https://twitter.com/That_Hawaii_Guy
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Traveling in Time Becomes Possible
09/19/2003 17:48
Black holes can take people to new dimensions
Moscow State University professor Dmitry Goltsov has recently announced about the sensational possibility to travel in time. Cosmologists discovered a new dimension that prejudiced Einstein's theory of relativity. The three-dimensional model is not actual anymore. Cosmologists believe, one may travel in time through black holes with the help of a time machine. The machine will be moving from one black hole to another, which will allow it to travel either to the relative future or the relative past. It will be easy to return to our times too. Yet, it is not known, to which extent the theory is correct - the time machine has not been invented yet.
The time machine has been a very popular subject for science fiction writers for decades. Yet, it is generally believed that the idea is absolutely unreal, on one has ever dreamed about it seriously. However, scientists start talking about such a possibility already now.
Russia's most outstanding cosmologist Valery Rubakov is the nation's youngest academician - he is 48 years old. The academician cannot travel in time, although he travels a lot in the real world. He spends most of his time abroad, as a lot of Russian talented scientists do. Valery Rubakov usually comes to Moscow in Indian summer - his favorite time of the year. The academician commented on Dmitry Goltsov's statement.
Modern physics does not exclude the existence of other dimensions in the world besides the three known ones. Einstein's classic theory of relativity does not work well at an ultra-small distance. According to Einstein, all forces are aimed toward infinity at a nucleus radius distance. The gravitation theory should be modified. The only way out is to make gravitation become quantum. It is justifiable from the philosophical point of view: if the entire substance possesses quantum properties and interacts with gravitation, it means that gravitation is of quantum nature. The graviton particle turns out to be the unit of gravitation field radiation.
This does not make a revolution, though. There is a theory of superstrings, which has been winning more and more followers of late, although a lot of Russian academicians think it is nonsense. The modern quantum theory of field takes a one-dimensional spot as an "elementary" object. In the superstrings theory, this object is a two-dimensional string. If photons and gravitons exist, the stable theory of the Universe can be formed only with the help of the superstrings theory, no matter how doubtful it might seem. The superstrings theory admits the existence of absolutely weightless null mass particles.
It is the superstrings theory that gives a possibility to imagine the world without contradictions. However, the theory can be built without contradictions only in the nine-dimensional space. People do not see other dimensions because they probably exist in the form of ultra-small rings, the size of a nucleus. Another version says that a particle is supposed to have a super-strong power to break away beyond conventional dimensions. Only a black hole could create such incredible conditions - it is possible to move to another dimension through a black hole.
Such experiments are currently being held in the USA, although there has not been any results achieved yet. Academician Rubakov stressed, it was going about ultimate particles. A more complicated object, not to mention a human being, would be smashed in a black hole. The superstrings theory is serious, although it seems fantastic.
Read the original in Russian: (Translated by: Dmitry Sudakov)
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/10929_dimension.html
DIEBOLD GOES POSTAL!
Subject: Fwd: All Black Box Voting files confiscated, including personal info on activists by Diebold.
From: Bev Harris Subject: All Black Box Voting files confiscated, including personal info on activists
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Here's what you can do to help: Get the word out far and wide that Diebold has done this thing.
1. Diebold issued a pull-down demand under DMCA for the BlackBoxVoting.org web site, citing a link posted on a forum in the site, claiming that the link allowed web visitors to visit an unrelated page which contained items they say they own the copyright to.
2. Not only was BlackBoxVoting.org pulled down, but ALL of the documents, databases and programming for approximately 500 pages of material, most of which did not relate to Diebold at all, was confiscated. Dozens of web pages were pulled down which had nothing whatever to do with the disputed information. AIT Inc. has indicated that it believes it has the right to pull down the entire web site including unrelated pages. It then confiscated all of the material.
3. The confiscated pages included personal contact information for 200 activists, and the private strategy sessions for voting machine activists. BlackBoxVoting.org has yet to receive any explanation at all as to what authority was claimed to confiscate them. We demand their immediate return.
4. Most of the memos in question were written in Canada, and resided on a server in Canada up to and including 2003 after Diebold bought a Canadian company called Global Election Systems. In Canada, company correspondence, even internal memos, is not protected by copyright. To date we have been unable to find evidence, other than a claim in a letter, that Diebold even owns the copyright to these memos.
