Liberal Media's Code of Omertà Fails to Silence Sarah Palin

The seemingly secret pact between the liberal media and the Obama campaign to block all news coverage and reference to Sarah Palin is failing if we can believe our eyes. It is failing because MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times and the host of other left-leaning media just don't get it, the people of America are not going to let the media tell them who to support.

This past weekend Sarah Palin held a rally in Florida, one of the critical swing states, and there was a virtual media wall of silence about the event. MSNBC had the audacity to only report Palin said "Goodbye to thanks but no thanks," a direct reference to the Alaska bridge to nowhere. Of course MSNBC would have been a little more honest if they said in the end Palin refused to approve the project. They might have been more honest yet if they told you Obama and Biden both voted for the bridge to nowhere but that is the truth and we know the American people aren't ready for the truth.

Not a word was mentioned in the MSNBC report about the rally in Florida, a rally in which the largest crowd to ever witness a vice presidential candidate gathered to see Palin. According to the local Fire Chief Mike Tucker over 60,000 people attended. Only Obama's convention speech drew more and the Obama campaign spent over $8 million to stage that event. Sarah Palin didn't have top spend millions of dollars to draw a crowd. The media did nothing to help make people aware of the event or let the rest of the world know what did happen.

Did I mention that Obama is running for president? The 60,000 screaming, chanting fans of Sarah Palin know all about the liberal media's policy of Omertà and how it is intended to help the liberal Democratic ticket. The people responded by turning out in record numbers. Now that is hard news. The idiotic efforts of the media to dictate the results of the election and protect the leftist movement in America so they can bring about a more socialist government will backfire and their coveted policy of Omertà is going to be drowned in a chorus of chants, "Sarah, Sarah."

Could Palin Invasion of Privacy be Obama's Watergate?

Privacy in America is guaranteed by the Constitution and an invasion of privacy is a criminal violation with dire consequences which is why it seems odd how little the Obama campaign has had to say about the illegal hacking into Sarah Palin's private email, the posting of the stolen emails on the internet, and the fact the liberal media all seemed to have copies of the emails.

About 36 years ago another well financed presidential campaign that expected to win the election did something equally as stupid, denied it to the world, and then got caught in the lie later costing the winner the presidency. Back then the President was Richard Nixon and the break in was called Watergate.

Watergate was not about approving the act, nor even knowing about the act. Watergate was all about covering up the act for campaign functionaries whose enthusiasm to win at all costs made them ignore the laws. We are far better prepared to investigate this illegal act than we were 36 years ago and it is serious enough that the FBI and the Secret Service have already launched an investigation.

If the private emails of our presidential and vice presidential candidates can be stolen all those involved must be prosecuted. The Obama campaign denies involvement. Barack Obama claims he personally runs the campaign, he has said so as a claim of his executive experience during the campaign so we should give him the benefit of the doubt on both counts.

But if his campaign was involved in any way in the theft, in encouraging the theft, or the distribution of the stolen materials by notifying the liberal media where to find them and give them talking points on what to say about them, then he should stand ready to withdraw from the race in disgrace.

In watching the various liberal media outlets comment about the stolen emails they used almost the exact words as Obama campaign representatives dismissing the seriousness of the theft and turning attention to the fact Sarah Palin had a private email account. Then insinuating she must have had the account to hide things from the State of Alaska. How stupid is that? Nearly everyone in America has a private email account including most members of the media.

Why did the liberal media and the campaign spokespersons have the exact same script? Why did they raise the exact same issue? Why weren't they outraged by the invasion of privacy? And why did they keep looking at the emails in their possession? If the Obama campaign was involved in the theft or any of these following actions it is the most serious breach of faith possible to the American public and would only demonstrate that a secret agenda must be driving them, one called Big Brother, where the right to privacy will no longer exist.

In one of the true ironies of history, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, daughter of President Richard Nixon, who grew up in the White House, is a supporter of Barack Obama and gave him the maximum financial contribution possible in the primary election. You certainly don't hear much about her from the Obama campaign. We shall await the results of the federal criminal investigation.

Is Obama Really The One? The $440 Million People's Person

Everyone in America knows we are in the midst of a serious economic crisis. First came the Bear Stearns collapse and Barack Obama refused to take a position saying we should wait and see what happens. Then came the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bail out by the government and the Lehmann collapse not bailed out. That was followed immediately by the AIG collapse that was saved at the last minute by the Federal Reserve. Each time Obama said we should wait and see what happens though our economy was a mess because of Bush.

Now that sounds like a Harvard educated response to the series of events. Is that leadership? Is that how he intends to govern through these tough times? He did promise us tax breaks and tax increases, a whole lot of them. And Biden did attempt to clarify how they would create new jobs, through public works projects. Yet another form of federal welfare destined to create dead end jobs with no career path at a cost to the taxpayer of billions of more dollars.

Some say the twin mortgage companies of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the root cause of what has happened. Well they were created by a Democratic administration and run by former Clinton insiders so I think that might be a Democratic problem that triggered the catastrophe. Some say a bill sponsored by Republicans that was passed in 2005 and impacted on the investment and commercial banks was the cause but that same bill was approved by 90 of the 100 Senators including the Democratic leadership.

For the past two years Nancy Pelosi has controlled the House and Harry Reid has controlled the Senate, presiding over Democratic majorities. If they control the Congress why didn't they fix the problems? In fact since they did control both the House and Senate why didn't they do anything the past two years after making all kinds of wonderful promises? Empty promises - broken leadership.

Now they want you to give them control of the White House as well. So how fiscally responsible is the candidate for president for the Democrats? Well, he is spending more than twice as much in the 2008 presidential campaign then anyone else in history, having already raised over $440 million. McCain has raised $190 million. And while he claims the largest donor base in history, the million plus donors don't get access to him.

No, the only contributors that get personal pictures with Obama and get to sip wine and get served by waiters in tuxedos are the Hollywood elite who pay $30,000 to have dinner with him. Now the price of the evening ticket to be with Obama is equal to 60% of the median annual family income in America, meaning the average family would have to work from January until July 15 to pay for a single ticket. If you want to take your spouse you will have to work 14 months for the tickets! The savior of the common people only dines with the richest of the rich, how Ivy League, how elitist and how disconnected with the common people he claims to champion.

While he sips wine in Beverly Hills we patiently wait for Obama to tell us how he will really help the people. While he dines for dollars, very big dollars, with Barbra Streisand and Bon Jovi at million dollar private parties people are suffering. While he waits to see how things work out before he takes a position Wall Street continues to crumble under the weight of its own corruption and greed. While he throws hundreds of millions of dollars at us to convince us he is THE ONE, people are fighting wars and digging out from hurricanes so there is an America left for someone to govern, but I am not certain what he has demonstrated is a convincing argument he is REALLY THE ONE.

Nancy Pelosi Really Believes We Are Stupid

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic speaker of the House and the person most responsible for the passage of legislation in our nation's capitol has continued her leadership mission of destroying the effectiveness of Congress with passage of the House Energy bill which is as stupid as stupid gets.

Of course Pelosi is also the one that promised to change history in her first 100 days as the most powerful person in Congress. That was over 500 days ago. We are still waiting for the first action to change history and in the meantime the approval rating of Congress has deservedly sunk to its lowest point in history, just 9% of Americans approve the job they are doing. It should be the job they are not doing.

Now her Obama energy bill promised the world we would be energy independent but as with everything Pelosi does you better read the fine print. She allowed off shore drilling for oil but only beyond 50 miles knowing full well that the vast majority of oil reserves are between 3 and 50 miles.

