Jumat, 29 Juli 2011

the Obamas vs Congress can be in two or three possibilities matters:>> SEC Rips Wall Street For Fraud, Abuse..>> Presidents and Their Debt: From FDR To Obama>>“At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.” As of June, once the national debt passed $13 trillion mark the Obama administration had increased the debt by $3.398 trillion in just 710 days. ..>>..Republican disarray and Democrat gloating is not a recipe for solving the US debt crisis and heading off financial turmoil ...>>..US debt ceiling deal talks – as it happened>>>


SEC Rips Wall Street For Fraud, Abuse

Posted by Wealth Wire - Thursday, July 28th, 2011
Yesterday the SEC issued a scathing report stemming from a broad review of Wall Street firms’ sales of structured products to their retail customers. After its comprehensive study, the SEC staff concluded that the Street was rife with “fraud and abusive sales practices” as well as faulty training and lax supervision. 
Specifically, the SEC has found that the firms: 
§         recommended unsuitable structured products to their customers;
§         omitted material facts about the structured products they pitched;
§         engaged in questionable sales practices; and
§         treated their customers unfairly in secondary-market sales, including charging outsized commissions
For years we have been warning investors about the dangers of these opaque derivatives with their catchy names, exotic benchmarks, hidden commissions and shaky issuers.  Now it appears the federal regulators have reached the same conclusion many of our clients learned the hard way: Wall Street’s creativity in separating investors from their money knows no bounds!
Analyzing an early 20th-century bout with another brand of ruinous “financial innovation,” the renowned economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote, “If there must be madness something may be said for having it on a heroic scale.”  Apparently Wall Street agrees, since Bloomberg now reports that following a brief slowdown in the wake of Lehman’s failure, the sales of structured products in the U.S. reached a record $25.3 billion in the first half of 2011, an increase of 14%.
Whether your brokerage firm is pitching reverse convertibles (products that offer tempting upside but turn, pumpkin-like, into a company’s shares if the stock tanks), so-called “principal protection notes” (ask the Lehman noteholders about that one) or whatever Wall Street’s mad scientists cook up next, buyer beware...

Presidents and Their Debt: From FDR To Obama

Posted by Mike Tirone - Friday, July 22nd, 2011
With the National debt of large concern recently and the debt ceiling debates continuing, many want to see the figures as to what President Barack Obama has done toward the US National Debt. Last year it was reported that Obama added more to National Debt in his first 19 months than all U.S. presidents through Ronald Reagan combined with an increase of $2.5260 trillion. That is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S presidents from George Washington through Reagan. From CNSnews.com,
“At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.”
As of June, once the national debt passed $13 trillion mark the Obama administration had increased the debt by $3.398 trillion in just 710 days. The fiscally conservative community is calling for Obama's head as unemployment and inflation continue to hammer the current economy. But lest we not learn from our past presidents and see that debt is practically ingrained in our history. As famed author H.W. Brands said, “Since George Washington, presidents have embraced public debt as an investment in America's future.”

Ronald Reagan:
Start of presidency 1981: US National Debt $997.8 billion
End of presidency 1989: US National Debt $2.1 trillion
Reagan began his presidency with a federal deficit of 2.5% of national economy and ended his two terms with that number doubling to 5%. Just four months into his presidency, Reagan told Congress that high taxes and big spending made the present economic mess and that doing the same won't get the U.S. out of their struggle. That moment cemented Reaganomics and our current economics woes. The Democrats that fell at Reagan's feet has to take their “spend and tax” methods and jump on board the “spend and borrow” Republicanism. To defeat former Vice President Walter Mondale in the 1984 election, Reagan's chief of staff passed him a note. On the note read “Taxes are a big picture issue. If we want to win – and win big – the exigencies of the election force us to solemnly swear that Mondale is the tax increase candidate and Reagan is the no-tax-increase candidate.” The note ended by saying after Reagan get re-elected, he could do whatever he pleased with the generalizations like the deficit. Interestingly enough previous Vice President Dick Cheney said that politically Reagan showed that deficits don't actually matter. Reagan proved that by running up more debt than any prior president and easily won re-election.