5. These memos are more properly termed "Evidence," because they contain evidence of a pattern of lawbreaking that dates back at least to 1999.
6. Lexis-Nexis would be a worthwhile exercise now for every one of these search terms pertaining to the origins of Global Election Systems: This firm was a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Professional Technologies, Inc., which was in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of MacroTrends Ventures International, Ltd. Charles Hong Lee is one of the principals with these firms; He has been tied in the press to participation in a scheme to bilk immigrants out of some $47 million; he is also connected with a scandal in which a Mr. Graye was prosecuted, relating to Vinex Wines. Charles Hong Lee was also involved with something called "The Vancouver Maneuver," a stock pump & dump scheme that bilked investors out of millions in connection with an entertainment company and something called Beverly Development. Charles Hong Lee was a principal with Global Election Systems, along with the late Clinton Rickards. Talbot Iredale, currently the V.P. for Research and Development for Diebold Election Systems, began with the company in 1991, right around the time the Vancouver Maneuver was exposed in Barron's magazine. This is the pedigree from whence the Diebold Memos arose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a contribution originally from Slashdot, made available for the Black Box Voting book by Donald Way. (Diebold: This is satire and meant for entertainment purposes only. If you would like to spend several more $500 per hour lawyer fees suing us over satire, go right ahead.)
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Pending: your vote is now the property of Diebold, Inc. Any attempt on your part to ascertain the disposition of your vote is hereby declared to be in violation of federal law, e.g., the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
You have the right not to vote. Any vote you make can be used against you in a court of law. The judge presiding in such a court of law may be appointed by Diebold, Inc., and need not require a jury, but if a jury is summoned, it need not be a jury of your peers.
By acting to vote you consent to our determining whether your vote is valid, and in the event it is judged not to be valid, you consent to our voiding your vote and further voiding your right to vote in the future. You furthermore acknowledge that owing to storage and bandwidth limitations that Diebold, Inc., may experience, your vote may be digitally compressed in a way such that your true intent in casting the vote may be lost. If such an eventuality should occur, your vote may be determined using statistical data derived from any source we deem appropriate or convenient.
You have the right to protest if your vote is cancelled, altered, or in any way modified as the result of such action on our part, however, you hereby acknowledge that in such an eventuality, Diebold, Inc. may determine that your right to vote is deleterious to democracy as implement by Diebold, Inc., and therefore may be considered to be an overt act against the national security of these United States. You have 10 seconds to comply.
God Bless America
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/dieboldpostal.html
DIEBOLD GOES POSTAL!
Subject: Fwd: All Black Box Voting files confiscated, including personal info on activists by Diebold.
From: Bev Harris Subject: All Black Box Voting files confiscated, including personal info on activists
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
Here's what you can do to help: Get the word out far and wide that Diebold has done this thing.
1. Diebold issued a pull-down demand under DMCA for the BlackBoxVoting.org web site, citing a link posted on a forum in the site, claiming that the link allowed web visitors to visit an unrelated page which contained items they say they own the copyright to.
2. Not only was BlackBoxVoting.org pulled down, but ALL of the documents, databases and programming for approximately 500 pages of material, most of which did not relate to Diebold at all, was confiscated. Dozens of web pages were pulled down which had nothing whatever to do with the disputed information. AIT Inc. has indicated that it believes it has the right to pull down the entire web site including unrelated pages. It then confiscated all of the material.
3. The confiscated pages included personal contact information for 200 activists, and the private strategy sessions for voting machine activists. BlackBoxVoting.org has yet to receive any explanation at all as to what authority was claimed to confiscate them. We demand their immediate return.
4. Most of the memos in question were written in Canada, and resided on a server in Canada up to and including 2003 after Diebold bought a Canadian company called Global Election Systems. In Canada, company correspondence, even internal memos, is not protected by copyright. To date we have been unable to find evidence, other than a claim in a letter, that Diebold even owns the copyright to these memos.
5. These memos are more properly termed "Evidence," because they contain evidence of a pattern of lawbreaking that dates back at least to 1999.
