That’s Dr. Gore To You, Pal
by Keith Johnson
Break out your signs and bullhorns ladies and gentlemen, because climate fraudster Al Gore is set to receive an honorary doctorate from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The announcement, posted on the UT, Knoxville website on Friday states “Former Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore will be honored by UT Knoxville with only the third honorary degree granted by the campus. Gore will receive the degree — an Honorary Doctor of Laws and Humane Letters in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology — at the spring commencement exercises of the College of Arts and Sciences on May 14. He will be the featured speaker at the ceremony, addressing graduates and their families along with the gathered faculty.”
Already the firestorm of protests has begun to circulate on the web. A recent poll conducted by Knoxnews.com asks “Should UT Knoxville present Al Gore with an honorary doctoral degree?” As of this writing, 83% have responded “NO” while only 15% responded “YES”. Comments on the site are overwhelmingly negative. “Honoring Gore with this would be a travesty. This is a man who manipulated data and used sources that have been proven to be purveyors of false information to forward a cause that has made him a multimillionaire. If you want to give a reward for fiction writing, that would be the only reason for the award” writes one poster. Yet another writes “I have two degrees from the The University of Tennessee and if they give Al Gore any kind of “honorary degree”, I will mail both of them back.” This seems to be the consensus among those responding to the announcement.
Gore has already received one honorary doctorate in 2007 from the Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Prior to the presentation, Gore gave a speech on climate change and was repeatedly heckled by audience members shouting “liar and villain,” and screaming, “what about your swimming pools,” in reference to the monthly electricity bill of his estate equal to a year’s bill for the average American home. Then, as Concordia President Claude Lajeunesse took the stage to present the honor, more boos and screams emanated from the audience, resulting in a question and answer period following the ceremony to be cancelled. Earlier in 2007, Gore was considered as a possible nominee for a similar honor from the University of Minnesota. But that never materialized.
As was reported in a recent article appearing on FOXNEWS.com entitled “You Can Call Him Al…But Al Won’t Call You Back” by Gene J. Koprowski, “Since his appearance at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, Gore has been reluctant to talk to the media, making only a handful of public appearances.” It’s understandable why Gore has persisted to lay low following the revelations of fraud and deception by the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit and the “climategate” scandal that erupted in November, 2009. From that day forward, “Hockey-stick Al” has been plagued by a stigma that has followed him wherever he goes. At a November book signing in Chicago, members of the activist group “We Are Change” confronted Gore on the manipulated data and why the IPCC hasn’t released any reports on sunspot activity. Gore’s goons promptly swarmed the activists and removed them from the premises. Later that month, in Boca Raton, Florida, a crowd of hundreds of protestors repeatedly booed and heckled Gore as he tried to give a global warming speech at the Mizner Park Amphitheatre.
And there is no reason this trend should end. Now we have yet another opportunity to shout this criminal off his perch. But before that happens, there still remains a chance of subverting this travesty by making our voices heard and letting the staff of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville know that the vast majority of Americans stand opposed to letting this come to pass. Call the University at 865-974-3265 or email Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek at chancellor@utk.edu.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
New psychiatric disorders flag normal human behaviors as "diseases"
New psychiatric disorders flag normal human behaviors as "diseases"
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) The Disease Mongering Engine, which I invented a couple of years ago and posted on NaturalNews, was initially created as a joke to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the fictitious diseases that are constantly created by the psychiatric industry. This hilarious online disease generator (http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...) allows you to instantly create your own fictitious diseases and disorders such as:
• Repetitive Dysmorphic Nose Picking Disorder With Itching (RDNPDWI)
• Oppositional Disorganized Speaking Disorder With Indigestion (ODSDWI)
• Chronic Bipolar Anticipation Dysfunction With Smelly Feet (CBADWSF)
... and so on.
Here's the bizarre part: All of a sudden, the new psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) appears to have adopted as medical fact many of the disorders that were created by the Disease Mongering Engine!
This new manual, for example, now says that spending a lot of time thinking about sex is a disorder. (That immediately paints every teenage boy as "diseased.")
Another new disease is "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority. All those who are skeptical about the safety of vaccines, for example, are about to be diagnosed with ODD.
Now, people who are antisocial aren't merely antisocial. They're suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and require pharmacological treatment. So the prick neighbor isn't merely a prick anymore; he's a "sufferer" of a "disorder" who needs "treatment."
Children are no longer unhappy or throwing a temper tantrum, they are suffering from "Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria." (I'm not making this up...)
Are you cracking up yet? If George Carlin were still alive today, he'd go berserk over this... Carlin, of course, would have been diagnosed with countless psychiatric disorders just for being different in his own genius way.
