***Please feel free to forward***
The following is a list (which doesn't include lower staff levels) of
current pro-Israeli factors in the present Clinton Aminstration.
Explains much w/r to current global policy.
(p.s.: Keep an eye on the NY Times ("paper of record") coverage of both
Russia & China. Russia's cash situation straps it. China? Human Rights
ploy....April 8th, Armstrong --> Market's going to correct soon (see end
piece & A's article at PEI site): ---> Keep eye on Trilateral/CFR) ;
Advise to the wise: Read (w/ a grain of salt) Ford's "The I.J." &
Mullen's "Federal Reserve" & "Thy Will be Done" (re: Rockefeller) *
Sklar's "Trilateral Commission"; Chomsky/Barasnian's "Chronicles of
Dissent"; Robert Anton Wilson's "Who's Who"; One final abstract:
1984=2004, Orwell / Huxley's BNW=Gattaca. Good luck. Don't forget to
keep an eye on Israel, Russia & China. Focus on the NY Times ("paper of
record" & "all the news that's fit to print", its ownership &
advertising structure, & its increasingly unobjective coverage of what's
going on.
http://www.pei-int.com/TOPICS/LQ031299.HTM ("Ides of March")
Jewish/Pro-Israeli Factors
compiled Jan/1999 :
Madeleine Albright
Secretary of State
Robert Rubin
Secretary of Treasury
William Cohen
Secretary of Defense
Dan Glickman
Secretary of Agriculture
Robert Reich
Secretary of Labor
George Tenet
CIA Chief
Samuel Berger
Head National Security Council
Evelyn Lieberman
Deputy Chief of Staff
Stuart Eizenstat
Under Secretary of State
Charlene Barshefsky
U.S. Trade Representative
Susan Thomases
Aide to First Lady
Joel Klein
Assistant Attorney General
Gene Sperling
National Economic Council
Ira Magaziner
National Health Care
Peter Tarnoff
Deputy Secretary of State
Alice Rivlin
Economic Advisory
Janet Yellen
Chairwoman, National Economic Council
(also heads the Council of Economic Advisors)
Rahm Emanuel
Policy Advisor
Doug Sosnik
Counsel to President
Jim Steinberg
Deputy to National Security Chief
Jay Footlik
Special Liason to the Jewish Community
(note: no other ethnic/cultural group has a special liason)
Robert Nash
Personal Chief
Jane Sherburne
President's Lawyer
Mark Penn
Asia Expert to NEC
Sandy Kristoff
Health Care Chief
Robert Boorstin
Communications Aide
Keith Boykin
Communications Aide
Jeff Eller
Special Assistant to Clinton
Tom Epstein
Health Care Adviser
Judith Feder
National Security Council
Richard Feinberg
Assistant Secretary Veterans
Hershel Gober
Food and Drug Administration
Steve Kessler
White House Counsel
Ron Klein
Assistant Secretary Education
Madeleine Kunin
Communications Aide
Margaret Hamburg
Dir. Press Conferences
Many Grunwald
Liason to Jewish Leaders
Karen Adler
Dir. State Dept. Policy
Samuel Lewis
National Security Council
Stanley Ross
National Security Council
Dan Schifter
Director Peace Corps.
Eli Segal
Deputy Chief of Staff
Alan Greenspan
Chairman of Federal Reserve Bank
Robert Weiner
Drug Policy Coordinator
Jack Lew
Deputy Director Management and Budget
James P. Rubin
Under Secretary of State
David Lipton
Under Secretary of The Treasury
Lanny P. Breuer
Special Counsel to The President
Richard Holbrooke
Special Representative to NATO
Kenneth Apfel
Chief of Social Security
Sidney Blumenthal
Speclal Advisor to Pirst Lady
David Kessler
Chief of Food & Drug Adininistration
Seth Waxman
Acting Solicitor General
Mark Penn
Presidential Pollster
Dennis Ross
Special Middle East Representative
Howard Shapiro
General Counsel for the FBI
Lanny Davis
White House Special Counsel
Sally Katzen
Secretary of Management and Budget
Kathleen Koch
Heads FBI Equal Opportunity Office
John Podesta
Deputy Chief of Staff
Alan Blinder
Vice Chairman of Federal Reserve
/////////////////////////
A friend sent the following message recently:
"Its good to hear from you again. As far as those names go, I
sincerely believe that the Jewish US ambassadors and government
officals you mentioned last week have been chosen not because of their
ethnical origin, but because of their political ideology and POLITICAL
position regarding the Palestine
question, as POLITICAL actors.