She also required approval by the state for the drilling but did not share any of the oil revenue with the state. So why in the world would they approve anything? It was a joke, it passed on a party line vote, and her own Democratic leadership in the Senate already declared it dead. And wasn't that the purpose all along?

If we are ever going to be energy independent we must first drill a big hole and drop in Pelosi and the Democratic leadership but then we would be sued for toxic poisoning by Democratic class action lawyers hired by the DNC to cover up the broken promises buried with the Democratic leadership.

Or maybe we should just vote them all out of office.

Liberal Elitists of the World Unite - Intellectual Constipation Reaches Epidemic Proportions

Are all liberal media elitists and their army of mouthpieces intellectually constipated? There is a chorus of condemnation today toward Sarah Palin from everyone that hates Republicans, mothers, mothers with children, mothers with down children, mothers with sons in the war, religious mothers, feminists opposed to abortion, feminists opposed to fanatical feminism, conservatives, small town, Alaskan, moose hunting, oil drilling and whatever else the latest smear may be.

Wake up eggheads, Sarah Palin got it right, you got it wrong. The Bush Doctrine is not preemptive strikes as ABC News and Obama backers shouted all over the cyber world. The Bush Doctrine, if any of you have any interest in the truth, is the National Security Strategy of 2002 that identifies the US position concerning terrorism and includes four pillars in the struggle.

The four pillars include (1) rejection of moral relativism and commitment to fostering the spread of democracy in the Middle East, (2) treating terrorism proactively, on a global basis, and not as law enforcement issue, (3) willingness to engage in preemptive attacks against terrorists and terrorist supporting states, and (4) unwillingness to support a Palestinian state until Palestinian leaders "engage in a sustained fight against terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."
Palin addressed the global view on terrorism, and she was right. She even asked Gibson to be more specific when he asked about the Bush Doctrine and he didn't change the question. Finally, he clarified his question, acting like a professor correcting a student, and said the Bush Doctrine was preemptive strikes. Guess what professor, wrong! You left out the other three pillars.

You also didn't correct Obama when ABC News on Rick Klein Reports asked Obama about the Bush Doctrine back on July 26, 2007. Obama said Clinton would continue the "Bush Doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States. No mention of preemptive strikes, no mention of the Obama mistake on such a critical national security issue and he was a sitting US Senator running for president.

Now are there dual standards in this race? Are female VP candidates expected to know what US Senators don't know. Can the news media simply call them wrong when they are right? Is there no requirement for the news media to check the facts? Perhaps the media madness that prevails within the Washington elite establishment should be cleaned out first.

ABC News Continues Media Efforts to Distort Palin Message

ABC News Charles Gibson introduced the first comprehensive news interview of Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin to the world with clips of how he was able to cause her to stumble in questioning over the "Bush Doctrine."

Perhaps this was his effort to appease the criticism he received from the liberal left of being too soft in interviews with the McCain ticket and reacquire "macho" liberal approval but the result was a blatant attempt to trick Palin.

Gibson, out of the blue, asked Palin about the Bush Doctrine. She immediately asked him to be more specific. As she attempted to explain he asked the same question several more times, never bothering to explain what part of the Bush doctrine he intended to address. Finally after she gave increasingly more detail about the Bush doctrine he finally asked specifically for her position on preemptive strikes against terrorist targets.

ABC promptly sent out the edited questions and the liberal media jumped on the exchange as more evidence of her lack of knowledge of foreign affairs. Well shame on you Charles Gibson, until now ABC had not joined the stampede of news outlets leaning to the left but you have reestablished your news credentials as a master of media manipulation and should get a standing ovation at the next socialist convention in America.

The truth, in case anyone cares, is the Bush Doctrine is a four pillar approach to terrorism in the world, exactly as Palin described. Preemptive strikes are one of the four pillars thus her request to him to clarify his ambiguous question demonstrated far more understanding of the Doctrine than ABC News. His repeated response of refusing to clarify it was clearly intended to make her look bad.

According to the book, yes books have been published about the Bush Doctrine, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, Norman Podhoretz identifies the four pillars of the Bush Doctrine: (1) rejection of moral relativism and commitment to fostering the spread of democracy in the Middle East, (2) treating terrorism proactively, on a global basis, and not as law enforcement issue, (3) willingness to engage in preemptive attacks against terrorists and terrorist supporting states, and (4) unwillingness to support a Palestinian state until Palestinian leaders "engage in a sustained fight against terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure."

Palin was right in asking for him to be specific. Her answer was right about the Bush Doctrine being the worldview on terrorism. And once again Gibson demonstrated how the mainstream media in America is hell bent on distorting the record, words and experience of Sarah Palin. Oh yeah, when he finally asked the real question she nailed it like she did on all the rest.

ABC has already issued misinformation on the exchange trying to limit the Bush Doctrine to the issue of preemptive strikes but the Bush Doctrine was detailed in the National Security Strategy of 2002 for all the world to see and its odd ABC missed such an important document.

Finally, when the same ABC (ABC News Rick Klein Reports) asked Obama about the Bush Doctrine back on July 26, 2007 during a conference call to reporters, according to ABC Obama "said Clinton would continue the "Bush doctrine" of only speaking to leaders of rogue nations if they first meet conditions laid out by the United States." Clearly Obama didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was so in terms of truth, Palin 1, ABC News 0.

Perhaps when Sarah Palin gets to Washington her first mess to clean up should be the media as they are more tied to the lobbyists and special interests than the politicians.

9-11 The Day America Changed

Today is the 7th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks and the deaths of over 3,000 Americans in our first taste of a coordinated terrorist attack on our soil. I worked in NYC during the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 9-11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center.

On my way to a meeting with journalists in 1993 on the 15th floor of the Trade Center, I got no further than the lobby when the explosion underground prevented further access. On 9-11 I was working at home in New Jersey, in Atlantic Highlands directly across New York Harbor from Wall Street and the Trade Center.

From where I lived you could see the buildings and smoke when suddenly all of lower Manhattan disappeared in a dense cloud with the collapse of the buildings. It was a sight I will never forget. I hope all Americans join me in honoring the heroes of the NYC Fire and Police Departments, the 3.000 victims and families of the victims. Over 100 children were born after 9-11 to widows who lost husbands in the catastrophe.

Letters to the Editor on Biased Media

We love getting comments on the stories and the latest comment concerns media bias asking why we don't point out the right wing media bias like we point out the left wing bias. A good question as media bias is media bias no matter which way the pendulum swings.

However, in the past two years we have pointed out many instances of right wing media abuse against Barack Obama showing that true journalism in America is a lot closer to being dead than we might think. Truth is even the left wing media took many unfair shots at Obama in their frenzy to get Hillary elected.

With the era of the blogger regular news organizations have insulated themselves from responsibility for many stories that would never meet the test for objective journalism. They do this by using blogs to front for them by running unsubstantiated stories, rumors and outright lies.

That said, I would like to ask readers to help me compile a more complete list of biased media from both the right and left fringe, sites that are prone to publishing without validation and whose agenda is not reporting news but promoting their beliefs.

In earlier stories I have identified the following as some of the right wing media, FAUX, or Fox News Network, Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and Hannity. Other shows include Fox and Friends.

Left wing media includes NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Olbermann, Matthews, The Washington Post, The New York Times, NPR sometimes and Time Magazine among others. Since the media is dominated by the left wing there will naturally be more. However, I do not waste time with biased blogs as there are hundreds for each side and to mention them is to not really serve the public interest.