Federal law protects jackasses
The examples of ridiculous disorders seems endless. But here's the real kicker in all this: Thanks to federal laws that were designed to protect people who are physically disabled, people who now "suffer" from these fictitious disorders are now protected under federal law. So the antisocial prick jackass working at your office can't be fired now because he's actually suffering from a diagnosed "mental disorder" and he's being "treated" by psychiatrists.
As columnist George Will described it in a Washington Post article, "If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk."
There might even be legal protections for people who are sexual predators. So the creepy pervert at the office who feels you up in the snack room can't be fired either -- he's only suffering from "Hypersexual Disorder", a new disorder now defined as a "mental illness" by the psychiatric manual which describes it, in part, as: "A great deal of time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges and by planning for and engaging in sexual behavior." (Well gee, there goes half the population...)
Let's make all the children "normal"
There's another danger in all this psych-tagging of human behavior: What about all the creative, genius children who operate far beyond the intellectual norms of regular, average kids? As George Will explains:
"Childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
Based on the new DSM-V, children who don't fit in as dumbed-down, average kids will be flagged as diseased and could be cognitively castrated by whatever psychiatric drugs are necessary to bring them down to the level of all the other kids. Why have exceptional children when they can fit in better as "average!"
It's all just pure disease mongering
The point in all this is that psychiatry has gone completely loony. Now even the mainstream media is seeing the stupidity in naming every human emotion or eccentricity a "disorder." When the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (among other mainstream papers) start questioning the validity of modern psychiatry, you know a line has been crossed.
As the Wall Street Journal reported just yesterday, "Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn't exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)
Three years ago, such a sentence only would have appeared on websites like NaturalNews.com, but now these words are appearing in the mainstream media. Amazing.
It just goes to show you that psychiatry has now lost credibility with even the mainstream media that has long support the industry's disease mongering schemes. Psychiatry's greatest achievement over the last decade appears to have been destroying its own integrity, much to the benefit of the world population which would be far better off without psychiatry.
That's my opinion, at least. Or maybe I'm just suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder like everyone else who thinks for themselves.
Don't forget to generate your own fictitious psychiatric disorders by playing with the Disease Mongering Engine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
And while you're at it, check out www.CCHR.org where you can watch full-length documentary exposing the fraud of the psychiatric industry.Share784
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
(NaturalNews) The Disease Mongering Engine, which I invented a couple of years ago and posted on NaturalNews, was initially created as a joke to demonstrate the ridiculousness of the fictitious diseases that are constantly created by the psychiatric industry. This hilarious online disease generator (http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...) allows you to instantly create your own fictitious diseases and disorders such as:
• Repetitive Dysmorphic Nose Picking Disorder With Itching (RDNPDWI)
• Oppositional Disorganized Speaking Disorder With Indigestion (ODSDWI)
• Chronic Bipolar Anticipation Dysfunction With Smelly Feet (CBADWSF)
... and so on.
Here's the bizarre part: All of a sudden, the new psychiatric diagnostic manual (DSM-V) appears to have adopted as medical fact many of the disorders that were created by the Disease Mongering Engine!
This new manual, for example, now says that spending a lot of time thinking about sex is a disorder. (That immediately paints every teenage boy as "diseased.")
Another new disease is "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" (ODD), which includes anyone who disagrees with authority. All those who are skeptical about the safety of vaccines, for example, are about to be diagnosed with ODD.
Now, people who are antisocial aren't merely antisocial. They're suffering from "Antisocial Personality Disorder" and require pharmacological treatment. So the prick neighbor isn't merely a prick anymore; he's a "sufferer" of a "disorder" who needs "treatment."
Children are no longer unhappy or throwing a temper tantrum, they are suffering from "Temper Dysregulation Disorder with Dysphoria." (I'm not making this up...)
Are you cracking up yet? If George Carlin were still alive today, he'd go berserk over this... Carlin, of course, would have been diagnosed with countless psychiatric disorders just for being different in his own genius way.
Federal law protects jackasses
The examples of ridiculous disorders seems endless. But here's the real kicker in all this: Thanks to federal laws that were designed to protect people who are physically disabled, people who now "suffer" from these fictitious disorders are now protected under federal law. So the antisocial prick jackass working at your office can't be fired now because he's actually suffering from a diagnosed "mental disorder" and he's being "treated" by psychiatrists.
As columnist George Will described it in a Washington Post article, "If every character blemish or emotional turbulence is a "disorder" akin to a physical disability, legal accommodations are mandatory. Under federal law, "disabilities" include any "mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities"; "mental impairments" include "emotional or mental illness." So there might be a legal entitlement to be a jerk."
There might even be legal protections for people who are sexual predators. So the creepy pervert at the office who feels you up in the snack room can't be fired either -- he's only suffering from "Hypersexual Disorder", a new disorder now defined as a "mental illness" by the psychiatric manual which describes it, in part, as: "A great deal of time is consumed by sexual fantasies and urges and by planning for and engaging in sexual behavior." (Well gee, there goes half the population...)
