de los EE.UU., esto no fue exactamente así.

Durante y después de la revolución norteamericana, entre los llamados "padres fundadores" hubo grandes contradicciones en torno a la formación de un banco central.

Inglaterra había tratado de poner las 13 colonias de América del Norte bajo el control del Banco de Inglaterra mucho antes de que los Rothschild establecieran su control sobre este. [1] Varios "padres fundadores" de la nación consideraron esto como el "colmo" de la opresión Inglesa que -como, entre otras cosas, el impuesto sobre las importaciones de la melaza cubana- motivó la guerra revolucionaria. [2]

No obstante, otros "padres fundadores" favorecían la creación de un banco central y lograron que, en 1781, el Congreso emitiera una ordenanza para incorporar al Banco de Norteamérica como banco privado nacional que siguiera los pasos del Banco de Inglaterra. [3]

Las funciones del Banco de Norteamérica, el primer banco central de EE.UU., se vieron frustradas debido a las objeciones sobre "alarmantes influencias y favoritismos extranjeros, créditos fraudulentos y la competencia desleal contra los bancos estatales. De manera que, en 1785, la legislatura de Pensilvania derogó la carta de su funcionamiento. [4]

Seis años más tarde, en 1791, Alexander Hamilton, el Secretario de Hacienda, llegó a un acuerdo para apoyar el traslado de la capital desde Nueva York a las orillas del Potomac a cambio de apoyo para su proyecto de banco central. Como resultado, el Primer Banco de los Estados Unidos fue autorizado por el Congreso en ese mismo año.

Muchos acusan a Hamilton de haber sido agente de los Rothschild, sin embargo, estos nada tuvieron que ver en la creación de los dos primeros bancos centrales norteamericanos porque, sencillamente, aún carecían de poder para ello.

En 1791 Nathan Rothschild, con apenas 21 años, se acababa de establecerse en Inglaterra y su padre, Mayer Amschel, aún no había alcanzado la necesaria influencia sobre el príncipe elector Guillermo I de Hesse. [5]

Sin embargo, tan pronto como alcanzaron su ascendencia sobre los bancos centrales más importantes de Europa y, sobre todo, el Banco de Inglaterra, no descansaron hasta hacer lo mismo con Norteamérica.

Ahora bien, desde su inicio, el Primer Banco de Estados Unidos se había convertido en un centro de especulación de divisas y de inestabilidad monetaria. Thomas Jefferson lo vio como un motor para la especulación, la manipulación financiera y la corrupción.[4] Así que el Congreso norteamericano se negó a renovar en 1811 la carta de este Primer Banco de los Estados Unidos. [6]

La negativa a renovar la carta del banco central norteamericano hizo perder millones a Nathan Mayer Rothschild, quién, a la sazón -tras 20 años de manipulaciones bancarias y bursátiles en Londres, respaldado por el poderío de su familia-, ya era el potentado financiero más influyente de Gran Bretaña y estaba en total posición de fuerza. [7]

Mientras se discutía la derogación de la carta del Primer Banco de Norteamérica, Nathan ya había emitido su primera amenaza de "O bien la solicitud de renovación de la Carta se concede, o los Estados Unidos se verá envuelto en la guerra más desastrosa."

No obstante, en Washington, el Congreso se mantuvo firme y la Carta no se renovó.

Nathan, entonces, le exigió al parlamento británico que enseñara "… a esos estadounidenses insolentes una lección. Traedlos de vuelta a la situación colonial".

El Primer ministro inglés, Spencer Perceval, se opuso a las demandas de Nathan Rothschild y, casualmente, el 11 de mayo de 1812, pasó a la historia como el único premier británico en ser asesinado en funciones. [8] Un mes después, sin haber terminado aún el luto por su ultimado primer ministro, el gobierno de su majestad le declaró la guerra a los EE.UU., a pesar de estar más que comprometido en la costosísima conflagración napoleónica y en una profunda crisis económica y social. [9]

Es cierto que, entre los motivos de la guerra de 1812 entre EE.UU. e Inglaterra, están el bloqueo naval británico a Francia, las disputas fronterizas con Canadá, etc. [10] Sin embargo, en el fondo, los intereses de los Rothschild tuvieron un peso fundamental en los acontecimientos.

Y, en definitiva, Nathan Mayer Rothschild vino a ser el gran ganador de la contienda.

La guerra entre EE.UU. y Gran Bretaña terminó en 1814 en una especie de empate. Sin embargo, los EE.UU. habían sufrido grandes pérdidas y la deuda gubernamental se había disparado junto con la inflación.

Por demás, las guerras napoleónicas habían devastado la agricultura europea y los comerciantes norteamericanos estaban ansiosos por llenar el gran abismo de la demanda de alimentos en el viejo continente.

Por todo lo anterior, los mismos que, en 1811, en el Congreso y la Casa Blanca, habían derogaron la carta del banco central de EE.UU., en 1816, se apresuraron a firmar la que establecía la creación del Segundo Banco de Norteamérica. Este, como es lógico, volvió a caer en manos de los Rothschild, ahora, más poderosos aún al emerger de la era napoleónica como la fuerza dominante tras los bancos centrales europeos más importantes y, por tanto, de los gobiernos respectivos. **

Sólo un quinto del capital del Segundo Banco de Norteamérica pertenecía al gobierno federal. El resto provenía mayormente de inversionistas extranjeros. Entre ellos estaba David Parish, agente de los Rothschild en Nueva York. También, todo parece indicar que el presidente del Segundo Banco, Nicholas Biddle, administraba el banco de acuerdo con estos intereses europeos (sobre todo, los de los Rothschild) antes que los norteamericanos. [11]