I am asking you to send me your additions to the list of purveyors of false truth so we can keep a running record of who not to trust in our nation's media. Actually, you can trust them to sell their own agenda and if you believe their agenda that is your right as an American but these groups hardly qualify as objective media and people need to know it.

Let me know who you would add to the list.

Obama Says Governor Palin Not Experienced to Lead Nation

Barack Obama has challenged the experience of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, saying being governor is inadequate experience to be president of the US even though Palin is running for vice president, not president. But she will be a heart beat from the presidency so we can accept his hypothetical claim.

To make such a claim, the Obama campaign and the entire biased liberal media echoing the same propaganda surely must be suffering from temporary memory loss. The governor is not qualified to be president? Can animosity be so blind? Having been in many campaigns I know it is not the candidate but the campaign staff that undertakes these missions so I do not hold the candidates totally responsible.

The truth. In the last 32 years a former state governor has served as US president during 28 of those years! Four of the past five US presidents were governors including the last two Democrats to serve as president. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter all went from the statehouse directly to the White House and the American public had no trouble entrusting the future of the nation to them.

Fact is whenever America faced the darkest hours the voters turned to the governors to save the day, not the professional politicians in our nation's capitol. In modern times former governor Teddy Roosevelt became the youngest president in our history in 1901 when President McKinley was assassinated and Teddy helped us through economic chaos.

Former Governor Wilson guided us through World War I while former Governor Franklin Roosevelt brought us through the Great Depression and World War II. The Cold War was brought to an end by former Governor Reagan while former Governors Clinton and Bush drove the ship of state through the era of rampant international terrorism.

In total 18 former governors beginning with Thomas Jefferson went on to serve as president of the US, 42% of all US presidents. Four of the past five presidents were governors. So before anyone states that governors are not qualified or able to run the United States perhaps they better take a refresher course on the history of the US. In America the will of the people decides who has the necessary experience, not the claims of the candidates or the wayward whims of the media.

Major Historical Milestones Reached by Pro-Abortionists - 50 Million & 1 Billion Barriers Shattered

The pro-abortion movement in America has reached several major historical milestones which should be recognized by those members of the liberal and social left. This year, 2008, just 38 years after the passage of Roe versus Wade, a golden moment has been achieved as 50 million abortions have now been performed in America since the passage of the federal law.

Perhaps more staggering is the fact that there have now been over one billion abortions performed in the world in the period of 1920-2008 according to estimates of the United Nations Population Fund. That means total abortions equal over 16% of the entire population of the world.

The total abortions performed in America between 1973 and 2008 according to estimates from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and "The Global Abortion Summary" by William Robert Johnson is now equal to the total abortions performed worldwide in a single year, yet another major milestone. The United States now performs 3.7% of the worldwide abortions annually.

With the Democratic party (Nancy Pelosi Democratic House Speaker) and presidential candidates Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the forefront of protecting abortion rights it remains one of the most sensitive political issues of the year. Recent efforts of the media and liberal organizations to condemn the Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin for opposing abortion have intensified interest in the issue.

The success of the pro-abortionists in America can best be understood when you realize that the total abortions performed in America is nearly equal to the entire 2000 population of the country of England or the country of France.

Palin Stops Obama's Bridge to Nowhere

Chris Matthews & Keith Olbermann - Liberal Dobermans Protecting the Left

The NBC team of Dobermans self-appointed to protect the liberal left, Matthews and Olbermann from MSNBC, continue as stalking horses for the Obama campaign even after their network banned them from future campaign coverage because of their radical views.

Today, incensed by the Sarah Palin ability to power McCain into the lead, they have resorted to lies, innuendo and distortions on their cable programs to rally the socialists to the cause. Unable to find any facts to support their character assassination of Sarah Palin, they are trying to raise issues intended to upset the voters.

Under the guise of "character" they claim Palin lied regarding her views on the infamous "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska, as if a non-existence bridge is the final determinant in a persons career in public service.

According to the leftist propagandists Palin supported the pork barrel bridge project before she became governor and then opposed it after she became governor. Curiously Obama used the exact words the very same day to attack Palin.

Of course Palin never did support the $400 million bridge project to a very small island but did support a "link" to the island. The pork barrel advocates translated a link into a $400 million boondoggle when all Sarah Palin wanted was a ferry service to link the island to the mainland. Once she was made aware what they did she fought the wasteful project.

Two gross distortions from the liberal left including Obama. Palin never supported a $400 million bridge and the governor of any state does not create pork barrel projects. Only the US Congress, the House and the Senate, can create such projects.

So just who created the $400 million boondoggle? A senator from Alaska and it was approved by the US Senate. And who actually voted for the project, Senator Barack Obama, not Governor Sarah Palin. It was part of nearly $1 billion in pork barrel projects approved by the free spending liberal Barack Obama in Congress. Did I mention Congress is controlled by the Democrats?

The only question left in this campaign is who will win the hearts and minds of the American voters? Will it be the mud slingers from NBC and the leftist elite or the gun slinger from the Alaska backwoods?

Something About Sarah - Our Radical Elitist Liberal Socialist Media Don't Understand

So is America really inundated with a radical, elitist, liberal, socialist media? Do these seemingly ruthless people use the right to free speech to advocate socialist causes? Do they want us to think they are providing a fair and balanced view of the world and politics? Are they using yellow journalism, smear tactics and biased reporting to cover media sensation Sarah Palin? Of course.

Unfortunately for the strategy planners in our elitist media they are completely out of touch with mainstream America so they have thus far managed to make fools of themselves with their double standards, senseless whining and wholesale massacre of decency and honesty in reporting. And while they are sipping their lattes and raging about how McCain is hiding Sarah Palin from them, little Sarah is kicking their butts from here to Moscow in the polls.

All the while these self-appointed egomaniacs who were so smug in shoving Barack Obama down the throats of American voters are choking to death at the sight of a moose hunting mama from Alaska who has survived the firestorm from the media and quietly driven McCain to a ten point lead in the polls.

There is something about Sarah all right and it scares the media stars to death. Little Sarah has managed to connect directly with the American public thus stopping the media from being the only source of information for the people. They have never witnessed a media sensation that does not need them to interpret, package and manipulate their story.

Her agenda violates their code. She opposes corruption, extravagance and waste which is contrary to their lifestyle. She thinks it is okay to have a happy family life, be a mother and love her husband which certainly violates every code of conduct for the Hollywood and east coast elitists. She opposes abortion but doesn't make a big deal of it.

She is optimistic which means she doesn't need a briefcase full of prescription drugs to make it through the day. She is popular even though she doesn't have a manicurist, pedicurist, hair stylist, personal trainer and analyst. She buys her clothes in retail stores. She drives herself to work. She laughs and smiles too much.

She raised the money to pay for her own college through beauty pageant scholarships. She joined the PTA to improve education. She ran for mayor and governor to fix problems in politics. And if all that isn't enough she is a successful small town politician, small town businesswoman, small town mother and life long member of the National Rifle Association.

You would think someone with all those attributes would appeal to the women's lib groups, the equal rights and freedom of choice groups. But no, they really didn't mean liberation for all women, choices for all women or equality for all women, just those women who passed their litmus test and embraced their socialist agenda.

Sarah Palin has held a mirror into the face of the supposed leadership of our media, women's issues and pretenders claiming to be defenders of our freedom and rights. The hysterical reaction of these people to Sarah is nothing more than the horrifying reaction when peering into the looking glass and seeing the hypocrites these people have become.