Let's make all the children "normal"
There's another danger in all this psych-tagging of human behavior: What about all the creative, genius children who operate far beyond the intellectual norms of regular, average kids? As George Will explains:
"Childhood eccentricities, sometimes inextricable from creativity, might be labeled "disorders" to be "cured." If 7-year-old Mozart tried composing his concertos today, he might be diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and medicated into barren normality."
Based on the new DSM-V, children who don't fit in as dumbed-down, average kids will be flagged as diseased and could be cognitively castrated by whatever psychiatric drugs are necessary to bring them down to the level of all the other kids. Why have exceptional children when they can fit in better as "average!"
It's all just pure disease mongering
The point in all this is that psychiatry has gone completely loony. Now even the mainstream media is seeing the stupidity in naming every human emotion or eccentricity a "disorder." When the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post (among other mainstream papers) start questioning the validity of modern psychiatry, you know a line has been crossed.
As the Wall Street Journal reported just yesterday, "Patients who seek psychiatric help today for mood disorders stand a good chance of being diagnosed with a disease that doesn't exist and treated with a medication little more effective than a placebo." (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...)
Three years ago, such a sentence only would have appeared on websites like NaturalNews.com, but now these words are appearing in the mainstream media. Amazing.
It just goes to show you that psychiatry has now lost credibility with even the mainstream media that has long support the industry's disease mongering schemes. Psychiatry's greatest achievement over the last decade appears to have been destroying its own integrity, much to the benefit of the world population which would be far better off without psychiatry.
That's my opinion, at least. Or maybe I'm just suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder like everyone else who thinks for themselves.
Don't forget to generate your own fictitious psychiatric disorders by playing with the Disease Mongering Engine:
http://www.naturalnews.com/disease-...
And while you're at it, check out www.CCHR.org where you can watch full-length documentary exposing the fraud of the psychiatric industry.Share784
MEP Farage Apologises… To Bank Clerks
MEP Farage Apologises… To Bank Clerks
Refuses to back down over globalist van Rompuy dressing down
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
UK Independence Party Member of European Parliament Nigel Farage has refused to back down over comments he directed toward EU chief and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament last week.
In response to calls to apologise for saying van Rompuy had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk”, Farage announced that he would apologise, but only to bank clerks the world over.
“If I have offended them I am very sorry indeed.” Farage quipped before stressing “I am not going to apologise to Herman van Rompuy, I am not going to apologise to the European Parliament, and I’m certainly not going to apologise to the people of Belgium.”
Farage defended his comments as “realistic, truthful and a necessary part of waking the people up to van Rompuy’s plans for an economic government of the EU.”
“The president has said he will not let this happen again. What a democratic institution this is isn’t it?” Farage said, adding “He will let me know shortly what my penalty will be.”
Farage expects to be suspended for a period of time, and foresees an attempt by van Rompuy and Parliament President Jerzy Buzek to take away his position as leader of a group in the Parliament.
The backlash directed at Farage comes after he savaged Bilderberg member van Rompuy last week, labeling the EU President “the quiet assassin of European nation states” and adding that his position has “no legitimacy”.
The job of president of the European Council, now occupied by van Rompuy, was created under the Lisbon Treaty, which was passed without a referendum in Britain and despite previous majority opposition in countries such as the Netherlands and France.
“Frankly, what Mr van Rompuy wants to do is to take away from us our rights of democracy and self government. You can’t do that without us as elected members coming back and saying we’re not very happy about it.” Farage told reporters today.
“All I can say is that those of us who have battled against the European institutions, on the basis that they are becoming fundamentally undemocratic, have been proved to be right.” Farage said.
“I have not used unparliamentary language, I have not incited dislike or hatred, I have merely expressed an opinion, and in doing so there is now actually a debate about who is Herman van Rompuy, Why is he being paid more than Obama, and just what powers has he got. I’m not going to apologise if what I have said has sparked a debate off right throughout the EU about these institutions.” he added.
“This is clearly an issue of freedom of speech. The same rulebook that is being thrown at me also contains the guarantee that Members freedom of speech should not be undermined.”
“I will appeal any ruling by Mr Buzek, who clearly has a different interpretation of freedom of speech to me.” Farage asserted.
“This is about free speech, the right to say what is not popular with the political elite, and the right to represent my constituents as I see fit.” Farage said.
“After all, unlike Mr van Rompuy, I have been elected.”
Watch Nigel Farage’s comments to reporters today in the European Parliament in Brussels:
Refuses to back down over globalist van Rompuy dressing down
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010
UK Independence Party Member of European Parliament Nigel Farage has refused to back down over comments he directed toward EU chief and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament last week.