Finalmente, la especulación desmedida, la corrupción y las presiones económicas sobre los órganos del gobierno norteamericano provocaron que el presidente Andrew Jackson derogara la renovación de la carta del Segundo banco de Norteamérica en 1836. [7]

Ya, en 1832, el presidente Jackson había ordenado al Secretario del Tesoro sacar todos los depósitos de los bancos subsidiarios del Segundo Banco de Norteamérica para depositarlos en los bancos estatales y, en 1835, logró pagar toda la deuda federal por primera y única vez en la historia, lo que independizó al gobierno norteamericano del control de los banqueros angloamericanos. Quizá, ello provocó que fuera el primer presidente norteamericano en sufrir un intento de asesinato en 1835. [12]

La supresión de la carta del Segundo Banco de Norteamérica en 1836 inauguró la llamada era de la "banca libre", durante la cual predominaron bancos autorizados por el estado con el poder de emitir dinero.

La Ley de Michigan de 1837 permitió la autorización automática de los bancos que cumplieran los requisitos sin permisos especiales de las legislaturas estatales. Ello provocó la proliferaron los bancos y lo que se dio en llamar "wildcat banking" o la banca salvaje, acompañada de corrupción, operaciones riesgosas, emisiones anárquicas de dinero, etc. [13]

A pesar de todos los esfuerzos de los poderes bancarios extranjeros y norteamericanos (básicamente de los Rothschild), el presidente John Tyler, en contra de cientos de amenazas de muerte, vetó en 1841 el acta para renovar la carta del Banco de Estados Unidos. Ello selló la suerte del proyecto de banco central norteamericano por lo que restó del siglo XIX. [14]

Aunque quedaron en posición vulnerable sin un banco nacional que velara por sus intereses, los inversionistas extranjeros vieron una buena oportunidad en los bancos estatales y enviaron sus agentes con el propósito de crear sus propios bancos estatales.

August Belmont, el principal agente de los Rothschild en los EE.UU., estableció un gran banco en New York y un buen número de otros bancos estatales en el sur. Los Rothschild y otros inversionistas europeos, así, hacían préstamos a los bancos estatales con altísimos intereses y controlaban las decisiones sobre los préstamos. [11]

Muchos bancos estatales buscaron su financiamiento con la emisión de bonos que, la larga, fueron repudiados por la dificultad que muchos bancos, sobre todo sureños, al reembolso de su costo.

Los Rothschilds y los otros grupos financieros extranjeros compraron los repudiados bonos de los estados del sur y presionaron para que el gobierno federal obligara a estos estados a pagar las reclamaciones en disputa. También, forzaron al gobierno federal a asumir las deudas de los bancos estatales del sur como obligaciones federales. Ello caldeó la cuestión de los "derechos de los estados" frente a una "autoridad central fuerte", convirtiéndose, entre otros muchos asuntos candentes, en el epicentro de la crisis nacional que condujo a la guerra civil estadounidense. [11]

Entre febrero y marzo de 1862, y marzo de 1863, para pagar el galopante costo de la Guerra Civil, el presidente Abraham Lincoln recibió la aprobación del Congreso para recaudar un préstamo del público de $ 450 millones mediante la venta de los llamados greenbacks (bonos o "billetes verdes"), .

Los "billetes verdes" no se podrían canjear hasta 1865, cuando tres podrían ser cambiados por uno de plata. Aún así, sobrevivieron a su propósito originario y se transformaron en moneda de curso legal completo en 1879.

Con la creación de los "billetes verdes" Lincoln resolvió la crisis monetaria de Estados Unidos sin la ayuda de los Banqueros Internacionales, lo que le ganó los más peligrosos enemigos. [11]

El Times de Londres -reflejando los sentimientos en la City, el cuartel general de los Rothschild- dijo entonces sobre "billetes verdes" de Lincoln que "Si esa malévola política financiera que tuvo su origen en la República de América del Norte durante la última guerra en ese país, se vuelve empedernida hasta ser permanente, a continuación, el Gobierno creará su propio dinero sin costo. Así, pagará sus compromisos y se quedará sin deuda alguna. Entonces, alcanzará una prosperidad sin precedentes en la historia de los gobiernos civilizados del mundo. El cerebro y la riqueza de todos los países se irá a América del Norte. Ese gobierno debe ser destruido o destruirá todas las monarquías en el mundo". [11]

Años más tarde, Bismarck, el canciller alemán, dijo acerca de Lincoln:

"Obtuvo del Congreso el derecho de pedir prestado a los ciudadanos mediante la venta a los" bonos "de los Estados... y el Gobierno y la nación escaparon a las parcelas de los financieros extranjeros. Ellos entendieron a la vez, que los Estados Unidos escaparían a su control. La muerte de Lincoln fue decretada. " [11]

Tras el (para muchos inevitable) asesinato de Lincoln, el Congreso aprobó la Ley de Financiación de 12 de abril 1866 en un intento de retirar los "billetes verdes" o greenbacks que había emitido para financiar los esfuerzos del norte en la Guerra Civil Americana. Esto abrió la opción para autorizar los bancos a nivel nacional pero también, redujo grandemente la liquidez de la nación.

Como un incentivo adicional para que los bancos a se sometieran a la supervisión federal, en 1865, el Congreso había comenzado a gravar los billetes de los bancos estatales (también llamados "letras de crédito" o "vales") a una tasa estándar del 10%, lo que alentó a muchos bancos estatales a convertirse en nacionales.

