Friday, November 28, 2008



Tuesday, November 25, 2008


my friend Harry is 93 years old


Truly, truly I, as all fair-minded Americans, wish our President-elect a successful tenure in office. He will be in a position to do America tremendous good or destructive harm. I wish him good fortune, at least for our children's sake.

"CHANGE" is the magic word that catapulted him into the Oval Office.
And -- with the help of hundreds of millions of dollars for television ads and related campaign expenses. (Campaign reform. Another subject).

I'm one old geezer who has a good knowledge how advertising men and women work because, in my business, I dealt with quite a few of them.
They advertised him with the same cleverness, expense and sheer volume as do the pharmaceutical companies that advertise Viagra or Lipitor.

I don't mean to demean Barack Obama. I just want to tell you that young people on the Internet and college campuses, quickly adopted him as a folk hero, financed him handsomely with their flood of $5 and $10 donations and gave him uproarious welcome wherever he showed up.

Many older folks, feeling the cold breath of hard times a-coming also joined the "Change" parade by the tens of thousands.
I was on his mailing list from day 1 and have seen his rhetoric and "promises" somewhat muted through the long campaign weeks.

I remember, in an early speech Obama describing himself as a "citizen of the world" Did I hear wrong?

That got me worried. I am an American citizen, first, last and always -- and the rest of the world (the Global Society?) can go its merry way without our butting into
their business and minding our own.

That's what George Washington advised in his Farewell Address -- "not to get in foreign entanglements".

Boy! Are we entangled. From the vile, America-hating United Nations to the Global Economy, we are now so entangled that it will take a real American -- perhaps Barack Obama??? and his "Change Brigade" - to get us out of those Global trade treaties that are the root cause of our present banking, Stock Market, mortgage and other crises -- and have already destroyed our children's PRODUCTIVE job future,
NOT service jobs that produce NOTHING for EXPORT..(When will people understand that, without our huge exports BEFORE we embraced the Global Economy and gave our factories away -- our future can only lead to poverty, not prosperity). DON'T BLAME ME. BLAME YOUR CORRUPT CONGRESSES!


Monday, November 24, 2008




Hello all ...

I have watched with dismay this past three weeks as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama.

Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: 'Well, at least he's not Bush' and 'Well, at least it's great to see such a new spirit of hope'.

No, he's not Bush - he's potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of 'hope' if it's based on a lie? In fact, what use is 'hope' at all?

Obama's wife, Michelle, who I wouldn't trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that 'everything begins and ends with hope'. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW. Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the 'hope' that things will change. But they don't because the very system is designed to prevent it.

That's the way 'hope' is employed by the dastardly and devious - take the crap we are giving you now in the 'hope' that things will get better (but we know they won't). Barack Obama is a purveyor of 'hope' because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come.

Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he'll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn't, but, by the time you realise that, it's too late.

What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have. Thus, their man, Obama, sells 'hope' as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling.

We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have 'hope'. Phew, thank goodness for that.

'I'm hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?'

'I'm so sorry, darling, you can't have hope today, only tomorrow - hope is always tomorrow.'

'So will I eat tomorrow, mum?'

'We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it's the next day.'

On and on it goes. That's how 'hope' works. Or rather doesn't.

Obama's predominant mantra is 'change'. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign has been based on that one word - change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don't like the status quo, 'change' can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don't say what it means.

It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his 'hope', 'change', and that other mind-control trigger-word, 'believe', were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what?

To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama's appeal.

I studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late-1990s and across 2000, and the Obama 'phenomenon' is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see.

At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his 'hope, 'change' and 'believe'.

However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world.

Specifics would destroy that 'I am whatever you want me to be' scenario and so you don't get any detail, just 'hope', 'change', and 'believe'. They don't want him to be seen only as 'the Messiah'; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, ��or Buddha - anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he's an open book.)

Watch the video How Obama Got Elected at the end of this article to see how easy it is to manipulate the masses. It's child's play.

'I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.'