6. Lexis-Nexis would be a worthwhile exercise now for every one of these search terms pertaining to the origins of Global Election Systems: This firm was a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Professional Technologies, Inc., which was in turn a wholly owned subsidiary of MacroTrends Ventures International, Ltd. Charles Hong Lee is one of the principals with these firms; He has been tied in the press to participation in a scheme to bilk immigrants out of some $47 million; he is also connected with a scandal in which a Mr. Graye was prosecuted, relating to Vinex Wines. Charles Hong Lee was also involved with something called "The Vancouver Maneuver," a stock pump & dump scheme that bilked investors out of millions in connection with an entertainment company and something called Beverly Development. Charles Hong Lee was a principal with Global Election Systems, along with the late Clinton Rickards. Talbot Iredale, currently the V.P. for Research and Development for Diebold Election Systems, began with the company in 1991, right around the time the Vancouver Maneuver was exposed in Barron's magazine. This is the pedigree from whence the Diebold Memos arose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is a contribution originally from Slashdot, made available for the Black Box Voting book by Donald Way. (Diebold: This is satire and meant for entertainment purposes only. If you would like to spend several more $500 per hour lawyer fees suing us over satire, go right ahead.)
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
Pending: your vote is now the property of Diebold, Inc. Any attempt on your part to ascertain the disposition of your vote is hereby declared to be in violation of federal law, e.g., the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
You have the right not to vote. Any vote you make can be used against you in a court of law. The judge presiding in such a court of law may be appointed by Diebold, Inc., and need not require a jury, but if a jury is summoned, it need not be a jury of your peers.
By acting to vote you consent to our determining whether your vote is valid, and in the event it is judged not to be valid, you consent to our voiding your vote and further voiding your right to vote in the future. You furthermore acknowledge that owing to storage and bandwidth limitations that Diebold, Inc., may experience, your vote may be digitally compressed in a way such that your true intent in casting the vote may be lost. If such an eventuality should occur, your vote may be determined using statistical data derived from any source we deem appropriate or convenient.
You have the right to protest if your vote is cancelled, altered, or in any way modified as the result of such action on our part, however, you hereby acknowledge that in such an eventuality, Diebold, Inc. may determine that your right to vote is deleterious to democracy as implement by Diebold, Inc., and therefore may be considered to be an overt act against the national security of these United States. You have 10 seconds to comply.
God Bless America
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/dieboldpostal.html
Expect the dollar to slide further after this week's sharp decline
[Click on link for graph and some interesting links.]
Get article background
STATEMENTS by the finance ministers and central bankers of the Group of Seven (G7) rich industrial economies are usually rather bland. This makes it easier for member countries to agree to them, and it avoids unsettling financial markets. However, the G7 statement issued on September 20th in Dubai, ahead of the annual meetings of the IMF and the World Bank, was of a spicier type. Its call for “more flexibility” in exchange rates took markets completely by surprise, pushing the dollar sharply lower. It is therefore awkward that finance ministers seem to disagree about exactly what they meant.
John Snow, America's treasury secretary, proclaimed the statement to be “a milestone change”. The currency markets listened. They interpreted the communiqué as telling the Japanese and the Chinese to let their currencies rise and thus to allow the dollar to fall. Japan has been holding down the yen through foreign-exchange intervention on a grand scale; the Chinese yuan is pegged to the dollar with the help of strict capital controls.
However, Japanese and British officials quickly denied that this marked any change in policy. To add to the confusion, two days later Mr Snow said there had been no change in America's “strong dollar policy”. Currency markets, however, stuck by their initial interpretation. By September 23rd, the dollar had fallen to a three-year low of less than ¥111, before stabilising. It had shed 5% in little more than a week. The dollar also gave up most of its recent gains against the euro, falling back to a rate of $1.15.
This resumes the steady slide in the dollar that began in early 2002. Over the past few months, evidence of a stronger recovery in America had pushed the dollar higher. But just as some economists had started to predict that the dollar could rise back to parity against the euro, currency markets have now switched their attention from growth rates to America's huge current-account deficit. If America's economy does grow faster than those of its main trading partners, then its external deficit will also widen by more.
The sharp fall in the dollar caused stockmarkets to shudder. Investors fretted about a loss of export competitiveness in Japan and Europe: the Nikkei fell by 5% during the week, Germany's DAX by 7%. Wall Street also slipped: although a weak dollar should be good for American profits and hence share prices, investors worried that bond yields will rise sharply if Asian central banks stop intervening and so buy fewer American Treasury bonds.