We believe that the Jewish lobby in the US has created a dangerous
concentration of power which we believe is troublesome to the
democracy of that country and dangerous for the peace in the Middle
East.
It is a political analysis which has been made by many observers,
including Israeli newspapers.
Just the fact that the jews don't agree with our political views
should not allow them to deprive us of our human right of freedom of
speech.
The tragic reality is this: freedom of speech is almost non-existent
here. "Anti-Semitism" has become a catch-phrase with almost Orwellian
dimensions. Its a blanket label to prevent recognition of the above
concentration of power and the correlative effects.
It is the situation in the Middle East that is very much inflamed -
the parties concerned in the debate and the conflict only reflect the
real polarization.
To most of us Palestinians and Muslims the Zionists appear to be the
Nazis of today. To the victims of Zionism this ideology is not
experienced as something positive, but rather as a symbol of evil.
This growing jewish concentration of power in your country gives world
Jewry tremendous influence to promote their "special agenda". Never
before in American history have so many Jews been appointed as US
Ambassadors. They are all members of powerful Jewish organizations.
These are hardened supporters of Israel and the "Jewish race". It is
impossible for them to put the interests of America ahead of their
pro-Israel interests. Most of these individuals, I believe strongly,
would not hold these ambassadorships unless they were members and
exponents for the ruling Jewish elite."
///////////////////
Jewish population in the Washington metropolitan area: 170,000 out of
a total population of 3.9 million, or 4 percent.
*Total U.S. Jewish population : 2.1% (source 1999 World Almanac).
Same 2.1% owns about 22% of the wealth in the United States.
NY Times & NY media ownership/Hollywood: You do the analysis.
Proportion of Capitol Hill professional staffers who are Jewish:
Unknown. But five veteran Jewish lobbyists offer estimates ranging
from 20 to 30 percent.
Proportion of Clinton administration Cabinet-level appointees who are
Jewish: 35 percent
Proportion of Bush administration Cabinet-level appointees who are
Jewish: 0.
Number of Jews in the Senate: 10 (10%)
Number of Jews in the House: 24 (18%)
///////////////////
Finally here is a list of US. Ambassadors who are also Jewish:
Germany:
Ambassador John C. Kornblum
Germany has long been seen as an adversary of the Jews. Thus a Jewish
Ambassador places them under direct Jewish
pressure.
France:
Ambassador Felix Rohatyn
Rohatyn is a former partner in the Jewish Lazard Freres investment
bank. In September the French oil company, "Total," invested $2
billion in the production of oil in Iran. Rohatyn is seeking to Veto
this project due to Israel's hostility toward Iran. Rohatyn said;
"Globalization doesn't carry a threat, but it carries discipline."
Poland:
Ambassador Daniel Fried
Chester Grabowski, editor of "The Polish Post Eagle", and others
urged Clinton to name a Polish American. This plea was ignored. There
has never been a Jew ambassador to Poland before as Jews hold an
animosity toward Poles. This is considered as a gross insult.
Regardless, Fried jokingly said: "I will now have to brush up on their
language."
Denmark:
Ambassador Edward E. Elson
Dr. Fields attended Marist High. School in Atlanta with the Elson
brothers. He learned that their family made a fortune in the textile
business and are big contributors to the Democratic Party.
Hungary:
Ambassador Donald M. Blinken
This country has long been considered "anti-Semitic". Budapest has the
largest Jewish population in Europe, some 125,000 Jews, only exceeded
by Paris Thus Blinken can protect their financial interests.
Romania:
Ambassador Alfred H. Moses
At one time Romania was ruled by an allJewish Communist Party under
Anna Pauka. Romania is closely allied with Israel. Six members of the
Rumanian Senate, three of them priests, objected to Clinton's 1994
appointment of Moses stating that he was closely connected to the
fallen Communist Ceausescu regime.
Belgium:
Ambassador Alan J. Blinken
Antwerp, Belgium is the diamond capital of the world next to Tel Aviv.
The diamond business is totally Jew-controlled. Blinken is in a
position to further protect their interests. He is related to the
Blinken ambassador to Hungary.
Belarus:
Ambassador Kenneth S. Yalowitz
Belarus is located between Poland and Russia. It once had a huge
Jewish population.. They still have interests there.
South Africa:
Ambassador James A. Joseph
The Jewish Oppenheimer family controls this gold mining capital of the
world. The Jewish-run South African Communist Party and the ANC now
control the government and loyally do the bidding of the gold
interests.)