Oh yes my friends, there is something about Sarah. A light in the darkness, a ray of hope in a storm, a candle in the night and a source of comfort for those in need. Sarah represents the strength of who we are and could be and not the image of who we aren't and don't want to be. If I were the elitist media I'd be running for cover before Sarah starts firing back.

MSNBC Keith Olbermann Meltdown

One of the more interesting sideshows of the DNC and RNC Conventions has been the on air meltdown of MSNBC Anchor Keith Olbermann. Olberman is a reporter so caught up in the socialist platform that he wants the network to be known as the Obama network, he wants all Republicans banned from the network, and well, NBC better have a room reserved for him at the psycho ward because that will be the next stop on his notorious career.

MSNBC, the 24 hour a day flagship of NBC is rapidly distinguishing itself not for quality reporting but for rampant infighting, over-inflated egos and a new socialist agenda. The people know it as the network that has watched their Nielsen ratings disintegrate in just two weeks. Expecting to lead political coverage of the conventions, it took just two days for the floor to drop out from MSNBC as they finished dead last in convention ratings.

The on air meltdown was led by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann with more than a little help from analyst Chris Matthews. Olbermann and his open warfare tried to stop Republicans from being part of his news show and part of the panel of analysts, and even tried to stop Tom Brokaw, the last ray of objective hope for NBC network from appearing.

Olbermann complained constantly about his lack of security protection in Denver as if anyone had threatened the big mouth. When he got to St. Paul things deteriorated. His paranoia reached a peak when the first day of the convention was cancelled because of the hurricane in Louisiana and Keith fled back to NYC. He then refused to return to the convention saying he would stay in New York and cover hurricane Hanna which never hit NYC.

So there he was, hosting St. Paul convention coverage from NYC, presiding over the greatest collapse in ratings from week to week possibly in history. His ceaseless rantings about the Republicans and raging about Sarah Palin never let up and when he told his national audience that the film honoring the 9-11 victims at the GOP convention was in such poor taste that he had to apologize to the world that his network even allowed it to air, well that about did it.

Now that Sarah has powered the GOP into the lead Olbermann must be in a straight jacket and today NBC finally stopped trying to cover up for the idiot and announced Olbermann and Matthews would no longer be part of network political coverage during the 2008 election.

Good thing too as the network was in danger of being known as the Obama Network and slipping from liberal to socialist to NBC, the National Bureau of Communism? This is exactly what is meant by the elitist liberal media.

Whew!

Sarah Palin New Media Star

Well the elite media may hate her but America has come to her defense as Plain Sarah Palin stunned the elitists by capturing over 37 million viewers on television last night at her coming out party according to the latest Nielsen overnight ratings.

Obama's cornation at the Democratic convention broke all the old records for viewers as Joe Biden drew 24 million viewers, Hillary Clinton drew almost 26 million viewers and Barack's rock concert at the 80,000 seat stadium drew 38 million viewers.

So how in the world did the hockey mom from moose country who emerged from the Alaska frontier just five days ago have just 1 million fewer viewers than the most promoted, visible and exposed (over $150 million has been spent on the Obama campaign) candidate in Democratic party history?

Guess what? The elite media put the Obama lovefest on ten national networks while the country girl was only put on six networks, yet another example of media manipulation and still she nearly toppled the reigning king of political media.

If you believed the media Obama should be running away with the election. Based on spending and exposure he really should be. But what is the truth behind the numbers?

Annie Oakly from moose country nearly equals his record for the largest political television audience in history on four less networks. A week ago no one even knew her.

Obama has captured about 18 million votes while spending hundreds of millions of dollars over 18 months while Sarah has spent a week in the public eye being mauled by the media.

Obama is the darling of the liberal media, yet just 21% of American voters are liberal, 45% are moderate and 34% are conservative.

While Obama captured 18 million primary votes, so did Hillary Clinton. There will be about 125 million votes cast for president this year which means 107 million have not voted for Obama this year.

Registered voters are split about 37% Democrat, 37% Republican and 26% Independent.

In spite of the best efforts of some media to discredit Sarah Palin the country girl managed to become a media star matching the star power of the mighty Obama in her first week of exposure to the American public.

Well now we have a real election. No matter who wins history will be made. For once the media elite will be on the ballot through surrogate Obama. And once again the American voters, Joe Six Pack and Soccer/Hockey Mom, will determine the future of the world.

GOP Convention Stuns Democrats and Liberal Media Partners

Tonight Sarah Palin made her long awaited speech to the nation and from the minute she started talking the reaction of the liberal media and Democratic analysts told me all I needed to know. The small town mayor and governor from Alaska may well be the Achilles heel to the liberal hopes to sweep the election this year.

What is it about a media that thinks lies, insults, distortions and smear campaigns have any place in America? The biggest loser this election year is the media, and journalists in general, who have forgotten their responsibilities to report the news and not make the news. There is no objective news being reported in America and the colleges and universities seem to be hell bent on turning out media stars and power brokers, not defenders of the truth.

Of course both the liberal and conservative media suffer from the same ego driven disease, foot in mouth syndrome, and they certainly don't get it. People are seeing through the crap being dished out in the endless news shows and cable forums all being done in the "public interest". I don't need some socialist telling me what I need. Now I don't care if a socialist reports the news as long as they can be objective but they don't even know what that means.

Reporters are more interested in becoming media stars in their own right so they can make the killing selling books and other works of nonsense and become analysts spouting even more of the silly opinions that penetrate their stories.

Broadcasters are licensed and the license says they will report news, not propaganda. America has moved a giant step closer to the media that functioned under the Soviet Union. They got their people in power, then eliminated the opposition. In the end the Russian people knew the media lied and the lies would soon bring down their empire.

Here in America today the lies being told by the mainstream media are blatantly obvious. People are seeing the truth as every year fewer and fewer people watch the nonsense. It is a sad state of affairs and one with little evidence it can be corrected.

Facts are ignored and untruths are published. Causes are pursued, people are smeared, social and moral issues are distorted and manipulated yet the reporters actually keep a straight face throughout the performance.

The media is this year's biggest loser. If we are not careful, the people will be the next biggest.

Sarah Palin, Governor

Wow, McCain nominates a woman governor, Sarah Palin to be vice president and the democrats and liberal media come unglued. So for the record you members of the left including the folks at NBC TV, CNN, NPR, The New York Times and every other hotbed of socialism say a governor is not qualified to be president.

Well the media and liberal left has certainly ignored recent history to make such an unsubstantiated claim in order to smear the new VP candidate. Where in the world have these experts been the past 32 years? During that time governors with NO federal experience have been elected President of the United States by the American electorate in 28 of those 32 years. Four of the past five presidents have been governors with no federal experience.

That's not all. The federal government has 2.7 million employees, the governors have 5.1 million. The feds spend 2.5 trillion while the governors spend 1.7 trillion. Hummm. Twice as many employees at the state but half the spending. Perhaps the governors know what having a balanced budget means. And just so there is no misunderstanding, Congress is controlled by the democrats, not by Bush.

So now the first female governor to be nominated comes along and suddenly governors are not qualified to be president? What about Reagan, Clinton, Carter and Bush? Maybe the liberals don't think governors can handle it but the American voter sure knows better.

Speaking of the eastern liberal media in America, they should also remember that no eastern president has been elected in 48 years. What the socialists say is good for America is not what the voters think. Don't know what they put in the water out east but it sure isn't democracy, individual rights and freedom.

I think the rush to bury Sarah Palin is a huge tactical mistake by the liberal media and the more liberal democrats.

Who really Controls America? The US Government or Big Money?