In response to calls to apologise for saying van Rompuy had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk”, Farage announced that he would apologise, but only to bank clerks the world over.
“If I have offended them I am very sorry indeed.” Farage quipped before stressing “I am not going to apologise to Herman van Rompuy, I am not going to apologise to the European Parliament, and I’m certainly not going to apologise to the people of Belgium.”
Farage defended his comments as “realistic, truthful and a necessary part of waking the people up to van Rompuy’s plans for an economic government of the EU.”
“The president has said he will not let this happen again. What a democratic institution this is isn’t it?” Farage said, adding “He will let me know shortly what my penalty will be.”
Farage expects to be suspended for a period of time, and foresees an attempt by van Rompuy and Parliament President Jerzy Buzek to take away his position as leader of a group in the Parliament.
The backlash directed at Farage comes after he savaged Bilderberg member van Rompuy last week, labeling the EU President “the quiet assassin of European nation states” and adding that his position has “no legitimacy”.
The job of president of the European Council, now occupied by van Rompuy, was created under the Lisbon Treaty, which was passed without a referendum in Britain and despite previous majority opposition in countries such as the Netherlands and France.
“Frankly, what Mr van Rompuy wants to do is to take away from us our rights of democracy and self government. You can’t do that without us as elected members coming back and saying we’re not very happy about it.” Farage told reporters today.
“All I can say is that those of us who have battled against the European institutions, on the basis that they are becoming fundamentally undemocratic, have been proved to be right.” Farage said.
“I have not used unparliamentary language, I have not incited dislike or hatred, I have merely expressed an opinion, and in doing so there is now actually a debate about who is Herman van Rompuy, Why is he being paid more than Obama, and just what powers has he got. I’m not going to apologise if what I have said has sparked a debate off right throughout the EU about these institutions.” he added.
“This is clearly an issue of freedom of speech. The same rulebook that is being thrown at me also contains the guarantee that Members freedom of speech should not be undermined.”
“I will appeal any ruling by Mr Buzek, who clearly has a different interpretation of freedom of speech to me.” Farage asserted.
“This is about free speech, the right to say what is not popular with the political elite, and the right to represent my constituents as I see fit.” Farage said.
“After all, unlike Mr van Rompuy, I have been elected.”
Watch Nigel Farage’s comments to reporters today in the European Parliament in Brussels:
What Else is New? Banks making it impossible to live paycheck-to-paycheck
What Else is New? Banks making it impossible to live paycheck-to-paycheck
Citibank needs seven days?
By Marilyn Barnewall Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Late last week, a slight furor arose when it became public knowledge that Citibank sent the following notice to customers:
“Effective April 1, 2010, we reserve the right to require seven (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking accounts. While we do not currently exercise this right and have not exercised it in the past, we are required by law to notify you of this change.”
In my opinion, this was not just a notice about Citibank or Citigroup. It was a notice to people that all banks are undercapitalized and all have the right to take up to seven (7) days to clear a check or to give you all the money in your checking account if you demand it.
Further, Citi came out with a second statement trying to explain away the negative reaction its first announcement received. More about that below. First, there are some things all people need to know about how banks function.
Ironically, it was just four days ago I completed a chapter in my new novel about Federal Reserve System reserve requirements on deposits.
Following is some text from Chapter 31. The name of the book is immaterial – it won’t be out for at least six months. This is taken from the middle of the chapter and a banking expert is being questioned by a lawyer, before a Grand Jury:
“What do bankers call ‘checking accounts,’ Mrs. Plotnikov?”
“Demand deposit accounts, or, DDAs” she replied, her tone informational.
“Why is the word ‘demand’ used?”
Meredith cleared her throat before speaking. “Because bankers promise depositors they can have the money they deposit with them when they demand it. Banks also have ‘time’ deposits, or TDAs. A TDA refers to money a person promises to leave in the bank for a specified time period—like a certificate of deposit. Demand deposits – more commonly known as checking accounts – represent client access to cash upon demand.”
“Is that true?” Lew posed his question as if he were merely curious, smiling at his witness. “When people walk into their banks and demand access to their money, do they get it?”
“Generally speaking, it is. There are, however, circumstances where it is not true.” She neither smiled nor frowned.
“Under what circumstances would it not be true?”
“Bankers know that under normal circumstances they need only keep a small percentage of deposits available as vault cash to handle customer needs – the Federal Reserve requires most large banks to keep ten percent available on deposit with the Fed as reserve cash,” she replied. She took a breath and continued.
“Banks lose money on deposit accounts by providing clearing services for people who write checks. They lose money on deposit accounts when they pay interest on funds deposited. Banks make money by making loans. At least that’s how commercial banks made money prior to Congress passing the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act of 1999.”
“Can you explain the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Why did banks begin making money differently after it was passed?” Lew asked her, brows furrowed and his face serious.