Franklin D. Roosevelt:
Start of presidency 1933: US National Debt $22.5 billion
End of presidency 1945: US National Debt $258.5 billion
Our only president elected to more than two terms and the man behind the New Deal many conservatives consider the “tax and spend” policies that lead to incredible fiscal misery. As David Kennedy says, “Yes, Roosevelt was a bold and visionary innovator who substantially rewrote the American social contract [with his signing of Social Security into law in 1935]. But the Beelzebub of the Budget he was not.” Roosevelt was a stubborn fiscal conservative yet was always compared to former president Herbert Hoover's deficit, which he exceeded twice (1934, '36) after the New Deal. In 1936, Roosevelt had the largest absolute deficit of $4.4 billion, or 5.3% of Gross National Product (with help from a overlooked Roosevelt veto from Congress for Bonus Bill $2 billion for World War II vets.) The Roosevelt Recession followed as he produced an austerity budget which drastically reduced government spending and the economy crumbled; unemployment ballooned to 19% from 14% and generated deficits reached nearly 30% of G.N.P.

Lyndon Johnson:
Start of presidency 1963: US National Debt $306 billion
End of presidency 1969: US National Debt $353 billion
LBJ had a lot of issues to deal with in his time in office, particularly in 1968. Fiscally Johnson had to find a way to fund the Vietnam conflict and his Great Society reforms all while anti-war demonstrations, inner city riots and violence in Chicago during the Democratic convention stood in his way. Americans did not want tax increases but an economic collapse was destined if Johnson's plea for a 10% tax surcharge was enacted. Congressional conservatives wanted cuts to domestic spending instead of the surcharge but Johnson said failure to pass a tax surcharge would mean “a major world political defeat for the United States,” and LBJ got what he wanted against 79% of Americans wishes. US National Debt grew by $21 billion in 1968 alone, closing out Johnson's presidency on a very sour note.

Richard Nixon:
Start of presidency 1969: US National Debt $353 billion
End of presidency 1974: US National Debt $475 billion
The proudly proclaimed conservative Keynesian, President Nixon focused much of his early presidency on foreign and domestic economics as he took the reigns from Johnson's dwindling US economy and faced inflation within his first eight months in Washington. He didn't take a high priority on balancing the budget and by 1970, the economy looked to be heading to a recession. Joan Hoff explains,
“Nixon became the first president to submit a budget based on “the high-employment standard,” which meant the country would spend as if it were at full employment to bring about full employment, thus justifying an “acceptable” amount of deficit spending. Second, he dramatically announced in August 1971 what he called the New Economic Policy. The N.E.P. attempted to balance U.S. domestic concerns with wage and price controls and international ones devaluing the dollar.”
He failed to obtain more revenue through tax reform in 1969. With that, unemployment rose to 4.9% in parallel with inflation jumping to 5.7% which set off the federal budget deficit totaling $23.03 billion. But there was positives his N.E.P. as unemployment fell and output rose and he became the only president since World War II to bring an economic upturn in a presidential election year and he was re-elected.

Harry Truman:
Start of presidency 1945: US National Debt $258 billion
End of presidency 1953: US National Debt $266 billion
Truman was the first president since 1930 to reduce the nation debt and according to the numbers, the only president to truly make an effort to cut the debt significantly. His first year in office Truman was preceded by Franklin Roosevelt's big spending to dig the country out of Depression with astronomical year-to-year national debt change. In 1942, FDR's national debt went up by $23 billion, then up $64 billion the next year, another $64 billion the following year, and to close out his presidency in 1945 with another large increase in debt by $57 billion, totally over $200 billion in increased debt in his last term. The numbers drastically dropped once Truman came to office, and within his 18 months in office, he reduced the debt by $11 billion and by the time he left office in 1953, he is the only president of the 1900s to exist the Oval Office with a reduced year-to-year national debt total.


Dwight Eisenhower: 
>
Start of presidency 1953: US National Debt $266 billion
End of presidency 1961: US National Debt $288 billion
Preceding Harry Truman in terms of fiscal resolve was a difficult task, but some could say Eisenhower lived up to the role fairly well. He continued all of the major New Deal programs and focused much of his attention toward nuclear weapons over conventional arms which was more of a fiscal policy than anything else. Eisenhower feared that the costlier conventional forces would unbalance the federal budget and thereby undermine American freedoms. His plans proved successful as he is the last president to reduced the year-to-year national debt (1955: $1.6 billion reduced, 1956: $2.2 billion reduced).


