Goldman Sachs 33 Year Stranglehold on Nashville

Posted on

Goldman Sachs and Nashville will boost city-backed debt by almost 40 percent to borrow $633 million for a new convention center.

A riverboat gamble with very little upside?

The city plans to pay off the debt over the next 33 years with a series of revenue streams targeting visitors to Nashville. But it has pledged to use a $130 million-a-year pool of general fund revenues — excluding sales and property taxes — if there’s a shortfall, as critics expect based on the struggles of convention halls around the country. 

Metro payments on the debt will average $39 million to $40 million a year. {more}

Lucky for Nashville, the municipal bonds for the center were sold before the SEC civil suit against Goldman was announced.

“I think Nashville’s convention center deal is just another example of how elected officials are induced to approve a financing with promises that the public’s guarantees will never be necessary, that the project will pay for itself,” said council member Emily Evans, who used to work on the other side of the dais in the municipal bond business. “Yet once the votes are counted, the city’s assumption of risk becomes a major sales point for investors, and protecting the taxpayer is forgotten.”

Goldman, Sachs is the book-runner for {the bond} offering. Other members of the syndicate are Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Fifth Third Securities Inc., Harvestons Securities Inc., Mesirow Financial Inc., Morgan Keegan & Co., Morgan Stanley, and Stephens Inc. {more}

The Goldman Defense: Caveat Emptor 

The essential thrust: buyer beware.

Did Goldman scam the Nashville politicians into a heavy debt for a convention center that will rely on an economy improving to past peak levels in order to pay off the debt with extortion fees to visitors to the city?

Will taxpayers be the losers because revenues will be way short of the Goldman projections? Cutbacks to city services to service the debt? Goldman would love to have Nashville as one of its ‘assets.’

Play with the devil and you may get burned. Buyer beware indeed.


Bill Ayers and Obama – links to the security services?

Posted on Updated on

Tuesday, October 07, 2008


Bill Ayers

What links Obama, Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground?

Are they all controlled by the security services?

The Weather Underground bombed government buildings.

But none of the Weathermen was prosecuted for bombing government buildings.

Weather Underground, or Weathermen, was formed after the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) fragmented in the late 1960s.

The ‘anti-war’ Weather Underground was active in the USA during the 1960s and 1970s.

In 1971, The Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI broke into an FBI office in Pennsylvania [40] and found files showing FBI links to the Weathermen (Weather Underground). (Weatherman organization – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

The files were a part of the FBI program called COINTELPRO.[42]

In 1973, the FBI set up the Special Target Information Development program, by which double-agents worked within the Weather Underground.

The Weathermen successfully made the anti-war movement less popular.

Then Government attorneys asked that all weapons and bomb related charges be dropped against the Weather Underground. [44] (The Guardian Observer on The Weather Underground)

It is possible that key people within the Weathermen were working for the security services and that their objective was to discredit those who opposed the Vietnam War.

The job of the double-agents would be:

(1) to get the Weathermen involved in violence, so that they would lose the support of the public.

(2) to weaken and divide the Weathermen by creating competing factions.

Bill Ayers “made decisive contributions to the Weatherman orientation toward militancy”.[5]

“During that time his infatuation with street fighting grew and he developed a language of confrontational militancy that became more and more pronounced over the year [1969]”, disaffected former Weatherman member Cathy Wilkerson wrote in 2001.

In 1969, Ayers participated in planting a bomb which broke almost 100 windows.

Ayers took part in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol building in 1971, and The Pentagon in 1972.

Ayers is currently a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education.

Ayers has worked with Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley [36]

Ayers served on two nonprofit boards with Barack Obama.

Both Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, hosted a meet-and-greet for Obama at their home in 1995, where Alice Palmer introduced Obama as her chosen successor in the Illinois State Senate.[2]

Investigations by journalists concluded that Obama does not have a close relationship with Ayers.[3][4]


Explaining Monsanto’s Desire to Ban Current Milk Labeling

Posted on

Tuesday, April 01, 2008
by: Jo Hartley

(NaturalNews) Over the past century, Monsanto has dabbled in many projects – Agent Orange, Terminator seeds, PCBs, and now “recombined” milk. Monsanto’s latest obsession is milk labels. Specifically, those that are labeled “rBST-free” or “rBGH-free”. They are not concerned with the BST and the BGH on your milk labels. What worries them is the “r” in the label, which stands for “recombined.” Recombined milk is not a natural state of milk and recent evidence suggests that it is probably not as good for us.

Consuming dairy products coming from cows treated with rBGH poses some health risks, including antibiotic resistance (because of antibiotic use to treat cows’ mastitis and other health problems), and a link to a certain range of cancers due to an elevated level of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1.

Monsanto is waging a war of words to attempt to stop the threat against its bottom line. Consumers are becoming skeptical about recombined food and so the company is attempting to suppress or ban the “rBGH-free” label at the state level.

They contend that rBST is a supplement used to help cows produce more milk. Because of the fact that the supplement is injected into the cow and not the milk, they insist that the resulting milk is exactly the same. They state that there is no difference in this milk.

While it is true that all cows have naturally occurring bovine growth hormone, only cows injected with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone have rBGH. To call this hormone a mere “supplement” is inaccurate as well. Cows that receive this hormone typically last only two lactation cycles before they are slaughtered. Non-rBGH cows normally produce milk for 4-7 years and can live as long as 10 years.

Canada, Australia, and parts of the European Union have banned Monsanto’s recombined milk due to its threats to both humans and cows. To date, the U.S. has yet again allowed Monsanto the freedom to unleash its possibly lethal products on the unsuspecting consumer. And so, it comes down to a battle between the FDA (and its supporters) and those who don’t follow the FDA. Proposed bans on rBGH-free labels are not to protect the consumer, they are to protect Monsanto’s pocketbook.

Public sentiment is turning against rBGH products. More medical authorities are voicing concerns about physical and psychological health issues. In addition, farmers and consumers are demanding a differentiation between recombined milk and milk in its natural form.

Just because there is no commercial test for this drug does not translate into there not being a difference between recombined milk and natural milk. Monsanto’s tactic has been to equate the absence of a verifying lab test with the label being misleading. This doesn’t hold true as there are many products with legitimate labels that haven’t been verified by lab tests – bottled water comes to mind.

Monsanto continues to muddy the waters by insisting that to label the different milks is misleading because “they make consumers believe there is a difference, when in fact there is none.”

Monsanto nearly succeeded in a ban on rBGH-free labels in Pennsylvania in 2007; however the ban failed at the eleventh hour. Several other states are expected to revise or lift their bans on rBGH-free labels due to opposition.

At this juncture, Monsanto seems to have accepted the consumer’s rejection of genetically modified bovine growth hormones. At this point they are experimenting with some funding of grass-roots farming coalitions. The American Farmers for Advancement and Conservation of Technology (AFACT) is one such recipient of Monsanto’s generosity. The farmers from organizations such as these have been known to harass their state legislators, force scientists who may be skeptical of advisory panels, and general intimidation.

As more consumers become aware of the issues involved and make their choices for rBGH-free products, it becomes more and more apparent that Monsanto’s goal is censorship to protect their own interests, not the public’s. One need only take a cursory look at Monsanto’s past pattern with products like Agent Orange, PCBs, and Terminator seeds. The bottom line is that more information is never a bad thing and anything or anyone who tries to restrict the flow of information is likely anti-consumer.