The buck doesn't stop here
The Dubai statement was certainly not another Plaza Accord. In 1985, after the dollar had soared, G7 finance ministers agreed at a meeting in New York to intervene together to push down the greenback. This time, not only is there less agreement, but the authorities are leaving adjustment to the markets. Nevertheless, says Stephen Roach, the chief economist at Morgan Stanley, the G7 have sent out a clear message that a dangerously unbalanced world needs a weaker dollar. It would help to shift the balance of American growth from consumer demand to exports, allowing households to rebuild their savings and slimming America's current-account deficit. In Europe and Japan, a weaker dollar would cramp exports, but that could, in theory, be offset by looser monetary or fiscal policies to boost domestic demand.
The euro has already risen by around 35% against the dollar over the past couple of years, while the yen has risen more modestly thanks to heavy intervention. Earlier this year, when Japan's economy looked sickly and deflation seemed to be worsening, there were good reasons for Japan to hold down the yen. But the case for intervention has perhaps weakened. Japan's GDP grew by 3% in the year to the second quarter, the strongest growth in any G7 economy. Many economists think the true rate may be a bit lower. Still, even nominal GDP grew in the second quarter.
Either way, Japan's economy is much stronger than the market had expected. For example, in June J.P. Morgan Chase forecast that Japan's GDP would grow by an average of only 0.8% this year and next; now it is betting on average growth of 2.7%. Its growth predictions for America have been raised by much less. If (still a big if) such forecasts prove correct, then the recent rise in the yen would be justified.
Has Japan really caved in to demands that it cease holding down its currency? No. The yen's recent rise reflects a change in the market's perception of Japan's prospects, not a change in the country's policy. Sadakazu Tanigaki, the new finance minister, spoke this week of the dangers of the yen rising further. If it does continue to climb, the ministry may intervene again.
Meanwhile the American government is likely to keep up its criticism of China. Although America's economy has picked up this year, employment has continued to shrink. This is why the dollar has become such a hot political issue. Exporters blame the cheap yuan for America's large trade deficit. However, Chinese officials were quick to dismiss the communiqué from the G7 (of which China is not a member), making clear that they had no intention of revaluing the yuan soon.
The pegging of the yuan and other Asian currencies to the dollar means that the dollar has fallen by much less in trade-weighted terms than against the euro. The dollar has fallen by 19% against a basket of other rich countries' currencies (the measure used in the indicators published each week in our back pages), but by only 10% against a broader basket which also includes emerging-market currencies.
That 19% decline in the narrower trade-weighted index pales next to the 40% drop in the three years after 1985. America's current-account deficit was then only around 3% of GDP, half as big as it is likely to be by next year. A further decline in the dollar seems all but inevitable.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2088882
How do we know when the government is lying to us??
When we see their mouth moving!!
EMPLOYMENT DISASTER
Kurt Richebächer
There has been much talk to the effect that America has just had its slightest recession in the whole postwar period. That is measured in real GDP growth, being bolstered by many statistical tricks. Measured, however, by job losses, which certainly are the far more important gauge, it is already America's worst recession by far.
In June it was declared that the recession had ended in November 2001. Yet in the 20 months since, payroll employment has declined by a total of about 1 million jobs, or about 8%. In not one of the seven or eight postwar recoveries has there been any employment decline. Immediate strong job growth has been the regular characteristic of all business cycle recoveries. On average, payroll jobs increased 3.8% in the 20 months following the end of recession.
[No such thing as a jobless recovery.]
What's more, no letup in job losses is in sight. During the second quarter, widely hailed for its better-than-expected GDP growth, the household measure of employment slumped by 260,000. However, this figure concealed an even greater number of workers - 556,000 - who statistically quit the workforce because they have given up looking for non-existing jobs.
This rapidly growing group of people no longer count as unemployed. What American job statistics really measure are not changes in unemployment, but changes in job seekers. Including the frustrated job seekers, the U.S. unemployment rate is hardly lower than in Europe. Certainly, it is rising much faster.
In addition, the Labor Department is employing month for month the same two practices that camouflage the horrible reality. In July, for example, it reported a decline in payrolls by 44,000, while job losses for June were revised upward from 30,000 to 72,000. For May, the retrospective upward revision was even from 17,000 to 70,000. As such upward revisions of job losses in the prior month have become a regular feature, this practice has the convenient effect of producing correspondingly lower new numbers every month. The same happens, at more moderate scale, with weekly reported claims.