US debt crisis: Boehner's vote blunder edges US closer to the brink

Republican disarray and Democrat gloating is not a recipe for solving the US debt crisis and heading off financial turmoil


US debt crisis: Republican House Speaker John Boehner failed to pass his plan to increase the debt ceiling. Photograph: Nicholas Kamm/AFP/Getty Images
The failure of the Republican leadership to even hold a vote on its own debt ceiling proposal edges the US government closer to running out of credit. Get ready for a rocky ride in the financial markets on Friday.
Quite what was going through the minds of the hardcore Republican holdouts on Thursday night is hard to fathom. Partly, one imagines, they could see that the plan proposed by their leader, House Speaker John Boehner, would get shot down in the Senate – as the Democrats there were threatening to do – and so were unwilling to blot their conservative credentials by backing a futile compromise.

This is not the first time that Boehner has proved himself to be an inept parliamentarian. But this time Boehner was out-played by the tea party, the Club for Growth and even Sarah Palin, all pushing for the conservative rump to oppose his plan on the grounds that it didn't go far enough in throttling the government.
Palin even put out a chilling message on Facebook – that's modern politics for you – before the planned vote on Thursday, hinting at primary challenges from the right against those Republicans voting for the Boehner bill.
Some of the Republican nay-sayers may even believe the – how can one put this politely? – nonsense about a default being a way of curbing the growth of government. Well it is, assuming you also think that one way to lose weight is by cutting off your head.
What happens next? The House Republican leadership will probably try and retool their plan to win the last few crucial votes on Friday, a modest enough aim, although it eluded them on Thursday night.
Democrats were crowing at Boehner's failure to win over his conservative hardcore. But they should beware of premature celebration: the reaction of the financial markets on Friday alone may make them wish Boehner's plan had passed.
The potential default deadline of 2 August – next Tuesday – looms closer, and another day lost in arm-twisting and procedural wrangling does nothing to sooth the markets. But more importantly, although the House Democrats maintained an admirable unity they might have been better advised to at least offer to support the Republican debt ceiling bill.
Instead, the Democrats wanted to enjoy the Republican discomfort from the sidelines. Frankly the discomfort for Republicans would have been far worse if the House Democrats had backed Boehner.
I imagine many Democrats will disagree with me here. But I'd say the severity of the threats to the US economy means the Democratic party should be willing to avoid even a technical default. That's one way of showing a stark contrast with the selfish extremists of the tea party movement.
By the same token, the White House could also have backed the Boehner plan in the House – on the grounds that something is better than nothing – rather than posturing over vetoes. The smart move would have been to get something through the House and then retool it in the Senate. That seems a forlorn hope now.
Tactically, the Democrats may have won tonight (or more accurately: the Republicans lost). But strategically, nothing has been passed, the debt ceiling has not been raised, and a deal is no closer. A weak and humiliated Speaker of the House is not going to be a helpful partner in searching for an answer. Remember: many Republican votes are needed to pass any debt ceiling increase through the House.
The severity of the market reaction on Friday may bring everyone in Congress and Pennsylvania Avenue to their senses. Because nothing else looks like it is going to.


US debt ceiling deal talks – as it happened

Obama and Republicans remained locked in talks over a deal to raise the US debt ceiling - with no end yet in sight