This past week has seen an amazing display of courage by some and arrogance by others as the economy has tried to stabilize after the incredible series of events including fraud, mismanagement, manipulation and greed that has contaminated the US economic system.

Take for example the case of Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment banks on Wall Street and in the world. For months their financial analysts have been downgrading banks, investment houses and companies driving stock prices down while at the same time other Goldman analysts have been driving the price of oil futures through the roof as explained in a recent CPT article.

A little over a week ago an analyst from Deutsche Bank in Germany downgraded the rating and value of Goldman Sachs citing exposure of the banking giant to credit weakness. He was joined by another analyst from Oppenheimer & Company. The result was a 6% drop in the stock value of Goldman the same day from a previous high of $178.00 to $167.30.

In the next few days analysts from Ladenburg Thalmann and Thomson Financial joined the field downgrading Goldman who thought they had avoided public notice of their credit problems. By Wednesday, August 20 shares in Goldman went for $158.25, a loss of $20 a share in little over a week.



The next day Citi Investment Research projected additional asset problems for Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers and Morgan Stanley due to credit problems yet to be reported by the giant firms and the stock dropped to $156 a share, a loss of $22 per share and a bit too much for the Goldman gang to stomach.

The next morning Goldman declared the price of oil, which had dropped to $114 per barrel from $149, would spike back up to $149 before the end of the year in what could be considered a last desperate attempt to stop the downward spiral of their stock and drive it back up. Of course Goldman is one of the largest traders of energy and oil stocks in the world and a temporary oil price spike might help refill the coffers.

Oil did indeed spike the next day by an astonishing $6.00 a barrel, a huge daily profit for a firm that might have a few trillion dollars at play on oil futures, while the stock market was being driven down nearly 400 points in two days because of the credit crisis. Fortunately, after one day of temporary insanity on Wall Street a calm Warren Buffett was on television Friday morning telling the world a whole different story and the stock market shot up 200 points while the oil price had the largest one day loss in years, over $6.00 to completely wipe out the Goldman hike of the day earlier.

Goldman has made the following oil price forecasts this year. December 2007 oil projected to reach $105 in 2008. May 2008 oil projected to reach $141. June 2008 oil projected to reach $200 by year end. August 2008 oil projected to reach $149 in 2008. Oil did indeed reach a record high in 2008 being pushed to $149 a barrel and driving gas, diesel and heating oil right through the roof.

The huge houses like Goldmans might have made billions in profits on oil using a variety of strategies like ownership of the futures market, commissions off stock sales, and a host of alternative financing schemes outside the regulatory control of the government including institutional funds and swaps. For the first time this year Goldman did not get its way and drive up the price of oil for longer than a day. One can only hope they were in and out of the market fast enough to make a killing overnight or their own strategy might have backfired and cost them in futures contracts.

Now who really controls America? Did I mention that as of August 22 Goldman Sachs people have given $456,702 to the Barack Obama campaign and $174,820 to the McCain campaign. Before you think Obama receives twice as much money from financial institutions as McCain consider this. During the entire campaign people from the financial sector including Wall Street have given a total of $22.4 million to Obama and $21.6 million to McCain. I wonder how they classify that investment?

Here is how Goldmans rewarded employees last year and what they will be missing this year. The following appeared in a New York Post story by Paul Thorp, December 19, 2007.

Toiling at profit powerhouse Goldman Sachs is so lucrative that even a secretary's bonus can exceed Gov. Eliot Spitzer's whole $179,000 paycheck.

As the Wall Street giant yesterday celebrated its fourth-straight year of record profits - despite a general wipeout at most banks - Goldman Sachs was also jubilant over the record bonuses it's handing out in early 2008.

Overall, Goldman will pay employees a total $20.19 billion in pay and bonuses, or an average $661,490, up nearly 23 percent from $16.46 billion a year ago.

While the average is only a statistical snapshot, the real bonus packages - to be distributed in the first quarter of next year - are equally impressive, ranging from around $3,000 for a mailroom clerk to $20 million for top bosses.

"It's not unusual for an administrative assistant or a secretary of a very senior person to get more than $200,000," said Alan Sklover, a compensation lawyer who represents Wall Street executives.

"There's a great value for someone who gets you on the plane in the middle of the night and plans your daily life," he said.

"The higher up the boss, the bigger the bonus for his support staff, which at Goldman Sachs is often paid by their bosses of out of their own bonuses."

With Goldman the envy of Wall Street as the only bank awarding any big bonuses, the formula of how the $12.1 billion pot of bonuses alone is distributed is based on two principles: favoritism, and how much profit your department generated, experts said.

A junior trader who helped Goldman keep ahead of the rest of Wall Street rivals could expect to get a bonus of between $500,000 and $2.2 million - on top of their regular pay. A more senior trader would get up to $3 million or more.

CEO Lloyd Blankfein is expected to reap up to $70 million in pay, stock and bonuses.

"Its hard not to be a Goldman executive and walk away a multi-millionaire," said Sklover.

Vice President Picks by CPT

The Coltons Point Times has already offered the best running mate for Barack Obama, Sam Nunn from Georgia. We stand by our choice and are confident he would greatly enhance the Democratic ticket because of experience, leadership, knowledge of foreign and economic affairs and ability to step in as President if necessary.

As for the Republican ticket, we believe McCain should pick Mitt Romney of Massachusett, a successful buinessmen and governor and expert on the economy whose youth and energy will complement McCain.

Both candidates will greatly aid their respective tickets and the US will be assured of a strong, responsible, moral ticket to lead our nation. In the next few days we shall see.

Oil Price Speculation - Who do you believe?

For the past two years the Coltons Point Times has been investigating and raising the alarm about the federal rules changes that allowed oil futures to exist and then to be less regulated, that allowed electronic futures purchases from the futures exchanges, and that allowed electronic foreign purchasing of futures on American commodities markets.

We pointed out the failure of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to monitor and regulate the futures industry and the need to commit federal resources to investigating links between investment houses losing billions in sub prime mortgage markets and the same houses using alternative investment techniques to manipulate the multi-trillion dollar institutional funds and drive up the commodity prices.

In spite of denials from the financial analysts, government, Treasury and oil industry that such practices were being used, the CFTC finally launched an investigation in late May and on August 21 The Washington Post published an article saying evidence of widespread speculation possibly involving over 80% of the contracts sold on the New York Mercantile Exchange have been discovered in the preliminary investigation.

Of course the CFTC and Wall Street are saying The Washington Post is wrong but Wall Street has tried to cover up every scandal by the financial Dark Angels of Wall Street that stole blood money from American and world citizens including the schemes since 2000 resulting in about $35 billion in fines. As for the CTFC, if they were doing their job we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. But I love it, who do you want to believe, Wall Street and the CTFC or The Washington Post?

The same giant investment houses responsible for the sub prime disaster manage your money, the institutional funds of America. These are the mutual funds that target persion funds, endowments, and other high net worth entities and individuals. Institutional funds usually have lower operating costs and higher minimum investments than retail funds. Often their main objective is to reduce risk, so they invest in hundreds of different securities, which makes them among the most diversified funds available. They also do not tend to trade securities very often, so they are able to keep operating costs to a minimum. Although in the past investors typically needed at least $1 million in order to invest in an institutional fund, nowadays some discount brokers offer access to these funds for smaller amounts. (Definition from InvestorWords.com.)