Sin embargo, los bancos estatales respondieron con la adopción generalizada de las cuentas de depósito o cheques que constituyeron la principal fuente de ingresos para muchos bancos. Este "sistema bancario dual" de bancos estatales y nacionales condujo a una especie de anarquía bancaria en medio del pujante crecimiento industrial que provocó la proliferación de bancos comerciales a partir de las décadas de 1860. [15]

En medio de todo este movimiento, llega JP Morgan en 1857 a New York y funda una filial del banco londinense de su padre, Junus Morgan, viejo agente de los Rothschild.***

Con una ferocidad y un talento financieros y comerciales insuperables, y respaldado por el poderío económico de los Rothschild, Morgan -enemigo de la competencia al igual que Rockefeller- se lanzó a la conquista de Norteamérica.

J.P. Morgan aprovechó, cuando no provocó, diversas crisis y pánicos financieros, ya fueran sectoriales como nacionales, para apoderarse de ramas enteras de la economía en bancarrota y eliminar la competencia. De esta forma, Morgan llegó a dominar literalmente la banca, los ferrocarriles, la industria metalúrgica y la naciente industria eléctrica, entre otras.

No es casualidad que las tres grandes crisis económicas de 1873, 1893 y 1907 estuvieran relacionadas con las especulaciones en ferrocarriles (de los cuales Morgan llegó a convertirse en el zar casi absoluto) y que fuera precisamente la compañía de Morgan la que viniera a salvar la economía norteamericana al invertir masivamente en bonos del gobierno y al hacer fluir grandes cantidades de oro de Europa a EE.UU. [16]

Gracias al colosal apoyo financiero de los Rothschild, como explicamos en artículos anteriores de este blog, Morgan logró alcanzar el ascendiente casi absoluto sobre la banca y la economía norteamericana, actuando en 1893 y 1907 como literal banco central de los EE.UU. [15] Ello motivó a Lord Rothschild a enviarle su más calurosa expresión de "admiración y respeto" a Morgan, en tanto que su más caro representante en los EE-UU. [17]

Sin embargo, Morgan comprendió que, a pesar del inmenso respaldo de los Rothschild, jamás podría acometer el dominio financiero total sobre los Estados Unidos si no entraba en alianza con su más encarnizado competidor, el hombre más rico de América, John D. Rockefeller.

Por su parte, sobre todo tras la desintegración de su monopolio petrolero de la Standard Oil***, los Rockefeller reconocieron que no podían controlar la economía y el gobierno de los EE.UU. si no se aliaban al mayor poder financiero del planeta, la casa de los Rothschild.

Tanto los Rockefeller como los Morgan y los Rothschild sabían que los pánicos y crisis financieras eran el terreno propicio para, con su descomunal liquidez, manipular la economía en su conjunto a favor de sus intereses.

Las crisis de 1893 y 1907 les dieron a Morgan y a Rockefeller, después de más de un siglo de luchas políticas y económicas, la oportunidad de legitimizar la necesidad de un banco central estadounidense que les diera el control sobre la economía y el gobierno norteamericanos.

Sin embargo, dado el rechazo generalizado en Norteamérica a los bancos centrales, debieron enmascaras al suyo bajo el disfraz "oficial" de la Reserva Federal de los EE.UU.

En próximos capítulos, veremos cómo el sistema de la Reserva Federal puso la economía de EE.UU. y el presupuesto de su gobierno bajo el control de los mayores magnates bancarios y, sobre todo, de los Rockefeller y los Rothschild.

La alianza con J.P. Morgan y los Rothschild, como veremos en los artículos siguientes, le dará a los Rockefeller acceso a la cúpula del poder financiero mundial. Ello le permitirá a John D. Junior y sus descendientes influir decisivamente en la economía y la política tanto de los Estados Unidos como del resto del mundo.

La ascendencia de John D. Junior sobre los asuntos mundiales será heredada por su hijo David, el actual cabeza de la familia Rockefeller.

Finalmente, descubriremos que la larga relación de David Rockefeller con Fidel Castro está profundamente relacionada con el liderazgo financiero y político mundial del clan Rockefeller en coalición, fundamentalmente, con la casa de los Rothschild.

NOTAS

*En el artículo anterior, por errores de las fuentes utilizadas, dije que Meyer Amschel Rothschild había hecho su fortuna escamoteando los salarios de los mercenarios hesianos alquilados por Guilllermo I de Hesse a los ingleses para sus guerras coloniales, lo que hubiera ayudado a la victoria de Washington. Esto es completamente incierto, lo que redunda en honor del general norteamericano. Lo cierto es que las tropas hesianas estafadas por Rothschild fueron las que los ingleses utilizaron en sus guerras napoleónicas. Discúlpenme mis lectores por esta inexactitud. Los cierto es que los Rothschild no comenzaron a tener influencia económica y política hasta la era napoleónica. (Ver The Rise of the House ot the Rothschild by Count Egon Caesar Corti, Viena, 1927 p. 27 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/rise_houserothschild.pdf)

** Ver LA CONSPIRACIÓN CUBANA (CUATRO) LOS ROTHSCHILD del 30 de noviembre del 2010

*** Ver LA CONSPIRACIÓN CUBANA (TRES). LOS ROCKEFELLER del 2 de noviembre del 2010

[1] The Currency Act. http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/currencyact.htm

[2] The Revenue Act of 1764, http://www.historycentral.com/revolt/sugart.html

[3] The Bank Of North America. http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Credits-And-Finance/The-Bank-Of-North-America.html

[4] History of central banking in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_central_banking_in_the_United_States

[5] The Rise of the House ot the Rothschild by Count Egon Caesar Corti, Viena, 1927 p. 27 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/archivos_pdf/rise_houserothschild.pdf

[6]America's Forgotten War Against The Central Banks by Mike Hewitt, http://www.financialsensearchive.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2007/1020.html