There is still more spinning involved. The government adds every month some 30,000-50,000 imaginary workers to the job total. It is based on the assumption that in an economic recovery a lot of people start their own business. In normal recoveries, they have done so, indeed.
All it needs to activate this statistical job creation is a unilateral decision by the government that the economy is in recovery. Once a year, the statisticians reconcile their assumption with reality by a revision. When they did this in May of this year, 400,000 new jobs that had been reported earlier simply vanished. Such revisions, of course, take place outside the monthly reported job losses. Together, we presume, these statistical casuistries have reduced the reported job losses in the past two years by well over 100,000 per month.
It rather abruptly became the consensus view that in America the great recovery from protracted, sluggish growth is finally on its way. Record-low interest rates, runaway money and credit growth, new big tax cuts, record-high cash-outs by consumers through mortgage refinancing, increasing house and stock prices, and rising profits are cited as the compelling reasons for this optimism.
We are more than skeptical about the true impact of all these influences on the economy primarily for one reason: Most of them, if not all of them, have been at work for some time already, but with grossly disappointing overall effects on the whole economy, and now some of these influences are weakening or even reversing.
Think of the sharp rise in long-term interest rates that is most assuredly stopping the mortgage-refinancing bubble dead in its tracks. That, in our view, will not only abort any recovery but will also mean the economy's relapse into new recession.
[What sharp rise in long-term interest rates?]
As for fiscal policy, it clearly gave its biggest boost to the economy between the fourth quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2002. That is a period of six quarters during which the federal budget gyrated from a quarterly surplus of $306.1 billion to a deficit of $526 billion, both at annual rate. This year, the deficit is supposed to hit $455 billion. Most probably, it will come out much higher. But this follows a deficit in the last year of $257.5 billion. The fiscal stimulus is waning, not increasing.
In any case, actual, historical experience in the 1970-80s with large-scale government deficit spending has been anything but encouraging. It created more inflation than economic growth. Over time, rising deficits were rather recognized as impediments to economic growth. Japan's recent experience makes frightening reading. Since 1997, government debt has skyrocketed from 92% to 150% of GDP, rising every year by more than 10% of GDP. Yet nominal GDP keeps shrinking.
As to monetary policy, we have very much the same doubts about its efficacy in generating economic growth under current economic and financial conditions. It is the traditional American consensus view that monetary policy is omnipotent if properly handled. In this view, any recession, or worse, always has its decisive cause in the failure of the central bank to ease its reins fast enough. In this view whatever happened in the economy during the prior boom is irrelevant.
This time, both monetary and fiscal policies in America have acted with unprecedented speed and vigor. To people's general surprise, the economy's rate of growth abruptly slumped during 2000 from 3.7% in the first half to 0.8% in the second.
Starting on Jan. 3, 2001, the Fed slashed its short-term rate in unusually quick succession. Within just 12 months, its federal funds rate was down from 5.98 to 1.82.
Assessing the development, the first thing that struck us as most unusual was that this sudden, sharp economic downturn occurred against the backdrop of most rampant money and credit growth. Total nonfederal, nonfinancial credit grew by $1,144.3 billion in 2000, after $1,102.6 billion in the year before. This compared with nominal GDP growth during the year by $437.2 billion. The first important conclusion to draw therefore was that this sudden economic downturn had obviously nothing to do with money or credit tightness. Ever since, nonfinancial credit growth has sharply accelerated. In the fourth quarter of 2002, it hit a record of $1,612.8 billion, at annual rate, followed in the first quarter of 2003 by $1,338.3 billion. This coincided with simultaneous nominal growth of $388.4 billion and real GDP growth of $224.4 billion, both also at annual rate. For each dollar added to real GDP, there were thus six dollars added to the indebtedness of the nonfinancial sector.
Kurt Richebächer,
for The Daily Reckoning
P.S. During the 1960-70s, by the way, there was on average about 1.5 dollars of debt added for each dollar of additional GDP. Just extrapolate this escalating relationship between the use of debt and economic activity. And think of it: the GDP growth of today is tomorrow a thing of the past, while the debts incurred remain. Plainly, Greenspan's policy has collapsed into uncontrolled money and debt creation that has rapidly diminishing returns on economic activity.