India:
Ambassador Frank G. Wisner This economic powerhouse has long sided
with the Arabs against Israel and needs more Zionist control
Turkey:
Ambassador Marc Grossman
The "Kemalist" Turkey is the only Middle East border country with a
military alliance with Israel. They pose a threat to Syria and Iraq
over long simmering border disputes. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was a
secret Jewish infiltrator ! This explains the alliance between the
Ataturk-influenced military regime in Turkey and the fraudulent and
criminal state of Israel! This
also explains the opposition of the "kimalian" junta against the
rennaisance of Islam amongst the muslim people of Turkey! About the
jewish Ataturk: visit the jewish home page "Famous Jews".
New Zealand:
Ambassador Josiah H. Beeman
Egypt:
Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer
Egypt is the recipient of the second largest amount of US foreign aid.
This is to "buy off" Israel's southern front. Any hostility toward
Israel would end the aid.)
Sweden:
Ambassador Thomas L. Siebert
Morocco:
Ambassador Marc C. Ginsberg
Singapore:
Ambassador Timothy A. Chorba
Zambia:
Ambassador Arlene Render
Brazil:
Ambassador Melvyn Levitsky
This is South America's largest country and economic powerhouse. Jews
have huge investments here.
Bolivia:
Ambassador Curt W. Kamman
This is another mineral rich country; copper, magnesium, lead, etc.
Mexico:
Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow
Davidow was formerly Assistant Secy. Of State for South America under
Albright. Mexico sends the US more immigrants and trade than any other
nation.
Canada:
Ambassador Gordon Giffin
Thus Clinton has given both our border neighbors, Mexico and Canada,
to Jewish operatives.
Cuba:
US Interest Head, Michael G. Kozak
One would think that this nation would have a Spanish Catholi
"Interest Chief" instead of a Jew???
Norway:
Ambassador David B. Hermelin
Hermelin is a Michigan multi-millionaire real estate developer and
president of the World Jewish ORT Union. Re owns Palace Sports and
Entertainment, "The Palace" of Auburn Hills and the "Pine Knob Music
Theater".
Switzerland:
Ambassador Madeleine M. Kunin
Kunin is the former Democratic governor of Vermont. Her four children
attended a Hebrew school. The New York Times of Oct. 4, 1997 says she,
"doggedly pursues the Swiss on the issue of gold for holocaust
survivors."
//////////////
``There is now the very real possibility that, if this market doesn't
simply run out of steam and stall, you could see headlines of DJIA
9,500, or even 9,000 before headlines of DJIA 11,000,'' he said.
However, high-flying Internet stocks showed little of the jitters that
were hitting the rest of the market.
Shares in the cyber-sector zipped higher, catapulted by investor
enthusiasm about the coming earnings period and a series of positive
corporate announcements.
`` ... in general we've got a period of time right now before the
quarterly earnings come out where people can fantasize about how good
they might be,'' said Michael Murphy, editor of California Technology
Stock Letter.)"....
money flow indicators indicate that Goldman's IPO isn't going to be the
security blanket (read: DOW 11500 - 13500) that some of the NY media are
hyping it up to be) ...
Here's the latest from thestreet.com :
or a market that has been trading with a four-digit handle since late
1982, the air gets pretty thin pretty quickly when the altimeter reaches
10,000. Three attempts, and still no dice. Apparently, the
decamillennial mark is going to take some getting used to. That will be
the major theme of the coming week, just as it was the theme of the past
one.
"It's very important," said Byron Wien, chief U.S. investment
strategist at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, of how levels on the Dow can
affect the market's psyche. "I spent 17 years waiting for the market to
go to 1000. It can be a big barrier." The Dow first crossed 1000,
intraday, in 1966. It was not until 1972 that it closed above the level,
and not until late 1982 that it finally cleared it for good.
As for 10,000, even Japan in the 1980s -- that symbol of stock market
excess -- had trouble breaking free of that mark after first reaching
it in early 1984. A half-year later, and it was still struggling with
it, and no wonder. Admittedly, 10,000 has a higher psychological potency
in Japanese -- it's commonly used to refer to vast plenitude, sort of
like we would use the word zillion. Once you reach a zillion, what's
left?
Though the U.S. market is not at a zillion just yet, it is, for Wien,
looking dangerously high. Wien is one among a camp of strategists who
pay close attention to the relationship between interest rates and
stocks -- J.P. Morgan's Doug Cliggott is another -- who think stocks
have gotten too rich relative to the interest rate outlook. The stock
market is still trading as if interest rates were down in the 5% range,
viewing the recent back-up in the long-bond yield as aberrant. That is a
mistake, thinks Wien.