A capital pool of up to $35 trillion to $70 trillion may be in these institutional funds. Now this includes your retirement, insurance, IRA, 401K, and even investments if you have deep pockets. Since you may be like me and have trouble grasping the size of a trillion dollars, let alone 70 trillion, just remember that the total size of the dreaded US National Debt is $9.6 trillion, meaning the institutional funds are a heck of a lot bigger than the total national debt.

This morning Becky Quick of CNBC, a young up and coming reporter and favorite of billionaire Warren Buffett did a three hour interview with Warren that should be required viewing for everyone in America and on Wall Street. This Midwestern born financial reporter was excellent while Buffett, in his typical low key Nebraska style offered wisdom so powerful that the stock market went up over 100 points and the oil prices dropped over $2 just during the time of his interview.

Stay tuned. As Warren Buffet, our favorite financial guru known as the Oracle of Omaha and the richest man in the world says, "You only find out whose been swimming naked when the tide goes out. Well we found out that Wall Street has been kind of a nudist beach. There has been one discovery after another of firms that either didn't know what they were doing or did things they shouldn't have knowingly."

Has the NBC Peacock Lost it's Mind?

Okay, you invest a few hundred million bucks in staging the Olympics expecting to make a fortune in ad revenue and how does it go? Well this Olympics is rather unusual because of Michael Phelps and the USA women's gymnastics team. Remember that Americans love the Americans in the Olympics.

According to TV Week NBC continues to reap the benefit of the Phelps effect, adding another $15 million to its already impressive Olympics ad sales total.

The network said Tuesday that it sold the extra ad inventory within the last week. Add in $10 million it sold in the first couple days of the Games, and NBC has increased its Olympic ad revenue haul by $25 million since the Games began. Overall, NBC has billed more than $1 billion to advertisers for the privilege of hawking their wares during the Olympiad.

Seth Winter, NBC’s senior VP of sports sales and marketing, said retail, packaged goods, movies and pharmaceuticals were among the categories driving the recent ad sales. More than 100 companies have bought time on the Games, as have both presumptive U.S. presidential nominees.

While NBC doesn’t seem to be having any trouble convincing advertisers to get on board the Beijing bandwagon, the network nonetheless touted a new Nielsen IAG study detailing the value of Olympics advertising.

The study said brand recall for Olympics ads was 130% higher than other prime-time shows, and that message recall was more than twice as high. Also, viewers were three times more likely to positively respond to an ad screened during the Olympics, compared with those seen in regular prime-time shows.

NBC said that more than 196 million viewers have watched the 2008 Olympics on the various NBC Universal networks during the first 10 days of the Games. That’s 11 million more than watched the first 10 days of the Athens Olympics.

From TV By the Numbers comes the following:
Tuesday, August 19

Though down a fair clip from last week’s average of 32 million, the Olympics still compelled over 25 million people to watch. Since even NBC had predicted this week wouldn’t be as large as last, I imagine they are pretty tickled with these numbers. It will be interesting to see if NBC can break the total reach record of 209 million set in 1996 with the Atlanta games. Through Monday’s broadcast (but not including yesterday) NBC was at 200 million after 11 days and still adding ~5 million total viewers per day.

I don’t know if it’s possible for the networks to figure out, but there’s something about the Olympics that draws in the more youthful demos and it’s performed very impressively among 18-34 year olds. NBC had a 20% share of all 18-34 year olds watching TV for the night. The other broadcast networks combined (including Spanish language and ION, but not MyNetworkTV) combined for 18% share among 18-34 year olds.

So even with the Olympic-sized success of NBC, the broadcast networks combined for only ~38% of all 18-34 year olds. 62% were watching cable or local programming. The same thing is basically true for the 18-49 demographic as well.

What in the world is wrong with all that news? Record ad revenue and record viewers sounds like a good deal. But there are some things missing, like figuring out where in the world to find the events on the tube. NBC has spread the broadcast over all the following networks.

NBC
NBC HDCNBC
CNBC HD
USA
USA HD
MSNBC
OXYGEN
TELEMUNDO
UNIVERSAL HD
NBC OLYMPIC BASKETBALL CHANNEL
NBC OLYMPIC SOCCER CHANNEL

That means you have to look in 12 different places to find what you want. The daily schedule does not tell you if you are watching last night's reruns or new events. Even when you are watching them it does not tell you if they are earlier results.

As if that is not bad enough the primary network broadcast, NBC, wasted two prime hours over the weekend showing a live broadcast of the women's marathon in which no women were contenders when there were basketball, baseball and volley ball matches with American teams doing quite well.

The NBC policy of waiting until the last hour or two of the evening network broadcast to show the premier events means Michael Phelps or the women's gymnastic team is performing nearly at midnight on the east coast, long after many kids have gone to sleep.

Also missing are profiles of non-American athletes which were highlights of earlier games so the fans could get to know some of the top foreign competitors. We have no clue who the top world performers might be in many sports since NBC is not running profiles.

If they set records this year, and I do expect a major drop off in viewers now that Phelps and the women's gymnastic team is off television, the records will be far below what they could have been if the NBC production had been geared to the viewers as well as the advertisers. On the good side, some of the best ads on TV have appeared during the Olympics.

Goldman Sachs Again Tries to Prop Up Oil Prices

Goldman Sachs massive NYC headquarters.

Today Goldman Sachs announced that oil prices would rise to $149.00 a barrel before the end of the year. The price is hovering around $112.00. Why is Goldman trying to push oil prices higher? Does it have anything to do with the fact Goldman is an equity owner in the oil futures market, is the stock broker for the ICE futures market, manages institutional funds with substantial oil investments, participates in energy swaps to help manipulate the oil prices, and has consistently used its position and analysts to influence the oil market?

Ever since the purchase of the London Oil Futures Market by ICE, the public offering of ICE stock managed by Goldman and the huge increase in institutional investor involvement in the oil futures market Goldman has been projecting major increases in oil prices. Goldman research activity seems to be driven more on profit potential than objective oil market analysis.

The following excerpts from several stories on Goldman over the past 9 months shows the incredible leadership position Goldman took in pushing the rapid rise in the crude oil price. Now that the price has dropped about $35 Goldman today made another push to drive prices back up. Do you think there is any connection between the fact a number of financial analysts downgraded Goldman this week to a sell status rather than a buy status, thus undercutting its financial value?

One might think the actions by Goldman are so reckless, such blatant conflicts of interest, and clearly concerted efforts to manipulate the market without disclosing the company ownership position in the market that it seems Goldman's might be in serious financial trouble. Do not be surprised if sub prime mortgage losses combined with reckless credit risks and mismanagement of the oil investments doesn't result in the collapse of Goldman Sachs in the imminent future. If oil prices continue to go down the Goldman organization may very well go down with it.

Goldman's famous philosophy of being "long term greedy" may have finally caught up with them. Goldman's was formed in 1869, the same year that Black Friday took place when speculators tried to corner the US gold market and destroy the US economy. It was also the year Rasputin, the Russian mystic, Nadezhda Krupskaya, wife of Soviet founder Lenin, and Mahatma Gandi were born. A very strange year indeed.

Coltons Point Times
June 2, 2008

The CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, was set up in 1974 to protect Americans from manipulations in the commodity markets. It was last updated in 2000 even though in 2006 a Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said there was substantial evidence of price manipulation in the commodity oil futures markets and a gaping loophole in U.S. Regulations that would lead to further speculation and manipulation.

That was the same year the Administration allowed ICE, the new oil futures market owner in London to trade American oil futures in London. Oil prices were $59-60 per barrel then and since the gaping loophole in our regulation prices have more than doubled, meaning the price impact of speculation could be $60 per barrel today.