President Obama reaching out for a debt ceiling deal in talks with Republicans. Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters
11am: Welcome to live coverage of the non-stop negotiations over the US debt ceiling going on in Washington DC. So far there's a lot of hot air – and that's not just the incredibly humid twmperatures above 40C that the city is experiencing.
But there are signs of a deal emerging. The New York Times reportstoday:
Congressional and administration officials said that the two men, who had abandoned earlier talks toward a deal when leaks provoked Republicans' protests, were closing in on a package calling for as much as $3 trillion in savings from substantial spending cuts and future revenue produced by a tax code overhaul.
But can they sell it to their respective parties? It's not looking good so far.
Just now the Senate rejected by 51-46 a House Republican-backed bill to cut spending and introduce a balanced-budget amendment.
Coming up, President Obama is about to speak to a town hall meeting in College Park, Maryland, where he is expected to address the debt ceiling talks and the state of the economy.
11.10am: Obama now speaking at College Park – home of the University of Maryland and indeed a very large Ikea – and goes straight into discussing the debt ceiling and the state of the US economy:
This is actually a debate about you and the people of America and the challenges we face.
He says that his "number one concern" is the state of the economy. "It's the first thing I think about when I get up in the morning ands the last thing I think about at night."
11.15am: Before describing the debt ceiling debate as "a crisis manufactured in Washington," Obama says that both parties are to blame for the size of the federal budget deficit:
But both parties have a responsibility to solve it. If we don't solve it every American will suffer.
11.21am: Obama says he's willing to sign up to a deal that makes heavy cuts in domestic and military spending – and reels off some statistics (the lowest level of domestic spending since the Eisenhower administration, and so on) to prove it. But he says that politicians in both parties aren't happy.
Obama is off on a well-polished riff about the problems of politics in Washington, tapping into the desire for a deal that recent opinion polls reveal. "Americans voted for a divided government. They didn't vote for a dysfunctional government," is one of his lines that is a ong-time favourite of his speech-writers.
11.26am: Obama now taking questions from the audience – and one from a man suggesting using the 14th amendment (allowing presidential powers) and waiting until the next election so that Americans have the chance to vote out "these hooligans in the House".
Obama replies saying that the debt ceiling needs to be raised now to avoid the possibility of a default, so he doesn't have the luxury of letting that happen. "It is not an option for us to default. My challenge then is to get something passed."
On the 14th amendment, Obama says "I've talked to my lawyers" and they say invoking the 14th amendment here is not an option.
That could change, of course. "There are going to be a certain set of equities that we are not going to be prepared to sacrifice," says Obama, leaving a slight hint that there are circumstances in which he does hit the nuclear option of the 14th.
11.35am: Next questioner begins by asking Obama, "Obviously you've had a successful presidency..." Obama cuts in: "That's not obvious to everyone."
The question is, what mistakes have you made? Obama replies that he would have been more aggressive on the economy in the first year:
I could have told the American people more clearly how tough this was going to be, how tough and long lasting this recession was going to be.
But the president has to project confidence and optimism, he says, and the banking sector was in serious trouble – suggesting that he had to talk it up.
Over the first two years I was so foccused on policy, getting the policy right, that I forgot part of my job was explaining to the American people why that policy was a good thing.
11.41am: The debt ceiling seems to not be at the front of the minds of the people asking questions at the town hall.
Next question: "Hi, my name is Steve, I'm a doctoral student here." Obama responds: "What are you studying?" "Political rhetoric," says Steve. "Uh-oh," says Obama, "How am I doing?"
Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (right) with Republican House majority leader Eric Cantor at a press conference on debt ceiling talks. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
11.52am: Leaving Obama's town hall, is there any chance of a deal on the table today? Not according to Republican leader and Speaker of the House John Boehner, who has held a press conference just now:
There was no agreement, publicly, privately, never an agreement, and frankly not close to an agreement. So I suggest that it's going to be a hot weekend here in Washington DC.
That's a "no" then. He's right about the heat though: a forecast high of 105F (40C) tomorrow.
Boehner did try and show his willingness to keep talking: "As a responsible leader, I think it is my job to keep lines of communications open."
12.09pm: Have things ground to a halt? In the Senate, the majority leader Harry Reid has canceled plans for a weekend Senate session, which leaves the ball in the Obama-Boehner court.
Reid himself is putting the pressure on the House Republicans, saying that the talks between Obama and the Republicans are focused on taxes and that the House would have to act before the Senate, since tax measures must originate in the House.
12.18pm: According to the Associated Press, there are a lot of subjects that the two sides remain stuck on:
Democratic officials familiar with the discussions said both sides remained apart on key components of the deal, including the amount of revenue that a revamped tax code could yield, the nature of the changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and the process that would guarantee that both taxes and benefit programs would in fact be overhauled.
12.31pm: The always smart Jonathan Chait at the New Republic isgloomy over the possibility of a deal combining tax increases and budget cuts:
Anti-tax theology is the core of the modern Republican Party. If the GOP leadership cuts a deal that includes higher taxes, that deal will either exert an unbearable price in return or provoke a conservative revolt that kills it, or possibly both.
Yes but an all-cuts deal would go down like a cup of cold sick with Democrats. "An all-cuts deal sounds bad, but it contains some real advantages," muses Chait. Mmm.