There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shtum about anything they wouldn't like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told.

Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions.

Obama's written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The 'heart' bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to 'mean it when he says it', a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting. Tony Blair was trained in the same way.

But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much.�ݬݬݬ�

You can see his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don't do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered.

I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script. Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart.

Obama's speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer.�� See the study later in this newsletter headed An Examination of Obama's Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.

As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance. All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history.

Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country by the Rothschild/Illuminati-controlled Versailles 'Peace' Conference in 1919.

From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German 'messiah', the German Obama.

Hitler promised 'change', 'hope' and something to 'believe in' amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. ��He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler's vision of a new tomorrow.��

As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a police state imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the 'change', hope' and 'believe' they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for.

Obama's America ...

... Hitler's Germany.

There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent idiot with no communication skills who needed massive fraud at the polls to get him officially 'elected'. He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous 'hope', 'change' and 'believe' when they don't even know what those words are supposed to mean.

But Obama clearly can, because he has.

One of 'his' (his controllers') prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same. Click here to watch ...

In line with this same theme, the WorldNetDaily website reported this month:

'The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama,, originally announced that Obama would "require" all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama's proposed youth corps, the website's wording was softened.

Originally, under the tab "America Serves", read, "President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps.

"Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year," the site announced.'

For the full story click here ...

Obama said in a speech in July in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a 'civilian national security force' that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. Click here for the speech, the relevant segment starts at around 16 minutes.��

As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote:

'If we're going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well-funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn't this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military.

How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together? Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?'

Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he's not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Reagan, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time.

When I was a journalist a long time ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn't want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn't really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset.

He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but 'if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, will bother you again'. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.

Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama. The Neoconservative 'Republican' wing of the Illuminati has controlled Bush for the last eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the 'Democratic' wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the 'saviour', Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with 'hope' and 'change' (good guy/solution).

Hence even some more aware people say: 'At least he's not Bush'.

Apart from the unspecified 'hope, 'change' and 'believe', few have any idea what Obama's policies will be. Public perception comes from having an 'image' of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn't do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words. ��

There is an 'image' that Obama is against war, but no he's not. He says he's against the invasion of Iraq, though we'll see what he does about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons.

Obama isn't against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he's sending them.



He claims to be a 'uniter', which is exactly what Bush said about himself before he came to office, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama's much-vaunted 'unity' is to 'inspire' a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati.��

His constant rhetoric about 'bringing people together' can be used to justify the 'coming together' of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union; it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book-burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime.

The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as 'hope, change', 'freedom' and a 'New America', or 'New World' [Order].

Bush and Cheney were transparent warmongers and would always have struggled to bring in the draft, the compulsory enlistment of people into the military against their will. But it would not be as difficult for Obama in the current climate. Look at those kids in the video earlier and, for goodness sake, he's already talking about compulsory community service for middle school, high school and college students and creating a people's army in��America.

That's why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush. In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism - Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned and more.

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his 'change' is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati's Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today 'terrorists' in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade��Afghanistan��to protect the��Kabul��regime and thus give the rival superpower 'their��Vietnam'. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.

Brzezinski's 'freedom fighters' would become known as the 'Mujahideen' and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be 'Al-Qaeda'. This is the man behind 'anti-war', Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission whichchose��Carter for president.

The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have now chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call shots; Obama's job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving��Russia��and��China.��

'Obama's' policies come straight from Brzezinski's books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president:

'Needed social reassessment . . . can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.'

Now where have I heard that before?

As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski's aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army - a global dictatorship - underpinned by a microchipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970,��Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era,��in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

'The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.'

He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago:

'Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites ... [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries ... It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook ... The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty ... Further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.'��

And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about 'change'? 'Make sacrifices'. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said:

'We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired ... to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.'

You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.

Brzezinski's son, Mark, was an 'advisor' to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him).��Brzezinski's daughter, Mika, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.

Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period.

And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a 'man of the people', would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to 'set free'.