[7] President Andrew Jackson http://www.scatteredremnant.org/AndrewJackson.pdf

[8] Spencer Perceval http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Perceva

[9] http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/house-of-rothschild-no-one-can-understand-what-has-happened-to-the-planet-without-reading-this/

[10] United States Declares War on Great Britain http://www.historycentral.com/1812/Declares.html

[11] http://www.hermes-press.com/econ1.htm

[12] Trying to Assassinate President Jackson http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/web/20070130-richard-lawrence-andrew-jackson-assassination-warren-r-davis.shtml

[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildcat_banking

[14] http://www.dieweltderwahrheit.de/0BB/SOS/TheRothschildHorrorPictureshow/Eng/1-10PagesSOS/SOS4Monopoly.htm

[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_the_United_States

[16] [17] http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

[17] Bruner, Robert F.; Carr, Sean D. (2007), The Panic of 1907: Lessons Learned from the Market's Perfect Storm, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 9780470152638 citado en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907#CITEREFBrunerCarr2007

Octavio Guerra, Escuela Habana

My Zimbio

BARLOVENTO: The Massacre of Cuban-Chinese

Barlovento is a marina development that flourished before 1959 near Jaimanita Beach northwest of Havana.

When Castro was in need of U.S. dollars to prop-up his regime he converted that area into “Hemingway Marina” which became popular among rich and famous foreigners, including yachting Americans, all of whom find dubious amusements and business deals while spending the coveted U.S. dollars, to this day, oblivious that the blood of innocent civilians taint the waters.

This is the area where U.S. fugitive Robert Vesco lived in luxury on his stolen U.S. dollars until he fell out of favor with Castro (perhaps because he ran out of dollars). He was put in jail under the pretext of some shady pharmaceutical deals with a visiting relative of the late president Richard Nixon who worked for one the powerful pharmaceutical companies in the U.S.

But today, Armando Lago, a Ph. D. in Economics from Harvard University, continues working on his book “CUBA: The Human Cost of Social Revolutions. The Black Book of Cuban Communism,” documenting the deaths caused by Castro’s regime from 1959 to the present. According to Dr. Lago’s ongoing research, the total currently ranges between 90,827 and 102,722 deaths (much higher than the 3,000 attributed to Chile’s Augusto Pinochet).

Every one of the deaths Castro has caused deserves to be documented and presented to the world for its review. But, unfortunately, very few are known to the American public because of the bias and censorship of the U.S. media and academia.

One of the individual incidents has been known only to the Cuban exile community and due to the lack of documentation seemed to be at risk of becoming mere folklore. Dr. Alberto Fibla in his 1996 book in Spanish “Barbarie” (Barbarism) describes this incident on page 36 for the first time. Dr. Fibla, was in prison in Cuba from 1962 to 1988 for opposing Castro’s tyranny.

But, in the course of his exhaustive research, Dr. Lago finally uncovered the documentation of that incident. It was thanks to former political prisoner Ela Castro. When about to be released from prison a fellow inmate gave her a copy of the court sentencing documents of the survivors for her to smuggle out. Ela Castro was then able to smuggle the document out of Cuba when she came to exile in the U.S.

As Dr. Lago worked on a chapter of his book that deals with the crimes perpetrated by Castro’s regime against unarmed civilians who attempt to escape Cuba in boats or makeshift rafts, he decided that now that the credentials are available the story should be told immediately, rather than wait for the release of his book. So he shared the details of the story with me, complete with the names of the victims.

So now, for the first time, the complete story.

On January 15, 1962, the Cuban Coast Guard, following Castro’s standing orders, massacred a group of 29 civilians whose terrible crime, so damaging to Castro’s revolution, was wanting to leave Cuba for the U.S. Among them were eight Cuban-Chinese from the town of Bauta and the neighborhood of Marianao, near that rich-man’s-paradise renamed “Hemingway Marina.”

On that winter night, the group went aboard the 31-foot rented boat “Pretexto” (Pretext) anchored at the marina.

But Castro’s Gestapo-type State Security (SS) was already very well prepared and because of its pervasive web of informants, knew of their plans well in advance and had time to organize a dramatic ambush, rather than peacefully apprehending the participants. Castro’s rule-by-fear depends on bloody spectacles as a deterrent lesson to repress others.

As the boat began to head out of the marina in Channel No. 1, the main deep-water channel, it was abruptly halted by a heavy steel chain that had been strung across the channel.

The refugees looked ahead and saw a Cuban Navy vessel anchored at the entrance of the channel that opened fire on them with 30-caliber machine guns. And from one side, more machine gun fire began, completing a multisided attack.

Since the “Pretexto” was unarmed, it was unable to defend itself.

The result of this cowardly and unjustified attack against 29 unarmed civilians was five dead, including three Cuban-Chinese.

According to the court documents Dr. Lago received, the 24 survivors of this crime were sentenced to 20 years in prison in the Judicial Docket (Causa) No. 60 of 1962 by the Revolutionary Tribunal of La Cabana Fortress. This episode came to be known in the Cuban-exile community as “The Chinese Massacre at Barlovento.”

The names of the five assassinated by Castro’s forces can now be given; they are: Amalia-Cora Corzo, Fernando Gil Garcia, both from the Marianao neighborhood and Cuban-Chinese Lee Suey Chuy, Guan Xi Lui and Yak Yim Pan, all from the town of Bauta.

In addition to Dr. Fibla’s book mention, the second source for Dr. Lago’s report is the Revolutionary Tribunal of the Revolutionary District of Havana; the Judge was Vicente Alvarez Crespo in Judicial Docket (Causa) No. 60 of 1962, July 4, 1962, pp 1-2.