“Gramm-Leach-Bliley enabled commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Citigroup, one of the ‘Big 9’ currently in financial hot water, merged with Travelers Group Insurance in 1998. They combined banking and insurance underwriting services. The Glass Steagall Act had for many years prevented the combining of insurance and securities companies with commercial banks. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial banks to speculate, or said another way, to invest depositor dollars rather than just make loans. That, too, was prevented by Glass Steagall. So, rather than having to make loans to earn a profit, banks could invest in other money-making ventures.”
“Like mortgage-based derivatives?” His tone was only slightly ironic.
“Yes,” she said. “Like mortgage-based derivatives. It’s important to remember that when banks make loans in a community, it stimulates the local economy. When depositor dollars are invested in derivatives or any other financial product, it reduces funds available for loans in the local business community.”
“What do the loan and investment functions at banks have to do with deposits?”
“Deposits are the banks’ primary source of funding. As a result, depositors’ funds are not kept in a vault at the bank, as many people assume. The funds have been loaned out or invested. Usually, when bank customers want or need to take large amounts of money out of bank accounts, or want to close an account, customers have to give the bank notice. If you remove more than a few thousand dollars, you’ll probably be given a Cashier’s Check, not cash… even if you ask for it.”
“So when too many customers ask for large amounts of money at one time, what does a bank do?”
She smiled. “The bank usually goes to the Federal Reserve System for cash.”
“Is the Federal Reserve System a bank?” he asked, curiously.
“No. Not really. It serves as a bank wholesaler.”
“Though I’m very tempted to ask you why banks need a middleman to give them money, Mrs. Plotnikov… let me get back to my questions about demand deposits. Based on what you’ve just told us, when bankers tell customers they can demand cash on deposits whenever they want, bankers are lying. Is that correct?”
“It is.” Meredith nodded her head to emphasize her response.
“And if too many people demand their money at the same time, it’s called a ‘run on the bank,’ isn’t that true?”
“It is.”
“What causes a ‘run on a bank’?”
“Bad loans and bad investments reduce income to the bank. When a bank can’t make new loans because of reduced capital, good borrowers begin looking for another bank. When a bank’s deposits are tied up in bad loans and bad investments, they lose depositors who have need of credit. They can’t demand – or, as bankers say, call – bad loans for payment, because if the borrower could pay, it wouldn’t be a bad loan. They can’t sell bad investments while the market’s down. They become undercapitalized.
“Bank auditors from the Comptroller of the Currency, or state banking auditors – or, sometimes FDIC auditors – catch the problem. When too many depositors try to take their money from a bank, the FDIC – which says it insures deposits – takes the bank over to protect its interests.”
“What is the status of the FDIC today?”
“Let me quote the Chairman of the FDIC in a Bloomberg article last March: He said the FDIC might go belly-up because of numerous expected bank failures. He said it could happen in 2009. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s this year.”
“You’re right. It is this year,” Lew responded quietly. “If the FDIC goes ‘belly-up,’ as you call it, will people still get their FDIC insured bank deposits?”
“Probably, but maybe not. I’m sorry I can’t be more definite than that but there are different scenarios for differing situations. The FDIC could delay payments. If a person has a $25,000 deposit, the FDIC can pay $1,000 a month for twenty-five months. They may guarantee the deposit, but they do not guarantee instant payment. So far, they’ve been able to pay lump sum amounts. During the savings and loan crisis, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) paid $900 a month to depositors. The same thing could happen at the FDIC.”
End of text from Chapter 31.
The point is, a lot of people were upset at Citibank’s national announcement about being required by law to give seven days advance notice that the bank may not permit withdrawals from accounts. By anyone. Including the account holder.
After everyone’s feathers got ruffled, Citibank decided it should explain:
“When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal…”
That is not what Citibank said in its original statement. The second statement makes it sound like the Federal Reserve’s Regulation D is the villain and the seven day requirement involves only NOW accounts.
But the initial Citibank announcement said “We reserve the right to require seven (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking, savings and money market accounts.” Checking and savings accounts may or may not be NOW accounts. And, Regulation D regulates the cash reserves banks must keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve.
Thus, their explanation doesn’t make sense.
The Citibank explanation makes it sound like they so badly want people to have access to bank promotional incentives that they had to change the status of depositor accounts because customers would suffer a fate worse than death if they didn’t have access to bank “promotional incentives.”
I hate to tell them this, but most people will be far more upset because the bank has warned them that when they write a check, Citibank may wait seven (7) days to pay the check. That includes checks from you to you, by the way – checks made out to “Cash.” I doubt the loss of access to “promotional incentives” will upset people nearly as much as not having immediate access to their money.
What the Citibank announcement amounts to is a news flash to people who aren’t abreast of what’s happening in banking. It’s almost a full-time job to keep up with the changes!