12.58pm: Even if there is a deal, can the Republicans pass anything containing tax increases against the opposition of their fire-breathing colleagues? AP does the math, or the maths even, for House Speaker John Boehner:
A bill to extend the government's authority to borrow money, perhaps loaded with trillions in spending cuts, will need 217 votes to clear the House, which has two vacancies. Boehner has 240 Republicans.
Getting to 217, though, won't be simple. An unknown number of Republicans — estimated by lawmakers and lobbyists to be at least 40 and potentially dozens more — are considered certain to oppose any deal because they want more deficit reduction than seems politically achievable. Boehner is likely to need support from scores of Democrats, but he will need to supply the bulk of votes himself.
Defectors are considered likeliest to come from among the 87 GOP freshmen and from those who owe their elections to tea party voters. There are 60 Republicans listed as members of the House's tea party caucus, including 14 freshmen.
Yet, eager to avoid primary challenges from conservatives next year, even some veteran Republicans may be reluctant to support a deal.
Let's be clear: everyone assumes that common sense will prevail and that a deal will be done and passed through Congress. But if enough of the swivel-eyed tendency with the GOP are against it, it is still possible that the debt ceiling will not be raised in time.
1.15pm: The Republicans in the House are still pushing their vague "cut, cap and balance" budget legislation, the one that got shot down in the Senate. Democratic House majority leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed it with a nice line today: "Cut and paste, or whatever you call it."
(Hat-tip to Brian Beutler)
1.35pm: The Atlantic's Joshua Green dubs the spending cuts worth $3tn under discussion between the White House and Republicans "the incumbent-protection plan":
A historic debt deal, though it would do practically nothing in the short term to create jobs, would demonstrate that Obama is the post-partisan figure he claims to be – the only man able to bridge the warring factions in Washington, and therefore someone deserving of reelection. To me, that seems a bit like putting shiny new rims on a broken-down car. But it is an accomplishment, it blunts the perception that Obama is a spendthrift, and it gives him something to run on that might distract from the lousy economy.
As for the ongoing charade in DC, it reminds me of nothing but [New York state capital] Albany, where budget stalemates — and walkouts, and threats to shut down the government, and all the rest of it — have been an annual ritual for as long as I can remember. Of course, nobody takes much notice of what happens upstate, and why should they? We all assume that, in the end, the governor, state senators, and assemblymen will reach a deal. Invariably, they do, and life goes on as before.
But that's what everyone said before the federal government shutdown in 1995.
2.09pm: In a magnificent display of chutzpah, blogger Digby of Hullaballoo points to a fund-raising email from Republicans bashing Obama for proposed budget cuts – which Republicans are actually in favour of:
First he says he'll never consider cutting Social Security. Now he says he WILL consider cutting Social Security. And the young will go along with it. Just because he says it's right.
Talk about having lemons and trying to make lemonade. Or as Digby says: "No one should ever underestimate the total shamelessness of the GOP."
2.21pm: Red State's Erick Erickson – an influential Republican voice –fires a shot across the bows of the Republican leadership in Congress:
There is a growing worry that John Boehner and Eric Cantor will come up with a deal with the White House that will require Democrat votes to get through the House of Representatives. This would be a replay of the continuing resolution fiasco that cut little and cost much.
If Republican leaders come up with a debt ceiling deal that requires Democrats to vote for it in order to get to 218, the Republicans who put those leaders in power should boot them out of power. It's that simple.
The Republican leaders have twice now seen their members stand for something. First they stood for Paul Ryan's plan and got roundly attacked. Then they stood for Cut, Cap, and Balance despite withering attacks.
Leadership now needs to stand up with their conservative majority and not fall back on Democrats to pass a bad deal.
This doesn't auger well for the spirit of compromise.
As an aside, Erickson was also the author of the fund-rasing email mentioned previously. Hmm.
2.42pm: A new CNN opinion poll shows Obama showing signs of losing support among liberal voters, with his overall approval rating now at 45%:
Looking at that figure another way, roughly one in four Americans who disapprove of the president say they feel that way because he's not been liberal enough.
Obama's approval rating among liberals has dropped to 71%, the lowest point in his presidency. And the number of Democrats who want the party to renominate Obama next year, now at 77%, is relatively robust by historical standards but is also down a bit since June.
CNN also notes: "Some congressional Democrats appeared to be on the verge of open revolt against their own president Thursday night after hearing some of the details in the $3 trillion plan - a package many of them contend does not do nearly enough to ensure wealthier Americans share in the burden of stemming the tide of Washington's red ink."
3.12pm: Even Kent Conrad, a Democratic member of a group of senators known as the Gang of Six who proposed a plan to cut the deficit by about $4tn over 10 years, isn't sure what's happening:
I don't think anybody can be certain at this moment what the outcome will be.
3.33pm: Treasury secretary Tim Geithner met today with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed president William Dudley "to discuss the implications for the U.S. economy if Congress fails to act."
A joint statement after the meeting said that the trio "remain confident" that Congress would act in time. Well, that's good.
3.55pm: Since Congress has packed up and gone home for the weekend, this seems a good time to end this blog – on a day when high hopes were replaced with another false dawn in the hunt for a debt ceiling deal.
Something may come up over the weekend, since I imagine the Republicans and the White House will keep talking. But everything will have to wait on the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives – and we probably won't know that until Monday.
In the meantime, 2 August gets closer and closer.