This case at Barlovento Marina – now the bloody waters of the “Hemingway Marina” - was not the first or the last incident in the sad history. There are many more cases. Among the most infamous cases are at the Canimar River in the province of Matanzas on July 6, 1980 where 11 unarmed civilians died and the July 13, 1994 sinking of the "13 of March” tugboat outside the waters of the Bay of Havana in which 41 unharmed civilians (men and women) lost their lives along with 12 innocent children.

Dr. Lago, in his incoming book, will document these and other cases. Hopefully this book will not be ignored by the U.S. media and academia as they did with “THE BLACK BOOK OF COMMUNISM: Crimes Terror Repression” published in French in 1997 and translated to English by Harvard University Press (October, 1999). But it seems that while the Nazi crimes are still publicized to this day, the crimes of the communists are being systematically ignored.

It is very revealing indeed of the U.S. media and academia, but what can the purpose of their avoidance of the truth of Communism be? After Castro falls and Cuba hopefully becomes a free and democratic country, many of those guilty in this cover-up will have to answer.

The right to leave and return to any country is guaranteed by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. And Cuba is a signatory of this document. But, as usual, Castro’s signature means nothing since his regime has been systematically violating this right and so many others since 1959.

by Agustín Blázquez and Jaums Sutton
AmigosPais-Guaracabuya

My Zimbio

Tips for Healthy Travel and Accommodation in Nepal



From Bhaktapur Durbar Square to Lumbini, Nepal is a country of historical beauty and sacred meaning.  Cities and ancient architecture intertwine to create an experience that will bring visitors back for more.  A trip to Nepal is unlike any other.  The country is unique and brimming with culture and history.  But while you enjoy all that Nepal has to offer, be sure to keep you and your loved ones safe.

Around the world, many homes and buildings were and still are constructed using a natural mineral called asbestos. Used because of its fire and heat-resistant qualities, asbestos was considered a miracle. That was, until the world discovered the truth.

When the dry wall and insulation that contain asbestos are disturbed, fibers are released into the air. If inhaled, these fibers can cause a deadly lung cancer. Symptoms of mesothelioma are subtle and include shortness of breath and heaviness in the chest area. Because of a 20-50 year latency period, mesothelioma is often misdiagnosed, confused with more common, more treatable illnesses.

Mesothelioma symptoms  often don’t present themselves in obvious ways until the cancer has metastasized, making treatment either difficult or impossible. General life expectancy of mesothelioma victim is less than a year.

But asbestos isn't the only poison that older buildings may contain. Lead can be found in pipes, soil, paints, and even dust. Through swallowing or inhaling lead particles, those that work or live with these sorts of materials are susceptible to poisoning. Lead poisoning may result in loss of memory, damage to reproductive organs, and digestive problems in adults. It can lead to weight loss, developmental damage and hearing loss in children.

So, when traveling to Nepal, and to any other destination around the world, be sure to check with hotels and other accommodations for asbestos and lead contamination information. Be careful allows a better trip and a better shot at a long, healthy life.

Source: - 
Matthew Phillips via email.... (Big thanks for him for informing us about such an important issue)

My Zimbio

Amalfi Drive Italy

If you really want the thrill and want to view the beauty of nature then Amalfi Drive is the stretch that you can never afford to miss. The Stretch of the Amalfi Drive is next to the coastline of Sorrento and is known for its beauty. This is a one way road and thus experiences a lot of traffic. While on your way to the Amalfi, one would pass through Pasitano, which is a place that is close to the mountains, and you can view the sea on the other end. On the way there are a lot of villages also.
The life in Amalfi is very active and busy. That is the reason a lot of time is consumed if one wants to just cross the streets next to the harbor or go uphill. While going uphill can be big fun, coming down is not very interesting as it does not offer much as the path is extremely narrow. The best part to do in places like Amalfi is to find out places that are not meant for visitors as in some interiors, hence difficult to locate however, offer better and more personalized services.

Tourists can also go in for a boat ride along the harbor. The view from the water to the mountain is just splendid. Tourists must plan how to go to this place if hiring taxies or going by buses because the parking space in Amalfi Drive is so narrow, the buses have a specific time slot of entry and exit. One can hire a private Limousine with an English speaking driver who would drive you along the coast. The place has some worth restaurants that offer seafood to seafood lovers.

Many beach towns are located on the Amalfi Coast, including Vietri sul Mare, Cetara, Maiori, Minori, Ravello, Scala, Atrani, Amalfi, Conca dei Marini, Furore, Praiano and Positano.

Amalfi Drive
Amalfi Drive
Amalfi Drive
Amalfi Drive

Amalfi Drive Video

My Zimbio

VIDEO: The Last Days of the Diablo Rojo, Panama City's Legendary Bus




The Diablo Rojo, Panama City's legendary bus system, is in its final days.




Panama City is a fast-growing Central American metropolis where skyscrapers seem to rise in the blink of an eye. And as this Central American hotspot continues to modernize, it’s about to say goodbye to its most colorful form of mass transit: The Diablo Rojo, or red Devil bus.





In this exclusive VIDEO, LatinFlyer shows you some stunning examples of these amazing vehicles, which are actually former U.S. school buses. You'll also get a peek at what's happening in Panama City that's going to change it all — and bring an end to the legendary Diablo Rojo.










My Zimbio

Sargenteria y asalariados


La heroina de pacotilla Perez escribe una diatriba contra Obama, la misma que no tuvo la verguenza de escribir contra Bush, igual o peor aun que Obama, porque sus patrones eran cheerleaders de los Bush.