Since many banks are under-capitalized, it’s just possible they may not have the cash available to pay the amount of your check to your utility company when the utility company deposits it. If you pay your bills online, banks tell you they can electronically get payment to the business you are paying within three days. Non-electronic payments (checks written to individuals or companies that are not set up to receive electronic online payments so your online bank sends checks by snail mail) take ten days.
Based on the Citibank announcement, you need to add seven days to those time frames to avoid late fees. Your company may get the check, online or in the mail, but the bank may not clear your payment for seven days. Who should get charged a late fee? You? Or, the bank that won’t clear your check for seven days? By making their announcement, Citibank just told its customers they are the ones who will pay late fees. They have warned their customers that it may take seven days for payment to be made… to clear your payments to creditors.
This action by Citibank also suggests that the Federal Reserve may not have sufficient funds to immediately provide “vault cash” held by the Fed for every bank member as “reserve requirements.” That is where Regulation D gets involved. The bank may ask for its vault cash held on deposit by the Fed, but does the Fed have the money to respond? Maybe the Fed is concerned about its ability to fulfill the request. There could be a lot of reasons and something is afoot, for sure.
As you pay your bills, keep that in mind. If you wait until the last minute to write a check, online or otherwise, your bank may not clear the amount of your payment for up to seven days. This doesn’t just impact Citibank customers, in other words. If it’s true for them, it’s true for all banks.
Congress passes legislation to stop the outrageous bank fees being charged. This is the banking industry’s response? They are making it impossible to live paycheck-to-paycheck.
They may be making it impossible to pay your bills on time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFP Tools
Share18 | More
(2) Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us | Send this page to a friend! |
Marilyn Barnewall Bio
Marilyn Barnewall Most recent columns
Marilyn Barnewall received her graduate degree in Banking from the University of Colorado Graduate School of Business in 1978. She created the first wealth creation (credit-driven) private bank in America in the 1970s. Prior to her 21-year banking career, she was a newspaper reporter, advertising copywriter, public relations director, magazine editor, assistant to the publisher, singer, dog trainer, and an insurance salesperson and manager.
She was named one of America’s top 100 businesswomen in the book, What It Takes (Dolphin/Doubleday; Gardenswartz and Roe) and was one of the founders of the Committee of 200, the official organization of America’s top 200 businesswomen. She can be found in Who’s Who in America (2005-08), Who’s Who of American Women (2006-08), Who’s Who in Finance and Business (2006-08), and Who’s Who in the World (2008). She can be reached at: emembee@ymail.com
Citibank needs seven days?
By Marilyn Barnewall Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Late last week, a slight furor arose when it became public knowledge that Citibank sent the following notice to customers:
“Effective April 1, 2010, we reserve the right to require seven (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking accounts. While we do not currently exercise this right and have not exercised it in the past, we are required by law to notify you of this change.”
In my opinion, this was not just a notice about Citibank or Citigroup. It was a notice to people that all banks are undercapitalized and all have the right to take up to seven (7) days to clear a check or to give you all the money in your checking account if you demand it.
Further, Citi came out with a second statement trying to explain away the negative reaction its first announcement received. More about that below. First, there are some things all people need to know about how banks function.
Ironically, it was just four days ago I completed a chapter in my new novel about Federal Reserve System reserve requirements on deposits.
Following is some text from Chapter 31. The name of the book is immaterial – it won’t be out for at least six months. This is taken from the middle of the chapter and a banking expert is being questioned by a lawyer, before a Grand Jury:
“What do bankers call ‘checking accounts,’ Mrs. Plotnikov?”
“Demand deposit accounts, or, DDAs” she replied, her tone informational.
“Why is the word ‘demand’ used?”
Meredith cleared her throat before speaking. “Because bankers promise depositors they can have the money they deposit with them when they demand it. Banks also have ‘time’ deposits, or TDAs. A TDA refers to money a person promises to leave in the bank for a specified time period—like a certificate of deposit. Demand deposits – more commonly known as checking accounts – represent client access to cash upon demand.”
“Is that true?” Lew posed his question as if he were merely curious, smiling at his witness. “When people walk into their banks and demand access to their money, do they get it?”
“Generally speaking, it is. There are, however, circumstances where it is not true.” She neither smiled nor frowned.
“Under what circumstances would it not be true?”
“Bankers know that under normal circumstances they need only keep a small percentage of deposits available as vault cash to handle customer needs – the Federal Reserve requires most large banks to keep ten percent available on deposit with the Fed as reserve cash,” she replied. She took a breath and continued.
“Banks lose money on deposit accounts by providing clearing services for people who write checks. They lose money on deposit accounts when they pay interest on funds deposited. Banks make money by making loans. At least that’s how commercial banks made money prior to Congress passing the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act of 1999.”