So Goldman Sachs represents ICE in securities offerings and was an original equity owner of ICE. The current Treasury Secretary was former head of Goldman Sachs. The current head of NYMEX, the New York Mercantile (Futures) Exchange whose contracts can be bought through ICE in London, is James Newsome who also sits on the Dubai Exchange, the third and last oil futures exchange in the world. Interestingly Newsome is a former chairman of the CTFC.

The current CTFC Global Markets Advisory Committee includes Newsome and Jeffrey Sprecher, Chairman and CEO of ICE, along with representatives of J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Citigroup, UBS and Barclays among others. The CTFC Energy Market Advisory Committee includes Newsome and Sprecher from the futures exchanges along with Goldman Sachs, Shell Oil, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, J.P. Morgan, and others.

So the two key advisory committees to the CTFC contain many of the very firms that are under investigation by the CTFC and the largest investment houses, banks and oil companies of the world are the target. The five CTFC lawyers could spend decades searching for truth.

Why did Congress and the Administration refuse to act to close the huge CTFC regulatory loophole two years ago when it was identified? Why were no changes made in CTFC regulations to enable it to effectively stop oil price manipulations since Bush took office? Why does the Treasury Secretary ignore what may be massive oil price manipulations by the financial sector speculators? How can the CTFC investigate the largest and richest corporations in the world with five lawyers?

If Congress or the Administration have any sense they will assign all the investigative resources of the federal government to the CTFC investigation including the FBI, SEC, FTC and any intelligence service monitoring the world oil situation. If ever there was a need for a national security investigation this is it as our economy and the world economy are at risk. This could be the last chance for Bush to actually do something for the good of the people before his Administration becomes a target of the investigation.

And don’t forget these same financial and oil companies have already given $1.6 billion to the campaigns of our U.S. Senate, House and presidential candidates in this election year and another $1.6 billion will be given before November. Let’s hope $3 billion cannot buy the influence of Congress. They have also paid over $20 billion in fines for fraud and stock manipulations in recent years so such behavior may not be anything new.

Reuters News Wire
December 12, 2007

According to Reuters the most active investment bank in the energy markets, Goldman Sachs, released a new forecast today that said U.S. oil prices will head higher in the coming year. The bank also expects the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC) to restrict crude oil production levels, even though global demand may rise. Goldman is forecasting U.S. crude oil to cost an average of $95 a barrel in 2008, up $10 from a previous projection. Analysts at the bank suggested that the price could even reach $105 by this time next year. The new price forecast for 2008 is 7% higher than the most bullish projection among 37 analysts recently polled by Reuters.


Bloomberg News
Published: May 16, 2008

New York: Crude oil futures rose above $127 a barrel Friday for the first time, leading other commodities higher, after Goldman Sachs raised its forecast on speculation that Chinese diesel purchases would strain supplies.

Goldman raised its price outlook for the second half of this year to $141 a barrel, from $107, citing supply constraints. China may increase fuel imports to generate power after a May 12 earthquake. Oil and other commodities, like gold and platinum, also surged on the falling dollar.

"We can blame Goldman again," said Nauman Barakat, senior vice president of global energy futures at Macquarie Futures USA in New York. "In March 2005 they predicted that prices would rise dramatically, and they did. Prices jumped to the $125 level after another Goldman report less than two weeks ago. At this point nobody wants to bet against Goldman."

Crude oil for June delivery rose $3.13, or 2.5 percent, to $127.25 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The contract surged to $127.82, the highest since trading began in 1983. Prices have doubled in the past year.


New York Times
By Louis Story
Published: May 21, 2008

Arjun N. Murti remembers the pain of the oil shocks of the 1970s. But he is bracing for something far worse now: He foresees a “super spike” — a price surge that will soon drive crude oil to $200 a barrel.

Arjun Murti at Goldman Sachs studied the 1970s’ oil spikes. One had drivers lined up at a gas station in San Jose, Calif., in 1974.

Mr. Murti, who has a bit of a green streak, is not bothered much by the prospect of even higher oil prices, figuring it might finally prompt America to become more energy efficient.

An analyst at Goldman Sachs, Mr. Murti has become the talk of the oil market by issuing one sensational forecast after another. A few years ago, rivals scoffed when he predicted oil would breach $100 a barrel. Few are laughing now. Oil shattered yet another record on Tuesday, touching $129.60 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Gas at $4 a gallon is arriving just in time for those long summer drives.


Reuters News Service
June 9, 2008

Kuala Lumpur: Oil prices are likely to hit $150 a barrel this summer season, the global head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs said on 9 June, as tighter supplies outweigh weakening demand.

“I would suggest that the likelihood of that happening sooner has increased tremendously ... sometime in summer,” Jeffrey Currie told an oil and gas conference in the Malaysian capital, referring to oil at $150 a barrel.

Goldman Sachs, the most active investment bank in energy markets and one of the first to point to triple-digit oil more than two years ago — a once unthinkable level — said last month oil could shoot up to $200 within the next two years as part of a “super spike.”

Forecasts that oil could head towards $150 and above have multiplied over the past month as prices broke through several records, the latest being last Friday, when oil soared more than $11 a barrel on Friday, its biggest one-day gain ever.

Oil hit an all-time high of $139.12 on 6 June on the back of a weak US dollar and mounting tensions between Israel and Iran.

Goldman Sachs forecast almost a month ago that US crude would average $141 a barrel in the second half of 2008, up from a previous projection of $107, due to tight supplies.


Al Jazeera
UPDATED ON:Saturday, July 12, 2008
With oil prices having more than doubled over the last 12 months, various reasons are being cited for the price increases.

Adhip Chaudhuri, a visiting professor of economics at Georgetown University's campus in Doha, Qatar, explains the cause and effect of high oil prices.

Is the increase in oil prices plunging the global economy into stagflation?

The United States is, for all practical purposes, in a recession. The European Union's growth rates are being revised downwards below 2 per cent. The shine is coming off even China, India and Korea.
The recessions and the low growth rates represent stagnation and hence connote the 'stag' part of "stagflation", and high oil prices have a lot do with it.

Oil prices, together with simultaneous, huge increases in food prices, have increased worldwide inflation rates. Both China and India now have high inflation rates with China at almost 8 per cent and India at 11 per cent. The rising inflation is the "flation" part of "stagflation".

The worse thing about stagflation is that the central banks find themselves in a dilemma. If they lowered interest rates to spur growth, they would raise inflationary expectations. On the other hand, if they fought inflation by raising interest rates, the reduction in money supply will have contractionary effects on the GDPs of their countries.

For policymakers stagflation is a "lose - lose" situation.

Is the growth in world demand for oil the main reason?

Demand is one part of what the money market calls "fundamentals". The other is, of course, supply. In the opinion of the Bush administration, and the majority of the Wall Street establishment in the US, demand is the principal reason why oil prices are going up astronomically. However, this point of view does not correspond to facts.

Consider first the oft-mentioned demand from "China and India" which is frequently put forward as the principal reason why oil prices are going up.

According to official statistics published by the United States government, China consumed an additional 377,000 barrels of oil per day during 2007.

However, during the same time period Germany and Japan together decreased their consumption by 380,000, and hence, the net effect of China’s increased consumption is zero.

Even if China doubled its consumption in the first half of 2008, say to stockpile for the Olympics, the increment would be a drop in the bucket of total world consumption of 86 million barrels per day.
The same is true of India. It increased consumption by only 150,000 barrels per day during 2007, which is virtually indiscernible in the total world demand.

