What follows is guesswork, so don't delay taking prudent steps to safeguard yourselves, but... with respect to making speculative bets on an apocalyptic future, keep this in mind:
It is possible for a producer of a commodity to sell future production in the financial markets. This provides a way to lock in current prices.
So, when/if Big Oil and foreign governments come to the conclusion that a) Bush/Cheney/Israel are not going to incite WWIII, and b) the price of oil is at or near of top -- within a certain timeframe -- then they could begin to sell futures contracts locking in their profits at today's ginormous price levels.
One reason why they might do this is that stock prices of Big Oil -- Conoco, Shell, Exxon, Chevron, and friends -- are not yet discounting (i.e. taking into account) $140 per barrel oil as the long term average. If $140 per barrel is the long term average, or even below the long term average, then these share prices are probably ridiculously low.
So if a consensus were achieved, probably with inside information from the Oval Office or the Naval Observatory, that the geopolitical environment would now stabilize and that demand reduction would be matched by increased alternative energy production, then the greatest imaginable scam could be pulled off -- by selling the next few years of oil production at the $140 range. It would be the coup of the century, like Enron, except that Big Oil would initially be regarded as heroes!
In addition, we now see that the weekly RSI indicator is nearing the end of a 3 month spike above the 70 level, and that this is the second lengthy +70 spike in the last year -- which indicates that the likelihood of a correction is great:
Now that the smell of the Apocalypse is pungent, like napalm in the morning alongside the frying bacon and coffee smells, the odds of some sort of financial engineering to "save" us are growing. Why? Because The Powers That Be recognize that they would lose in the event of a complete and utter financial collapse.
So they will react to the threat for their own benefit, and the odds would seem to favor them doing so in a way that is profitable to them -- a "twofer", in other words.
I can't verify the translation. Just wanted to give you a heads up and maybe one of your
readers can help with this.
Fortis is a large bank and insurer in the Netherlands and Belgium. It
took over ABN Amro last year, together with RBS and another bank. Last
Thursday, its share lost 17% because Fortis attracted foreign capital.
I was shocked when I read the following, which was brought out 4 hours ago:
Excerpt: Fortis expects a complete collapse of the US financial markets within a few days to weeks. That explains, according to Fortis, the series of interventions of last Thursday to retrieve € 8 billion. "We have been saved just in time. The situation in the US is much worse than we thought", says Fortis chairman Maurice Lippens. Fortis expects bankruptcies amongst 6000 American banks which have a small coverage currently. But also Citigroup, General Motors, there is starting a complete meltdown in the US ...
This fits in the picture, with the other press releases last week, like the short advise of Goldman Sachs and some other of the same messages last week.
Although gold has rallied a lot lost week: first thing Monday morning: short Dow, long Gold?
Or will there be a rate cut, which undermines (delays) everything?
Call me paranoid, but since when does the Supreme Court care about us? I'm thinking they're allowing us to arm ourselves so they can grab FEMA, the National Guard, and any cops they can when the fur flies. That way they can say: "They were armed and pointing their guns at us so we had to return fire with deadly force" when it all goes down.
They don't care about us. They never have. Something smells.
I love a good argument, so I'm eagerly hoping somebody will write in and tell me how wrong the Supreme Court's decision on the Second Amendment was. I think it's a landmark of uncommon good sense ...
I would like to oblige you in the argument... however... I am unable too as I do agree to an extent. That is, I support the 2nd amendment but personally it would take a fairly desperate situation for me to shoot someone. That is not to say given the situation (and a fair amount of rage) that I could not kill some fucker. Especially it they happen to be (or were) a "coat and tie". In which case, I would much prefer torture. It lasts longer and is eminently more satisfying.
Well, my friend, I must provide evidence supporting the assertion that 1/2 of Dems are outraged by the recent Supreme Court decision. It is hard to make a numerical proof but the snarky comments from the Mommy Party leaders are there, and buzzflash.com -- an ardent fan of disarming everyone but cops and criminals -- was "up in arms", haha. Even Rude Pundit has a kvetch, though his argument was centered on Scalia's writing style and I don't really know WTF he intended.
Excerpt: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she was “profoundly disappointed” that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito voted to overturn Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.
“I guess I didn’t really think they would do this,” said Feinstein, who supported confirming the two justices nominated by President Bush but decided against supporting a filibuster of Alito.
She described the decision as monumental in suggesting the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own guns, and is not limited to states forming militia groups. She also singled out the court for striking down the District’s trigger lock requirement, describing that part of the decision as unbelievable.
“I remember both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito sitting in front of us and indicating how they would respect stare decisis and precedent -- and this decision takes down 70 years of precedent,” Feinstein said during a business meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
While Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) said he was disappointed in the Supreme Court, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the decision could leave room for the District’s government to regulate guns.
“I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that’s less pervasive,” she said at her weekly briefing Thursday. “I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools.” ...
Excerpt: Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty swiftly responded to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on Thursday that struck down his city's 32-year-old gun ban.
In a press conference on Thursday, Fenty said he was disappointed by the decision but vowed that the parts of the city's law that were not affected by the Court decision would remain intact. Surrounded by the police chief, the attorney general and members of the District of Columbia City Council, Fenty said "that more handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence." ...
Excerpt: For example, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following after the ruling:
"I think it still allows the District of Columbia to come forward with a law that's less pervasive," Pelosi said at her weekly briefing Thursday. "I think the court left a lot of room to run in terms of concealed weapons and guns near schools."
Excerpt: Pelosi is obviously still in a state of shock and or denial. Furthermore, her statement is curious given the recent history of gun control in Pelosi's hometown of San Francisco.
In 2005, San Francisco voters passed Measure H, which would have forbidden residents from owning hand guns. If H had been implemented, only law-abiding residents would have been disarmed, because criminals would simply ignore the law. That, by definition, is what criminals do!
Common sense eventually prevailed in this case as well, as the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against Measure H, thereby aborting this foolish bit of chicanery by liberal troublemakers.
Bottom Line: Liberals like Nancy Pelosi must be forced to accept that gun ownership is a basic tenet of American democracy, and is among the most cherished freedoms and liberties enjoyed by American citizens.
Mary Ann M.
Didn't mean to sound like I was doubting your estimate that 50% of Dems are outraged by the ruling. You're probably right. I was just noticing (thankfully) that our website seems to circulate among the other half, the good folks who aren't outraged. I'm also pleased that the Democrats whose names I recognize from your excerpts -- Feinstein, Rangel, and Pelosi -- are already among the Democrats I despise.
I'm now listening to podcasts of radio talk shows from Thursday and Friday, and indeed, a few of the hosts have responded with outrage about the ruling, but I was pleased to note that most of the callers seemed to disagree. It's probably a hopeless hope, but I do hope the ruling makes the topic moot. Maybe conservaliars won't be able to keep claiming that Democrats would disarm the populace -- since doing so is now unConstitutional.
We can not be complacent anymore when it comes to our Constitutional rights!
I want everyone to remember that there is a March and Rally coming up on July 12 in Washington, DC and folks will be marching for liberty, prosperity, civil rights and to show support for our US Constitution. I hope you will be able to be there if possible.
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want
it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
YOU CAN HELP
We try not to whine too much or too loudly, but we are poor and this site eats a lot of time
and especially money. Just a buck or two can make all the difference and help keep Unknown News alive.