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati's Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European��Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a��major��insider.

You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama 'revolution' in the��United States. It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the��US��andIsrael, that trained and funded students in the��Ukraine,��Georgia��and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments - see the David Icke Newsletter,��The Grand Chessboard ...��Georgia��Is Just Another Move.

These manufactured protests were sold to the world as 'peoples' revolutions', but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along - the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.

Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps and will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.

He's just another Banksters' moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that's why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street 'A' list, including Paul Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips

This week reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American Progress?��George Soros.

It is simply the Neocon Project for the New American Century and the American Enterprise Institute under another name. Those two organisations developed and dictated the Bush policy of war and suppression and the 'CAP' and others like it will do the same for Obama. The CAP will fit and Obama will wear it.

In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in theme between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush policy was dictated through Illuminati 'think tanks' and so is Obama's. Bush was surrounded by slavish pursuers of Israeli interests and so is Obama.

Mr. 'Change' has pledged his unquestioning support for��Israel��to the point of 'pass the sick bag' and his vice-president, Joe Biden, is a vehement Zionist who makes a virtue of saying he will support��Israel��in all circumstances.

Obama has appointed the arch Zionist Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff and another super Zionist Jew, Denis Ross, to be his��Middle East��Policy advisor. God help the Palestinians. Ross also served in the Bill Clinton and Father George Bush administrations. Oh, plenty of 'change' there, then.

Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise��Israel��into existence. The��Open Secrets��website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from 'hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry'.��

Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle.

A close friend of Emanuel is the Chicago-based Zionist, David Axelrod, who ran Obama's election campaign and will no doubt be highly influential in the Obama administration. Axelrod is a veteran of��Chicago��politics, one of the most corrupt political systems in the world. He worked for many��Chicago��mayors in the 1990s and on Obama's senate campaign in 2004.

Bill Clinton took his��Arkansas��cabal to��Washington��when he became president in 1993 and Obama is uploading hisChicago��mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don't take prisoners.

All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but 'change' it isn't.

David Axelrod, Obama's 'narrator' and handler.��Click here for a background article that needs some reading between the lines ...

Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in��Chicago��in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process.

Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his people challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed. One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama's behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights:

'Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?�� He talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?'

Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn't interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary. The only voter-right he's interested in is the right to vote for him.

Obama is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the��Chicago��political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy 'businessmen' and fraudsters like the now jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect.

But for now no scale of evidence will stop the swooning Obama zombies from believing the hype or burst their reality bubble. That is going to take hard experience and it could take some time and a lot of disappointment before they are released from the clutches of cognitive dissonance and have to admit to themselves they have been had.

It is the same for all the black people who voted for what they thought was the first black president when, in truth, he is a man in a black mask representing the interests of the white-faced Illuminati cabal, the very families and networks that ran the slave trade.

I don't want to be the bringer of bad news or the thwarter of dreams, but honesty demands it. The man is a trickster controlled by super-tricksters. A sock puppet controlled by bigger sock puppets who serve an even greater and darker evil.

To his masters, Obama is just a means to an end and if it suits them to assassinate him to trigger civil war and upheaval in the��United States��then that is what they will do.

Oh dear Oprah, how will you cope when reality dawns? But, then, will it ever??

'What? You mean you're not the��Lord?'

I can understand the appeal of Obama because people want him to be what he claims to be, but isn't. They are sick of the conflict, the corruption, the struggle we call 'life' and they want it all to change. But Obama's change is illusory and represents only the continued transformation of society in the image envisaged by Orwell.��

We will see some apparently good things announced, like the closing of��Guantanamo, to give the impression that Obama means what he says. But keep your eye on the ball and you'll see how the agenda of the global tyranny is introduced under the guise of Obama's 'hope', 'change', 'believe', 'sacrifice' and 'coming together'.��

It could take two years, maybe much more, before cognitive dissonance (lying to yourself) loses it current grip on the minds of the Obama faithful. Until then they will make endless excuses for him (lie to themselves) to keep the 'dream' alive.