22 July 2011 4:50PM
Truman, Harry S. 1945-1953 
atomic bombing of Japan (1945) 
Cold War with Soviet Union 
Korean War (1950-1953)

Before George W. Bush America seemed to be the role model for the Modern world.
Just look at them now!

Johnson, 1963-1969 escalated involvement in Vietnam War (1954-1975)
Nixon 1969-1974 "War on Drugs"
Reagan 1981-1989 military involvements in Grenada, Central America, Lebanon, Libya
Bush, 1989-1993 Persian Gulf War I with Iraq (1990)

Clinton, 1993-2001 Persian Gulf War II with Iraq
That is just in my lifetime.

Note: The Presidential of US make more agreed Debts by Congress in so giants sum… are caused the Program for war issues or such long term war.
Now the issues of “Holocaust” and “War upon Terror”…. such as disclosed in so many media are liars… and absurd issues due to have no any strong proven… and its does not make common sense and it is such like the manipulation issues of internal jobs made by the so Powerful Conspirators hands of the International Crime Colonialist Regimes and Organization over the world whom so Racist, Cruel and breach the Humanity and Justice.  The professional and scientist have so many fact documentation as the Crime issues of both and just for killing and invading and occupying the Moslem countries and its resources. Its so criminal game and such neo colonialist model.
This International Crime Colonialist Regime…and its conspirators hands are so strong power and have so strong control in any line of the power in political, financial, press and media, and infiltrating in so whole net working in the world political body and institutions.
My view that the Obamas vs Congress can be in two or three possibilities matters:
In regard with the comments issued of so many American people.. and the real occurred in the history along the years… especially since 1945 up to the presents… the world have never sleep from the conflicts and war… both internal and other did by invasion of  the Foreign countries whom so Powerful states upon the so weak countries.. such in Indonesia in around October-November 1945..  that is recorded  Semarang – Palagan - Ambarawa war  between The Alliances troops of British-Europe- UN against the Peoples Defense Militia of Indonesia… and the Alliances was defeated by the Indonesia militia. And also in same time Surabaya war.. in November 1945 between the same regime of the Alliance troops with the most strongest troops of the so famous Brigade 49 and Division 5 and Division 23 of the Alliance troops against  the   Peoples Defense Militia of Indonesia in Surabaya city. As it is fact in history.. that  3 Generals of the Alliance troops died i.e.  Brigadir Jenderal Aulbertin Walter Sothern Mallaby and Brigadir Jendral Robert Guy Loder-Symonds  and  Mayor Jenderal Mansergh 
Note: Initially British troops were 6,000-strong lightly-armed Indian soldiers from 49th Infantry Brigade of the 23rd Indian Division. When the battle reached its peak, British sent additional troops which consisted of 24,000 fully-armed soldiers from the 5th Indian Division, 24 Sherman tanks, 24 armed aircraft, 2 cruisers and 3 destroyers.[1]
Surat kabar Times di London mengabarkan bahwa kekuatan Inggris terdiri dari 25 ponders, 37 howitser, HMS Sussex dibantu 4 kapal perang destroyer, 12 kapal terbang jenis Mosquito, 15.000 personel dari divisi 5 dan 6000 personel dari brigade 49 The Fighting Cock.
[Times newspaper in London informed that The British Combatants troops were 25 ponders, 37 howitzers, HMS Sussex, supported by 4 warships Destroyers, 12 Fighter plane Mosquito, 15,000 troops of Division 5 and 6000 troops of Brigade 49 The Fighting Cocks]