“Can you explain the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? Why did banks begin making money differently after it was passed?” Lew asked her, brows furrowed and his face serious.
“Gramm-Leach-Bliley enabled commercial and investment banks to consolidate. Citigroup, one of the ‘Big 9’ currently in financial hot water, merged with Travelers Group Insurance in 1998. They combined banking and insurance underwriting services. The Glass Steagall Act had for many years prevented the combining of insurance and securities companies with commercial banks. Gramm-Leach-Bliley allowed commercial banks to speculate, or said another way, to invest depositor dollars rather than just make loans. That, too, was prevented by Glass Steagall. So, rather than having to make loans to earn a profit, banks could invest in other money-making ventures.”
“Like mortgage-based derivatives?” His tone was only slightly ironic.
“Yes,” she said. “Like mortgage-based derivatives. It’s important to remember that when banks make loans in a community, it stimulates the local economy. When depositor dollars are invested in derivatives or any other financial product, it reduces funds available for loans in the local business community.”
“What do the loan and investment functions at banks have to do with deposits?”
“Deposits are the banks’ primary source of funding. As a result, depositors’ funds are not kept in a vault at the bank, as many people assume. The funds have been loaned out or invested. Usually, when bank customers want or need to take large amounts of money out of bank accounts, or want to close an account, customers have to give the bank notice. If you remove more than a few thousand dollars, you’ll probably be given a Cashier’s Check, not cash… even if you ask for it.”
“So when too many customers ask for large amounts of money at one time, what does a bank do?”
She smiled. “The bank usually goes to the Federal Reserve System for cash.”
“Is the Federal Reserve System a bank?” he asked, curiously.
“No. Not really. It serves as a bank wholesaler.”
“Though I’m very tempted to ask you why banks need a middleman to give them money, Mrs. Plotnikov… let me get back to my questions about demand deposits. Based on what you’ve just told us, when bankers tell customers they can demand cash on deposits whenever they want, bankers are lying. Is that correct?”
“It is.” Meredith nodded her head to emphasize her response.
“And if too many people demand their money at the same time, it’s called a ‘run on the bank,’ isn’t that true?”
“It is.”
“What causes a ‘run on a bank’?”
“Bad loans and bad investments reduce income to the bank. When a bank can’t make new loans because of reduced capital, good borrowers begin looking for another bank. When a bank’s deposits are tied up in bad loans and bad investments, they lose depositors who have need of credit. They can’t demand – or, as bankers say, call – bad loans for payment, because if the borrower could pay, it wouldn’t be a bad loan. They can’t sell bad investments while the market’s down. They become undercapitalized.
“Bank auditors from the Comptroller of the Currency, or state banking auditors – or, sometimes FDIC auditors – catch the problem. When too many depositors try to take their money from a bank, the FDIC – which says it insures deposits – takes the bank over to protect its interests.”
“What is the status of the FDIC today?”
“Let me quote the Chairman of the FDIC in a Bloomberg article last March: He said the FDIC might go belly-up because of numerous expected bank failures. He said it could happen in 2009. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s this year.”
“You’re right. It is this year,” Lew responded quietly. “If the FDIC goes ‘belly-up,’ as you call it, will people still get their FDIC insured bank deposits?”
“Probably, but maybe not. I’m sorry I can’t be more definite than that but there are different scenarios for differing situations. The FDIC could delay payments. If a person has a $25,000 deposit, the FDIC can pay $1,000 a month for twenty-five months. They may guarantee the deposit, but they do not guarantee instant payment. So far, they’ve been able to pay lump sum amounts. During the savings and loan crisis, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) paid $900 a month to depositors. The same thing could happen at the FDIC.”
End of text from Chapter 31.
The point is, a lot of people were upset at Citibank’s national announcement about being required by law to give seven days advance notice that the bank may not permit withdrawals from accounts. By anyone. Including the account holder.
After everyone’s feathers got ruffled, Citibank decided it should explain:
“When Citibank moved to unlimited FDIC coverage in 2009, we had to reclassify many checking accounts to allow for immediate withdrawals in order to ensure all customers qualified for the additional coverage. When we moved back to standard FDIC coverage with most major banks in 2010, Citibank decided to reclassify those accounts back to make them eligible again for promotional incentives. To do so, Federal Reserve Reg D requires these accounts, called NOW accounts, to reserve the right to require a 7-day notice of withdrawal…”
That is not what Citibank said in its original statement. The second statement makes it sound like the Federal Reserve’s Regulation D is the villain and the seven day requirement involves only NOW accounts.
But the initial Citibank announcement said “We reserve the right to require seven (7) days advance notice before permitting a withdrawal from all checking, savings and money market accounts.” Checking and savings accounts may or may not be NOW accounts. And, Regulation D regulates the cash reserves banks must keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve.