El infame Bush, que fue el que hubo de encausar a Posada Carriles, que no tuvo reparos en deportar mas balseros que nadie, que incluso no tuvo dudas en cuanto a ordenar el asesinato de balseros, que se reunia todas las semanas con la pandilla castrista en la Base Naval de Guantanamo, etc, etc, etc, lo cual no denuncio la farsante de marras porque quienes pagaban el salario de ella eran los sargentos politicos de los Bush, por no decir algo peor.

Esa farsante, sus patrones y comparsa, no tienen para mi la mas minima credibilidad, y lo que digan me vale gorro, como dicen aqui. De toda esa gente tenemos expedientes muy nutridos para cuando llegue la hora del juicio.

La diatriba de la farsante asalariada, Perez, se la merece Obama, que es tan titere de la plutocracia procastrista como el amado de los cipayos de marras, pero le pegaba igual o mas a los Bush, que de conjunto gobernaron cerca de decada y cuarto (tres periodos presidenciales) este pais, y no hicieron nada para ayudar a los cubanos a liberarse de la pandilla castrista, todo lo contrario, su mas notable performance fue perseguir a los patriotas cubanos mas peligrosos para la tirania castrista, pero la farsante de marras no denuncio a Bush, no podia porque sus patrones eran cheerleaders del referido; no tienen verguenza, pero lo pagaran, no habra impunidad para los traidores a la patria, por mucha verborrea que se gasten (igual que el tirano Castro) para encubrir sus crimenes, su condicion de cipayos, su cobardia y su desfachatez.

Claro, Obama y Clinton son tan titeres de la plutocracia procastrista como los Bush, para mi todos deben colocarse en el mismo saco y son iguales de conspiradores y prevaricadores contra la libertad de los cubanos, y a favor del secuestro de nuestra isla por parte de la pandilla castrista.

Y salio otra asalariada, Curra (ya no Perez), a defender a sus patrones, a los cheerleaders de los Bush. Yo no intercambio con los empleados de la sargenteria politica de los Bush; jamas he cobrado un sueldo a costas de la tragedia de Cuba, por tanto no me voy a rebajar a la categoria de los asalariados de la tragedia de Cuba.

En mi blog hay cientos de articulos en los que ataco no a vividores y arrimados, sino directamente a la pandilla castrista, a sus complices, a los presidentes complices de la tirania, y hasta al papa. Con los de baja ralea lo mas que me puedo gastar es un comentario tangencial, mi bronca es con el amo, no con su perro.

De este modo mi punto queda expresado. Cuando empece a denunciar a traidores y farsantes solo me seguian mis fraternos, ahora son miles los que saben quien es quien y cientos los que escriben articulos con verdades similares a las por mi expresadas. Los que quieran seguir en el parroquialismo, ese es su problema. Adorando heroes de pacotilla y lideres de oropel encontraran lo que merecen.

Solo por esta vez no voy a ignorar a la asalariada de los cheerleaders, voy a romper la regla de no rebajarme a intercambiar con el personal de servicio de los cheerleaders solo de modo excepcional, para decir varias cosas que debo.

Contra la empleada (Curra) nunca he tenido nada, ella lo sabe desde el principio. Ella es la que siempre me ataca para defender a esa gente que desprecio, que son o han sido sus patrones, y yo lo que hago es defenderme.

No entro para nada en contenciosos con damas finas, y con las otras tampoco, a menos que no me quede otro remedio. 

Curra fue amiga por mucho tiempo, coincidimos presos en Villa Maristas durante un tiempo considerable, su hermano Ivan Curra estuvo preso conmigo y con otro reo durante alrededor de un mes en la misma celda tapiada de Villa Maristas hasta que fuimos cambiados a otras celdas, el hijo de ella era como mi sobrino y asi se lo demostre en afecto y atenciones desde que andaba en un cochecito recien nacido, cada vez que nos encontrabamos en actividades anticastristas. Asi mismo le decia yo: sobrino.

Participamos juntos muchas veces Pablo, Cuellar, ella, yo y otros, haciendo contracandela a los castristas de Miami en dondequiera que aparecian, valientemente, porque ellos siempre nos superaban en numero de forma amplia, dado que nosotros eramos espontaneos y ellos eran acarreados por el regimen castrista debido a una amplia gama de razones, desde negocios con el castrato hasta probablemente chantaje.

Participe a favor de Obama para castigar la infamia de Bush, como participe a favor de Bush para castigar la infamia de Clinton, no en funcion de arrastrarme como hicieron con Bush algunos desertores de la fundacion, el miliciano y comparsa; a diferencia de ellos yo siempre he sido un rebelde y no me le arrastro a nadie.

A excepcion de tres o cuatro meses, a mi llegada al exilo, que trabaje en el negocio de mi tio y luego repartiendo pizas a domicilio en dos tiendas diferentes combinadas en dos jornadas de trabajo (16 hora diarias), jamas he sido empleado de nadie en Estados Unidos o Europa. Luego ya todo fue por mi cuenta, empece como asociado en un negocio de telecomunicaciones con el italovenezolano Gentilini, luego como socio de mi hermosa y querida boricua Gladys, y de ahi al campo de las inversionies y las finanzas hasta hoy. Jamas he cobrado un cheque que tenga que ver o con politica o con mi causa por la libertad de Cuba. Me lo ofrecio mi amigo Machado en Radio Marti una vez (era un procedimiento de rutina alli) y le respondi rotundamente que no.


No quiero humillar a Curra, pero ya que me esta atacando para defender a sus patrones le pregunto si ella puede jurar ante una corte lo mismo.

No puedo haber sido empleado de sargenteria nunca, como he dicho arriba, primero porque no he sido empleado de nadie y, segundo, al mismo Bush que ayude luego le di hasta con el cubo cuando traiciono mi causa, la de la libertad de Cuba, y despues he hecho lo mismo con Obama; acabo de decir en un articulo anterior, y tambien en este, que Obama es tan titere de la plutocracia procastrista como Clinton y los Bush.