Notice also that the sum of additional consumption from "China and India" barely exceeds 500,000 barrels, an amount that Saudi Arabia has promised to increase production by.

Finally, the US has projected that the net increase in oil consumption during 2008 will increase by one million barrels per day, which is about 1.1 per cent. How can such a small increase in demand increase oil prices by 100 per cent between July 2007 and July 2008?

What is happening with the supply of oil?

The supply of crude oil has been remarkably stagnant over the last three years. According to official US statistics, the production of crude worldwide was 84.63 million barrels per day in 2005, and it was 84.55 million barrels per day in 2007. Thus, even small increases in demand over the last three years have put upward pressures on prices.

The near-term supply situation, according to the International Energy Agency, is not all that bad. Saudi Arabia will be adding to their capacity, deepwater Nigerian production will start in 2008, and Iraqi production will see an increase. If one added up the growth in all forms of energy, namely crude oil, natural gas, and biofuels, according to IEA there should be an increase in supply capacity of 1.5 million barrels during 2008.

Notice that amount of increase in supply is greater than the projected increase in demand for 2008 amounting to 1 million barrels per day. The supply projection for 2009 is even better. The supply capacity is expected to increase by 2.5 million barrels, which will outstrip the growth in demand comfortably.

It is the very short-term supply disruptions which seem to be more important for an increase in oil prices. Real disruptions may come from labour strikes in Venezuela, hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and rebel attacks in Nigeria. Given that the demand and supply situation is so tight, even the slightest of bad news can increase the price of oil in the futures and spot markets noticeably.

Can the weak dollar be blamed for high oil prices?

Asserting that the "weak dollar" is a significant reason behind the rise in oil prices has become as ritualistic as asserting that "China and India" are the cause. And yet, the forces which determine the foreign exchange value of the dollar against the euro, the yen, or the pound are distinctively different from those that determine the price of oil.

There is, however, one logical argument which can sometimes provide a sufficient explanation as to why a depreciating dollar and increasing oil prices are inversely related - If the dollar weakens against the euro, the ability of the oil-exporting countries to buy European goods will decline because their oil exports are denominated in dollars.

The Europeans, at the same time, will be able to pay the higher dollar prices of oil because the euro has appreciated. Clearly, to keep their purchasing power over European goods constant, the oil-exporting countries need an increase in oil price approximately equal to the depreciation of the dollar.

However, for the first six months of 2008 the dollar has depreciated against the euro by only 7.5 per cent, while oil prices have gone up by about 50 per cent.

Surely, both Americans and Europeans are paying much higher prices for oil than can be explained by a "weak dollar".

Is speculation, then, a major factor?

The energy ministers of Saudi Arabia and Qatar asserted for the first time in public at the recent Jeddah meeting of major oil producing and consuming nations, that speculation in the oil futures markets was the most important reason why current oil prices are going up.

The United States Senate has been holding hearings in front of several committees since 2006 on the lack of regulation and oversight by the official Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) one of the two locations for oil futures.

In a recent testimony to the Senate, a hedge fund trader presented data to show that outstanding speculative positions in all commodities futures has reached $250 billion by March 2008, as compared to only $13 billion at the end of 2003.

As far as speculation specifically in oil futures is concerned, representative Bart Stupak (Democrat-Michigan), the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced recently that 71 per cent of all oil futures were owned by institutional investors.

The institutional investors, which consist of but is not confined to state
pension funds and university endowments from the United States, have been pouring funds into indexed commodity funds as part of a strategy of portfolio diversification.

The traditional assets, in which they would have otherwise invested in, namely stocks and bonds, have been yielding negative returns after inflation.

These investors can buy futures contracts with only a 5 per cent margin down payment. In addition the regulatory environment is very slack, filled with loopholes which bypass whatever few regulations that are on the books.

While there are dollar limits to positions that the institutional investors might take in the NYMEX, they are allowed to conduct "swaps" with the investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, and thereby manage to roll over their "buy" positions. This way they never have to take physical possession of the oil that they put in "buy" orders for.

If speculation is what is driving oil prices up, then it stands to reason that such high prices should lead to an excess supply of crude in the world. There are signs that such an excess supply is indeed building up, albeit slowly, much like the way the excess supply of housing emerged in the United States.

Fuel consumption has declined in the US sharply. We have already noted that oil consumption in Japan and Germany are actually decreasing.

Consumers in China and India have been insulated from the high world prices of oil until very recently with domestic subsidies. However, China has raised the prices of various petroleum products amounting to an average increase of 18 per cent, and so has India, by 13 per cent. The decrease in the demand for oil will start strengthening soon.

The biggest argument for speculation to be the single-most important cause for oil price increases in 2008 is: What else could have doubled the price of oil in one year?

The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Al Jazeera.


CNN Money
August 13, 2008

Financials sell off

"The financials [are] really what sold off," said Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Jefferies & Co. Merrill Lynch's (MER) downgrades of several investment banks put the sector under selling pressure, Hogan said.

Merrill Lynch analyst Guy Moszkowski downgraded on Wednesday Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group (GS) and Lehman Brothers Holdings to underperform, according to media reports. Moszkowski also lowered Morgan Stanley's (MS) rating to neutral.


SAM NELSON
Reuters
August 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM EDT

Grains and soy also found support from firm crude oil markets following an optimistic forecast for crude oil prices from big index fund Goldman Sachs.

“The weather was supportive, plus Goldman reiterated their forecast for $149 dollar a barrel crude oil by the end of the year,” Mr. Sernatinger said.

The outlook from Goldman was well above Wednesday's price for New York crude oil futures prices of around $115 per barrel.


A Goldman Puff Piece

Goldman Sachs provides full service commodity risk management to commercial, sovereign and investor customers worldwide. Our commodities teams have extensive physical and financial experience in power, weather, natural gas, liquefied natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil and refined products as well as coal, emissions and precious and base metals. Our capabilities include:

Delivering the experience of over 220 professionals around the world, with offices in New York, Calgary, Houston, London, Sydney (via Goldman Sachs JBWere venture), Singapore and Tokyo.

Offering innovative risk management to our corporate clients and financial investors, from hedge funds to institutions to private equity.

etc., etc.

Isn't it ironic that of all the articles mentioned the closest one to the truth is the Al Jeerza, the Arab news service interview which is the only media to zero in on the impact of financial manipulation in the price of oil?

USA Olympic Champions

The world got a rare view of America that could only be possible through the Olympics as a Texan, Iowan, Russian and Chinese combined to give the USA the first sweep of gold and silver in the women's overall gymnastics championship in history. What you say?

Try this. Nastia Liukin of Texas won the gold and Shawn Johnson, her roommate from Iowa won the silver medal in the Olympics all around, the first time it ever happened.

Now Nastia is the closest thing we have to gymnastic royalty as her father and coach, Valeri Liukin was a gold medal champion from the Soviet Union and her mother, Anna Kotchneva was a world champion rhythmic gymnast from the Soviet Union. Nastia was born in Moscow.

Shawn was born in Iowa and one of the first students of Chinese gymnast Liang Chow who moved from Beijing, China to Iowa to attend university and start a training school.

So a Russian born girl and her Soviet champion parents move to Texas while a Chinese gymnast moves to Iowa and finds a future Olympic champion at his door. About 10 years later they all converge in Beijing for the 29th Olympics, with Nastia and Shawn roommates where they electrify the world with dazzling performances.

In the end just 6 one hundredths of a point separates the two, who were cheering for each other during the competition, and proved that sportsmanship still rules in America where you can be competitors and remain friends.

Do I sense a movie in the making?