Wien sees other disheartening signs as well -- high levels of
bullishness, weak breadth, poor sector participation. "Every technical
indicator is pretty bearish here," he said, quipping that if the market
keeps on advancing the way it has, it "may be the end of technical
analysis."
None of this is to say that Wien thinks it's time to cash out entirely
and put your money in gold and hard tack. He does not think that the
market is about to blow off. But he would not view a push past 10,000
kindly. "My feeling is, the fact that it's struggling is rational. If it
breaks through, I'm suspicious of it."
While it looks like there will be plenty of excitement in the stock
market, what with fresh assaults on 10K and all that, there isn't much
going on in the Treasury market. A good time, said Suzanne Rizzo, U.S.
economist to take your profits....."
////////////////////////
hanks to Greenspan, Goldman Sachs Goes for IPO
Billions
By Christopher Byron
Special to TheStreet.com
3/24/99 3:38 PM ET
The news that Goldman Sachs, one of the last and
certainly the most prestigious private partnership on
Wall Street, has filed to sell a roughly 12% stake in
itself to the public inspires some thoughts on the
super-bull market. Upon any fair reading of the
evidence, this market may be said by now to be in its
17th year of rising stock prices and expanding
multiples.
These thoughts occur because Goldman, more so than
perhaps any other firm in business today, has profited
both financially and in terms of image from this nearly
two-decades-long explosion in securities values. The
company is now seeking to capitalize on those benefits
through an offering that puts a potential $28 billion
market value on the business -- a business that, using
the valuations of the offering document, would have
been worth less than $4.2 billion as recently as five
years ago.
Surprisingly, $24 billion to $28 billion actually turns
out to be a reasonable valuation for the business. But
before you hand over your money, you should be aware of
something important. As with other Wall Street firms,
Goldman is in a business whose future and fate is
simply not in its own hands. In reality, an investment
in Goldman Sachs actually turns out to be an investment
in Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve, the evidence
for which we'll explore in a minute.
Goldman has been and continues to be an unusually
successful investment firm. It has survived longer as a
partnership than any other major Wall Street firm of
the post-World War II era and has regularly (though not
always) done better than its rivals in leveraging the
firm's equity capital into higher returns for the
owners. Since 1994, the firm has raised nearly $1
trillion in capital for its clients around the world,
has managed nearly $2 trillion worth of mergers and
acquisitions and has underwritten more than $44 billion
in initial public offerings. Those are big numbers in
anybody's book.
But the thing that Goldman has been best at, the thing
that puts it in a class apart from every other firm on
Wall Street, has been its obsessive (and successful)
cultivation of its image. As burnished by the company
and its press minders, that image has come to portray
the firm's partners and employees as the very
quintessence of white-shoe professionalism and decorum
on Wall Street: the kind of investment bankers who are
aggressive yet fair and always law-abiding and
respectful of their elders -- what used to be known in
an earlier time as a "class act" kind of business.
And, frankly, I personally have no reason to doubt any
of it. But, well, when it comes to Goldman -- and
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter (MWD:NYSE), Lehman Brothers
(LEH:NYSE), Merrill Lynch (MER:NYSE) and all the others
-- the image thing is pretty much beside the point. The
truth is, even if the whole of Wall Street were
populated by three-toed sloths and recreational
substance abusers, the investment business would still
be selling for six times its value of five years ago.
In that regard, here is a fact to think about -- a
fact that, ironically enough, is immortalized right
there on page 8 of Goldman's endlessly detailed
523-page IPO offering statement. It appears in a
section titled "Key Industry Indicators," and it is
offered, we may assume, to bolster the case as to why
you should buy Goldman's shares.
The section reports that during the 15 years from 1983
to 1998, worldwide economic output barely tripled to
$29 trillion. Yet during the same period, the market
value of equity stocks worldwide soared sevenfold, to
an incredible $23 trillion, while the amount of new
borrowings worldwide rocketed 20-fold to nearly $3
trillion.
This has happened basically because for the past 15
years, the Federal Reserve has been printing money at
almost twice the rate of growth in the economy. And
since 1995, that growth rate in the money supply has
exploded from a 6% annual rate to an 11% rate, which is
the fastest sustained growth rate for money since the
Fed was trying to reinflate the economy out of the
recession at the start of the 1980s.