But one day they will have to admit, by the power of the evidence before them, that they bought a dream and got a nightmare. What a pity they can't see the obvious now and save them themselves such painful disappointment.

Sunday, November 23, 2008


Nearing the Century Mark


BailoutSleuth has updated its master list of banks that have been approved to receive taxpayer money through the Treasury Department's capital purchase program.

We've now identified 95 banks that have been picked to sell preferred stock to the Treasury Department as part of its plan to inject new capital directly into financial institutions to strengthen their balance sheets and stimulate lending.

The total amount of money approved for the banks is approaching $180 billion, a figure that does not include the $40 billion that the Treasury Department has pledged to American International Group Inc., the big insurance and investment firm.

Some of the new banks on the list announced their approval yesterday. They include Ameris Bancorp., a bank in southern Georgia that will get $52 million from the government, and Home Bancshares Inc., of Conway, Ark., which will get $50 million.

BailoutSleuth's updated roster also includes several banks that did not put out press releases announcing their participation, but simply noted it within larger Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Keep reading to see the master list.

Here are the banks known to have selected for federal investments:

Citigroup Inc. (New York) -- $25 billion

JPMorgan Chase & Co. (New York) - $25 billion

Wells Fargo & Co. (San Francisco) -- $25 billion

Bank of America Corp. (Charlotte, N.C.) -- $15 billion

Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (New York) -- $10 billion

Merrill Lynch & Co. (New York) -- $10 billion

Morgan Stanley (New York) -- $10 billion

PNC Financial Services Group Inc. (Pittsburgh) -- $7.7 billion

US Bancorp (Minneapolis) -- $6.6 billion

Capital One Financial Corp. (McLean, Va.) -- $3.55 billion

Regions Financial Corp. (Birmingham, Ala.) -- $3.5 billion

SunTrust Banks Inc. (Atlanta) -- $3.5 billion

Fifth Third Bancorp (Cincinnati) -- $3.4 billion

BB&T Corp. (Winston-Salem, NC) -- $3.1 billion

Bank of New York Mellon (New York) -- $3 billion

Keycorp (Cleveland) -- $2.5 billion

Comerica Inc. (Dallas) -- $2.25 billion

State Street Corp. (Boston) -- $2 billion

Marshall & Ilsley Corp. (Milwaukee) -- $1.7 billion

Northern Trust Corp. (Chicago) -- $1.5 billion

Huntington Bancshares Inc. (Columbus, Ohio) -- $1.4 billion

Zions Bancorporation of Salt Lake City will get $1.4 billion

Synovus (Columbus, Ga.) -- $973 million

Popular Inc. (San Juan, Puerto Rico) -- $950 million

First Horizon National Corp. (Memphis, Tenn.) -- $866 million

M&T Bank Corp (Buffalo, N.Y.) -- $600 million

Associated Banc-Corp. (Green Bay, Wis.) -- $530 million

Webster Financial Corp. (Waterbury, Conn.) -- $400 million

City National Corp. (Beverly Hills, Calif.) -- $395 million

TCF Financial Corp. (Wayzata, Minn.) -- $361 million.

The South Financial Group (Greenville, N.C.) -- $347 million

Valley National Bancorp (Wayne, N.J.) -- $330 million

East West Bancorp (Pasadena, Calif.) -- $316 million

Citizens Republic Bancorp (Flint, Mich.) -- $300 million

Susquehanna Bancshares Inc. (Lititz, Pa.) -- $300 million

UCBH Holdings Inc. (San Francisco) -- $298 million

Cathay General Bancorp (Los Angeles) -- $258 million

FirstMerit Corp. (Akron, Ohio) -- $248 million

International Bancshares Corp. (Laredo, Tex.) -- $216 million

Trustmark Corp. (Jackson, Miss.) -- $215 million

Umpqua Holdings Corp. (Portland, Ore.) -- $214 million

Washington Federal Savings (Seattle) -- $200 million

MB Financial ( Chicago) -- $193 million

First Midwest Bancorp Inc. (Itasca, Ill.) --$193 million

Pacific Capital Bancorp (Santa Barbara, Calif.) -- $188 million.