Thus, their explanation doesn’t make sense.
The Citibank explanation makes it sound like they so badly want people to have access to bank promotional incentives that they had to change the status of depositor accounts because customers would suffer a fate worse than death if they didn’t have access to bank “promotional incentives.”
I hate to tell them this, but most people will be far more upset because the bank has warned them that when they write a check, Citibank may wait seven (7) days to pay the check. That includes checks from you to you, by the way – checks made out to “Cash.” I doubt the loss of access to “promotional incentives” will upset people nearly as much as not having immediate access to their money.
What the Citibank announcement amounts to is a news flash to people who aren’t abreast of what’s happening in banking. It’s almost a full-time job to keep up with the changes!
Since many banks are under-capitalized, it’s just possible they may not have the cash available to pay the amount of your check to your utility company when the utility company deposits it. If you pay your bills online, banks tell you they can electronically get payment to the business you are paying within three days. Non-electronic payments (checks written to individuals or companies that are not set up to receive electronic online payments so your online bank sends checks by snail mail) take ten days.
Based on the Citibank announcement, you need to add seven days to those time frames to avoid late fees. Your company may get the check, online or in the mail, but the bank may not clear your payment for seven days. Who should get charged a late fee? You? Or, the bank that won’t clear your check for seven days? By making their announcement, Citibank just told its customers they are the ones who will pay late fees. They have warned their customers that it may take seven days for payment to be made… to clear your payments to creditors.
This action by Citibank also suggests that the Federal Reserve may not have sufficient funds to immediately provide “vault cash” held by the Fed for every bank member as “reserve requirements.” That is where Regulation D gets involved. The bank may ask for its vault cash held on deposit by the Fed, but does the Fed have the money to respond? Maybe the Fed is concerned about its ability to fulfill the request. There could be a lot of reasons and something is afoot, for sure.
As you pay your bills, keep that in mind. If you wait until the last minute to write a check, online or otherwise, your bank may not clear the amount of your payment for up to seven days. This doesn’t just impact Citibank customers, in other words. If it’s true for them, it’s true for all banks.
Congress passes legislation to stop the outrageous bank fees being charged. This is the banking industry’s response? They are making it impossible to live paycheck-to-paycheck.
They may be making it impossible to pay your bills on time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CFP Tools
Share18 | More
(2) Reader Feedback | Subscribe | Print friendly | Contact Us | Send this page to a friend! |
Marilyn Barnewall Bio
Marilyn Barnewall Most recent columns
Marilyn Barnewall received her graduate degree in Banking from the University of Colorado Graduate School of Business in 1978. She created the first wealth creation (credit-driven) private bank in America in the 1970s. Prior to her 21-year banking career, she was a newspaper reporter, advertising copywriter, public relations director, magazine editor, assistant to the publisher, singer, dog trainer, and an insurance salesperson and manager.
She was named one of America’s top 100 businesswomen in the book, What It Takes (Dolphin/Doubleday; Gardenswartz and Roe) and was one of the founders of the Committee of 200, the official organization of America’s top 200 businesswomen. She can be found in Who’s Who in America (2005-08), Who’s Who of American Women (2006-08), Who’s Who in Finance and Business (2006-08), and Who’s Who in the World (2008). She can be reached at: emembee@ymail.com
How They Distort Global Temperatures: The Urban Heat Island Effect
Now you see why the CRU and IPCC limited the number of stations they were using and restricted them to mostly urban stations to get the result they wanted
How They Distort Global Temperatures: The Urban Heat Island Effect
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, March 1, 2010
How much do calculations of global temperatures represent the real temperature of the Earth? Every day new stories appear about temperature records with errors or deliberate omissions. An important part of the debate is something called the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). A new article by Dr. Edward Long says, “The problem would seem to be the methodologies engendered in treatment for a mix of urban and rural locations; that the ‘adjustment’ protocol appears to accent to a warming effect rather than eliminate it. This, if correct, leaves serious doubt for whether the rate of increase in temperature found from the adjusted data is due to natural warming trends or warming because of another reason, such as erroneous consideration of the effects of urban warming.”
How They Distort Global Temperatures: The Urban Heat Island Effect
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, March 1, 2010
How much do calculations of global temperatures represent the real temperature of the Earth? Every day new stories appear about temperature records with errors or deliberate omissions. An important part of the debate is something called the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE). A new article by Dr. Edward Long says, “The problem would seem to be the methodologies engendered in treatment for a mix of urban and rural locations; that the ‘adjustment’ protocol appears to accent to a warming effect rather than eliminate it. This, if correct, leaves serious doubt for whether the rate of increase in temperature found from the adjusted data is due to natural warming trends or warming because of another reason, such as erroneous consideration of the effects of urban warming.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