Adjust those numbers for annual economic output, and
if you go back over the past 40 years, you will not
find a single nonrecessionary period when the Fed was
cranking out more money over and above the demands of
the economy than it has been doing since 1996.
That excess liquidity -- and nothing else -- has been
fueling the superboom in the stock market. It is why
the Dow industrials have nearly doubled since the start
of 1996, and why an entire generation of new investors
is now convinced that Internet junk stocks like
Amazon.com (AMZN:Nasdaq) are actually worth something.
And most especially for our purposes here, it is why
the partners at Goldman now hope to sell 12% of their
business in a $3.4 billion IPO, when Sumitomo Bank of
Japan bought almost exactly the same amount in a
privately arranged deal in 1986 for only $500 million.
So what is Goldman really worth? In fact, the IPO
valuation doesn't seem to be far off, though coming as
it is at the top of the market, one may certainly
wonder whether this deal is nothing more than a replay
of Goldman Sachs Trading Corp., the hot stock on Wall
Street exactly 70 years ago that tanked in the October
1929 crash and blackened the firm's reputation for a
generation.
Up until last autumn, Goldman's major rivals -- Morgan
Stanley, Merrill and Lehman -- were selling for a mere
nine times year-ahead earnings, dragged down by fears
that the mess in hedge funds (or was it Brazil?) would
trigger a credit crunch that would cause the stock
market to collapse. At that point, Greenspan began
frantically stuffing money into the system as if he
were ramming corn down the gullet of a goose. In the
past 40 years, there have been only 18 months when the
money
supply grew faster than it did last November, and 17
of them fell during the 1970-1982 era of economic
horrors.
The Fed's action predictably caused the Dow
industrials to spurt 30% in value in the past six
months -- and the value of Morgan Stanley, Merrill and
Lehman each to more than double at the same time. So
let's say that the current price levels for these
companies are an aberration, and that more or less
midway between last autumn and now is roughly where
they belong -- in other words, at somewhere around 13
times year-ahead earnings.
Now, based on the numbers supplied in Goldman's
offering statement, it is impossible to make much more
than a good old Eye to the Keyhole guesstimate as to
what the firm's year-ahead earnings are likely to be.
For one thing, roughly a third of the firm's net
revenue derives from what the offering document refers
to as "Trading and Principal Investments." Mainly, this
boils down to
things like gambling as a market maker on Nasdaq
stocks, speculating in derivatives and currencies and
placing bets on M&A deals.
You can make a lot of money in those pursuits if
you're lucky, but you can also lose a lot, which is
why the man who ramped up the trading operation in the
first place, co-Chairman Jon Corzine, will be leaving
the firm once the IPO goes to market. He's been
replaced already by Henry M. Paulson Jr., who comes
from the firm's investment banking side, which also
contributes about a third of the company's net revenue
and where the business is more stable. The remaining
third of the business comes from managing money for
rich folks and that sort of thing.
Nonetheless, the trading operation casts a continuing
uncertainty over the earnings outlook for the rest of
the firm; you just never know when something is going
to blow up in Brazil, Russia or someplace like that,
and an avalanche of losses will descend on the firm. In
the fourth quarter of 1998, the firm lost $663 million
on just such trading activities, reducing pretax income
for the entire firm by more than 18% to $2.921 billion
for 1998.
So let's take the company's average annual 13% growth
rate in earnings over the past 15 years, add it to the
company's 1998 net income of $2.428 billion, then
multiply the investment banking and asset management
components (roughly two-thirds of the business) by our
year-ahead price-to-earnings multiple of 13 for the
sector (result: $23.540 billion). Then let's throw in
the value of the trading segment at no more than the
face value of its imputed earnings ($800 million)
because the basic business is a crapshoot. (Why pay
more than your winnings when all you're really doing is
rolling the dice, anyway?)
On this admittedly rough-and-ready basis, we come up
with exactly what Goldman is seeking in its IPO: a $24
billion valuation, give or take, for its business,
rising to $28 billion if the deal is a smash and
Goldman, which is actually underwriting the deal, winds
up exercising its overallotment.
So go ahead, take a flier on this white-shoe offering.
Who knows? It might even prove a hot deal with some
juicy aftermarket upside -- especially if momentum
traders jump aboard. On the other hand, remember that
at 50 a share, you are not investing in a company
filled with financial geniuses. You're betting that the
inflation of financial assets has become a permanent
feature of life on the planet and that no matter how
high the price level climbs, Greenspan and his gang at
the Fed will not let it return to earth.
///////////////////////////////
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|