First Niagara Financial Group Inc. (Buffalo, N.Y.) -- $186 million

United Community Banks (Blairsville, Ga.) -- $180 million

Provident Bankshares (Baltimore) -- $151 million

Boston Private Financial Holdings Inc. (Boston) -- $150 million

Old National Bank (Evansville, Ind.) -- $150 million

Western Alliance Bancorporation (Las Vegas) -- $140 million.

CVB Financial Corp. (Ontario, Calif.) -- $130 million

Banner Corp. (Walla Walla, Wash.) -- $124 million

Signature Bank (New York) -- $120 million

Iberiabank Corp. (Lafayette, La.) -- $115 million

Taylor Capital Group Inc. (Rosemont, Ill.) -- $105 million

Midwest Banc Holdings Inc. (Melrose Park, Ill.) -- $86 million

Sandy Spring Bancorp (Olney, Md.) -- $83 million.

First Financial Bancorp. (Cincinnati) -- $80 million

Columbia Banking System Inc. (Tacoma, Wash.) -- $76.9 million

Wesbanco Inc. (Wheeling, W.Va.) -- $75 million

Southwest Bancorp (Stillwater, Okla.) -- $70 million

Superior Bancorp (Birmingham, Ala.) -- $69 million

Nara Bancorp (Los Angeles) -- $67 million,

Wilshire Bancorp (Los Angeles) -- $62 million

Great Southern Bancorp (Springfield, Mo.) -- $60 million.

Ameris Bancorp. (Moultrie, Ga.) -- $52 million

Home Bancshares Inc. (Conway, Ark.) -- $50 million

Capital Bank Corp. (Raleigh, N.C.) -- $42.9 million

Southern Community Financial Corp. (Winston-Salem, N.C.) -- $42.75 million

Heritage Commerce Corp. (San Jose., Calif.) -- $40 million

Simmons First National Corp. (Pine Bluff, Ark.) -- $40 million

Cascade Financial Corp. (Everett, Wash.) -- $39 million

Peoples Bancorp (Marietta, Ohio) -- $39 million

Porter Bancorp Inc. (Louisville, Ky.) -- $39 million

Eagle Bancorp Inc. (Bethesda, Md.) -- $38.2 million

Encore Bancshares Inc. (Houston) -- $34 million.

Bancorp Rhode Island Inc. (Providence, R.I.) -- $30 million

Severn Bancorp (Annapolis, Md.) -- $30 million

Peapack-Gladstone Financial Corp. (Gladstone, N.J.) -- $28.7 million

Intermountain Community Bancorp (Sandpoint, Idaho) -- $27 million

LNB Bancorp Inc. (Lorain, Ohio) -- $25.2 million

HF Financial Corp. (Sioux Falls, S.D.) -- $25 million

Heritage Financial Corp. (Olympia, Wash.) -- $24 million.

Wainwright Bank & Trust Co. (Boston) -- $22 million

Indiana Community Bancorp (Columbus, Ind.) -- $21.5 million

First PacTrust Bancorp Inc. (Chula Vista, Calif.) -- $19.3 million

HopFed Bancorp Inc. (Hopkinsville, Ky.) -- $18.4 million.

Bank of Commerce Holdings Inc. (Redding, Calif.) -- $17 million

1st Financial Services Corp. (Hendersonville, N.C.) -- $16.3 million

Community West Bancshares (Goleta, Calif.) -- $15.6 million

Broadway Financial Group ( Los Angeles) -- $9 million

FFW Corp. (Wabash, Ind.) -- $7.3 million

Capital Pacific Bancorp (Portland, Ore.) -- $4 million

Saigon National Bank (Westminster, Calif.) -- $1.2 million

Blog Archive