Ojala que Curra fuera todavia una luchadora por la libertad de Cuba, o que lo haya sido realmente alguna vez; creo que si alguna vez lo ha sido la ha opacado su cercania a tanto mediocre y a tanto farsante; dice nada mas y nada menos que el problema de Cuba es de los cubanos, como dicen sus patrones pasados y/o presentes. No me explico, entonces, lo que pintaban sus patrones lamiendo el trasero de Bush. Claro que el problema de Cuba es de los cubanos, pero de los cubanos patriotas de verdad que si van a la Casa Blanca es a exijir que se cumpla la ley de Estados Unidos y se criminalice a los Castro, no de los vividores, los arrimados y los farsantes, que lo que iban era a lamerle el trasero a los Bush y a buscar tomarse fotos con el presidente. Eso de que el problema es de los cubanos lo dicen sus patrones para justificar la infamia de los gobiernos norteamericanos contra la libertad de Cuba y a favor del castrato.


Curra pone, para agradar a sus patrones presentes o pasados, la retorica mentirosa e infame de Bush burlandose de Biscet y de los verdaderos luchadores por la libertad de nuestra patria, para cubrirle la cara al lamido por sus patrones, quien fue uno de los gobernantes norteamericanos mas procastristas (eso no lo dice la heroina de oropel apandillada en desproposito con Curra), que encarcelo a Posada Carriles, Mitad, Alvarez, Pujol y otros de nuestros patriotas mas peligrosos para la tirania castrista, que deporto mas balseros cubanos que nadie, asesinando a algunos, y que mientras exhibia una retorica anticastrista se reunia con la pandilla castrista en la Base Naval de Guantanamo entre otras cosas.

Si, nos toca a los cubanos integros de verdad emparejar la pelea exigiendo la criminalizacion de la tirania castrista como un elemento poderoso de desestablilizacion, de modo que podamos hacer el resto despues de haber tenido en contra de nuestra causa por cinco decadas a los gobiernos norteamericanos, a los sovieticos, a los chinos, a media humanidad, y a nuestros propios traidores, cipayos y farsantes.

Yo no soy un super patriota, solo un cubano que lleva cuatro decadas luchando por la libertad de su patria, perdiendo bienes y arriesgando la integridad fisica, sin jamas haber ganado por ello un salario ni haber recibido ni siquiera un cheque. Me gustaria saber si Curra podria decir lo mismo.

Cuando empece a denunciar a los patrones pasados y/o presentes de Curra le adverti que la bronca no era con ella (ella era solo una empleada), que no se metiera en el medio.

Este tema  se ha hecho largo y no dispongo del tiempo requerido, por tanto voy a parar aqui, escribire un articulo con el resto de lo que tengo que decir, incluyendo la actividad de Curra contra mi persona en funcion de sus patrones, que hasta desde Europa me llegaron las alertas.


Ademas incluire parte del expediente en el que aparecen los pormenores de la investigacion de los elementos puntuales que apuntan a la coloboracion de la heroina de pacotilla, Perez, con el G2 castrista, la destruccion del CUN, la toma de la Coalicion por la seguridad del estado con la ayuda de Perez, el inducir a Mas Canosa a hacer el papelazo de su vida (una teleconferencia nada menos que con el esbirro castrista Hector Castaneda, poco antes de que el sujeto se destapara como seguroso y testificara contra Omar del Pozo y los demas de su causa, a pesar de que muchos de nosotros, desde Cuba y por via de Omar --dentro de la Fundacion-- le habiamos advertido varias veces que dicho sujeto era un esbirro castrista), etc.

Curra ha confesado que es asalariada de los cheerleaders de Bush. A confesion de parte no se necesita mas pruebas. Su tiempo se acabo, se que debe su fidelidad a su salario, la entiendo, esa es su desgracia, la cual lamento.

Curra habla de mis millones, espero que no sea un intento de chivatearme con el Internal Revenue norteamericano o con Hacienda de Europa. Por lo demas, si sus patrones pagan mis impuestos, entonces me importaria un bledo lo que diga; mientras, tales millones podrian encontrarse solo en su mente (yo no tengo cuentas secretas con UBS ni nada por el estilo, aunque tampoco le tengo miedo a las investigaciones del Internal Revenue o de Hacienda), motivado por la envidia probablemente originada en que yo he sido exitoso y nunca he necesitado un salario. Punto final.

Brebe nota: arriba cheerleaders de los Bush, sigan enviando a sus paniaguados a apoyarlos, ello no cambiara el resultado final, tendran que comparecer al juicio y responder por sus traiciones y por sus crimenes contra la libertad de nuestra patria, vivan con eso en mente porque asi va a ser.

A mis amigas y amigos, por favor, no me envien mas mensajes privados sobre este tema, si tienen algo que decir hagan lo que hago yo, expresenlo a pecho limpio, a cara descubierta; no es una reprimenda, solo una recomendacion.

Ojo: estoy evaluando el talante de mis amistades, que se supone superan en cantidad ampliamente a los farsantes.

Hay una sra mayor que solicito mi amistad, Maria Lorenzo, mi amiga Elenita me alerto que era un Caballo de Troya por eso la elimine de mi lista. Probablmente por ello no veo el comentario que me indica mi querida amiga.


En las sociedades hay nodos y ganado amiga, para ser nodo se necesita inteligencia y, esa, no se compra en la farmacia. Tal es mi evalucion de lo que me dices en mensaje privado sobre la anciana de marras. Siento lastima por ella, es todo lo que puedo hacer.