David Welch menggambarkan pertempuran tersebut dalam bukunya, Birth of Indonesia (hal. 66),

Based on the isuues of Holocaust and War upon Terror that can be discloed.
Some review and the realtionship Surabaya war and Israel and Alliance invade and occupied Palestian land and state due to the Super Power Policy is based on the concept of International Crime Colonialist Regime that force the state Racist and Islamophia [anti moslem syariah] and anti Muhammad.
1] That so, Mr. Obama in this case may be wanna stop the playing of these hands of the International Crime Colonialist Regime and the Peels that any problem of internal affairs in US Government must be responsible and handled by the people of US himself…  and by rational and fairly playing political game.
I think Mr Obama so realize that whole Presidential of USA along so decades since  1920s have been kept strongest hands of this so Powerful Regimes.  And up to now… USA and the administration and whole body of Congress and Senate have also under control this Regimes hands….
Therefore why the issues of Mr Obama ideas have no positive support from the Senators and House Representatives… due to offense to The Regime interest and agenda…. which is to continue making the world under their war issues and conflicts and making the world is under the siege. As most understand matter that the situation of people under conflicts and war condition outside of USA states and the alliances countries, and so the Regimes can do anything as their lust and  greediness  and have no body control. And the mainstream issues as media and politician taking advantages that so will be more interesting and more supporting due to have the market in the Regimes that control the financial and economic lines.   That why it is so market values…. i.e war business….
I’m sure that most of the politicians in US both Senators and House of Representative Members and the State Administration are so realize and understand in what the matter happened … and why they did such a like…
2] That so, Mr Obama in this case could follow the previous President and administration that take more Debt, but developing economic domestic and not for so spreading war. But this ideas have no so big profits for the Regimes business, due to domestic market as just most likely dominated by middle people class that not so luxury and mostly for consumable and households goods and some for high technology for export. These industries might be more increasing employment but not high profitable. And taxes as trickles down.. might be so peanuts. Or most possible are under target.
So the issues is not so interesting not worthy for the politicians that it have no political values for campaigning.
So this idea is not market values…due to internal affairs political issue is not worthy.
3] May be Mr Obama wanna take both issues… that war business and also the people of USA take advantage too. And so the budget must be so fantastic… giant Debt is needed and then whole people will be happy, the Regimes business will get their profit and the people of USA will also fulfill their expectation.
 However, its could be unworthy for the Republic Party … due to Mr Obama will be so strong and the Candidates for running Presidential Campaign in the Second Election will be not so valuable and un interesting matter.
So now the various issues and  argues arise in any opportunity for selling the  issues and take advantage the each respectively interest and aim.
Let see the war propaganda… as the only playing political game such the art of so many motivations and schemes.
The most unchangeable matter… that might be that The International Crime Colonialist Regime which is so supported by alliance of the politicians neo-liberalist and the body of financial and economic under the Regime control are still keep controlling the world and they make anything as they wants including war business – conflicts - and dehumanization and injustice.
So, please be waked up whole the Common sense peoples, The Professionals, The Humanity peoples that stop occupying Palestine by the Israel Zionist. Let Israel go out and leave whole Palestinians land and country as it is condition before Declaration of Balfour –The British Prime Minister. Let think it as commonsense.. that event it issue is may be something right or not right issue in real that in fact the Holocaust issue is not did by Palestinians or other people in Arab Region or somebody else in outside Europe. So it is unfairly that Israel take advantages by supported US-and Alliances and then invade and plunder the land and State of Palestinians. How come… the justice reason for such doing force occupation in to the land Palestinians… that in anything reasons is not fair and it is obviously breach the international law and justice and human rights.
Looks to the history… that have been happened to Alliance did the criminal war in Indonesia for aiming the Netherlands interest. But it is not successful due to the Indonesian militia defeated the Alliance forces whom did war in Surabaya and Ambarawa  region. Please see The Surabaya War 1945 and study again.





Tidak ada komentar:

Poskan Komentar