My Zimbio

JFK's own dirty tricks

Fifty years ago this week, Richard Nixon stood uncomfortably on the Capitol's inaugural platform and watched his rival John F. Kennedy being sworn in as president. "We won" the election, Nixon fumed, "but they stole it from us."

Indeed, the dirty tricks that helped defeat Nixon were more devious than merely the ballot-stuffing of political lore. In one of the least-known chapters of 20th-century political history, Kennedy operatives secretly paid off an informant and set in motion a Watergate-like burglary that sabotaged Nixon's campaign on the eve of the election.

It began in the fall of 1960, when the Kennedy campaign spread word that Vice President Nixon had secretly pocketed money from billionaire Howard Hughes, whose far-flung business empire was heavily dependent on government contracts and connections. Reporters for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Time magazine corroborated the allegations, but their editors feared publishing such explosive information in the last days of the tightly fought campaign.

So the Kennedys turned to two crusading liberal columnists, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson, who had been attacking Nixon for the past decade. It was "a journalistic atrocity" to conspire with "the Kennedy hawkshaws to help us get the goods on their opponent," Anderson admitted, but scoring a scoop to destroy Nixon was simply too tempting to pass up.

Anderson dropped by the Washington office of Kennedy lawyer James McInerney. With "a pride that only the diligent investigator can know," Anderson recalled, the Kennedy operative pulled out "a neatly arranged packet which I devoured unceremoniously."

The confidential documents revealed how Hughes had funneled the Nixon family $205,000 (worth about $1.6 million today) using various intermediaries, including one of Nixon's brothers, to disguise the transaction. Later evidence would show that the vice president had personally phoned Hughes to ask for the money, which was used to help Nixon pay for an elegant, 9,000-square-foot Tudor house in Washington with eight bedrooms, six bathrooms, a library, a butler's pantry and a solarium.

How did JFK's campaign obtain this incriminating evidence? By paying the contemporary equivalent of $100,000 to a Los Angeles accountant named Phillip Reiner, one of the Hughes middlemen used to conceal Nixon's role in the deal. Reiner was a Democrat who recently had a falling out with his partners. With his attorney, Reiner had contacted Robert Kennedy, his brother's campaign manager. Soon after, a break-in occurred in the accountant's old office - and the Kennedys suddenly acquired a thick file filled with secret records documenting Nixon's shady deal. (Reiner's estranged partner filed a burglary report with police, but the crime was never solved.)

With hard evidence in hand, the Kennedy camp passed the dirt to Anderson.
News outlets around the country trumpeted the revelations in headlines. The political hit inflicted maximum damage on Nixon and reinforced his conviction that his enemies in the press and politics were out to get him.
Days later, Kennedy was elected president by the narrowest margin in American history to that point. Nixon and his advisers blamed the Hughes scandal. Accurate or not, this perception haunted Nixon for the rest of his public life.

Nixon always believed he was the true winner of the 1960 campaign. He called the Kennedys "the most ruthless group of political operators ever mobilized" and said they "approached campaign dirty tricks with a roguish relish" that "overcame the critical faculties of many reporters."

Indeed, the mysterious break-in to recover Nixon's incriminating financial documents convinced him that such burglaries were standard practice in national politics. Nixon vowed that he would never be caught unprepared again, and he ultimately established his own corps of hard-nosed operatives to carry out espionage and sabotage, which culminated in the botched break-in a dozen years later at the Watergate office of the Democratic Party.

A half-century afterward, Washington still lives with the residue of the Kennedys' little-known dirty trick, which helped unleash our modern scandal culture and continues to influence politics and media today.
Mark Feldstein, a professor of media and public affairs at George Washington University, is the author of "Poisoning the Press: Richard Nixon, Jack Anderson, and the Rise of Washington's Scandal Culture."

My Zimbio

DISCLAIMER

WARNING: This blog is absolutely not for profit or for commercial use, however it could provide free information concerning business knowledge.

WARNING: The content of this blog is not an offer or solicitation in any jurisdiction

WARNING: By sending Newsletters or any E-mail to us, Sender is authorizing us to publish the related content in this blog.

CONTENT (Very Important): Most of the content displayed on this blog is provided by Newsletters and E-Mails sent to us by several sources. If someone does not agree that a content of his authorship is published in our blog please notify us and it will immediately be withdrawn.

WARNING: This warning is valid for each page of this website. Powered by Dr. Octavio Dilewis, chairman of Dilewis Global Holdings Company & Companies; DHC is a Florida corp. since 1997: Global Investments, Financial Engineering And Asset Protection. Monaco, London, Panamá, Madrid, Andorra, Gibraltar, Bombay, Hong Kong, Key Biscayne, New York... Dr. Octavio Dilewis, Chairman, President & CEO; Attorney, Financial Analyst, Global Investor...

Copyright © 1997-2011 Dr. Octavio Dilewis. No rights reserved. By accessing this site, reader is authorized to redistribute the info provided by us herein. Other people rights would be observed, as we do, upon notice...

DISCLAIMER: All info and/or links provided for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Neither DGHC & Companies nor its officers or employees are liable for any information errors, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein, or in reliance on the content of any statement or link found herein. The content of this blog does not constitute an offer in any state, country or other jurisdiction where such offer is not permitted.

Reader is not to construe the content set forth herein as financial, legal, or tax advice. Investments involve financial risks which should be carefully considered.

All of the information posted here are for informational purposes only, and is not a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any securities, nor a solicitation of investment funds or placement. All of the information do not represent the policies of any bank, financial institution, lender or investor, is not intended as a confirmation of any transaction, and does not consist of any legal, securities related or tax related advice.

My Zimbio

Blog Archive

Followers