As we noted in these pages last week, the late economist Hyman P. Mynsky would call this a Ponzi economy where debt payments on outstanding and soaring indebtedness are no longer met out of current income but through new borrowing. Soaring unpaid interests become capitalized.
Editor's note: Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker once said: "Sometimes I think that the job of central bankers is to prove Kurt Richebächer wrong." A regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal, Strategic Investment and several other respected financial publications, Dr. Richebächer's insightful analysis stems from the Austrian School of economics. France's Le Figaro magazine has done a feature story on him as "the man who predicted the Asian crisis."
26 September 2003
The Daily Reckoning ( www.dailyreckoning.com )
http://www.gold-eagle.com/gold_digest_03/richebacher092603.html
What American Sheep Think
By Joe Sixpack
9-25-3
* THE 'SHADOW GOVERNMENT' IS A TEMPORARY SAFEGUARD
* BYE AND LARGE, AMERICANS ARE PRETTY SMART
* THE UNITED STATES WAS FOUNDED AS A DEMOCRACY
* UNCLE SAM WANTS TO SAVE THE SUCKER FISH
* TWA 800 HAD A FUEL TANK FAILURE
* AIDS STARTED WITH A MONKEY BITE TO THE BUTT
* VACCINES ARE NECESSARY AND BENEFICIAL
* LEE HARVEY OSWALD KILLED JFK
* VINCE FOSTER COMMITTED SUICIDE
* TIM McVEIGH BLEW UP A BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY
* IT IS DANGEROUS TO LIVE IN AN ARMED SOCIETY
* IT IS VERY DANGEROUS TO LIVE IN AN ARMED SOCIETY
* THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A REAL DEAL
* THE MAFIA IS AMERICA'S NO 1 DRUG PUSHER
* NEITHER CLINTON NOR BUSH WERE INVOLVED WITH MENA
* MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS HONEST AND INDEPENDENT
* THE ROCKEFELLERS ARE PATRIOTIC
* THE DRUG COMPANIES WANT TO KEEP YOU HEALTHY
* CONTRAILS AND CHEMTRAILS ARE THE SAME THING
* FDR WAS A GREAT AMERICAN
* OUR COURTS SEEK JUSTICE
* US CITIZENSHIP IS A GOOD DEAL
* IRS IS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCY
* THE FEDERAL RESERVE BELONGS TO US
* SOCIAL SECURITY IS A GOOD DEAL
* THE UNITED NATIONS IS A PEACEFUL ORGANIZATION
* PUBLIC EDUCATION IS GOOD FOR OUR KIDS
* IN THESE TRYING TIMES, PROZAC AND RITALIN ARE LIFESAVERS
* MIND CONTROL IS FUTURISTIC FICTION
* GULF WAR SYNDROME IS FICTION
* ANTHRAX MAILINGS CAME FROM FOREIGN ENEMIES
* POLITICAL PRISONERS IN RUSSIA AND CHINA ONLY
* MAINSTREAM REPORTED THE TRUTH RE UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
* MAINSTREAM REPORTED THE TRUTH RE AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
The Worried Shrimp:
http://www.mind.net/basile/ToonReviews.html
May take a moment to load all the graphics...
WRAP-UP G 385.10 S 5.20 O 28.29
************************************
Stocks finished lower on Wall Street as investors took profits off the
table and waited for further signs that U.S. economic health is improving.
The major averages traded in a tight range after Kodak announced a major
reorganization, and losses gathered steam in the late afternoon.
Markets, which were earlier starved for economic data, had a full plate of
numbers to digest Thursday. Almost all of the statistics were viewed as
positive, but for a surprise drop in durable goods orders.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average gave up 81.55 points or 0.87% to 9343.96.
The Nasdaq composite shed 26.50 points or 1.44% to 1817.20. The broad S&P
500 was off 6.12 points or 0.61% to 1003.26. Volume on the NYSE amounted to
1.507 billion shares. At the Nasdaq, some 2.018 billion shares traded hands.
Eastman Kodak (NYSE: EK) tumbled 17.93% to $22.15. The film maker and Dow
component said it would crop its dividend payment and refocus its business
to capture business in the rapidly expanding digital photography market.
The Rochester, New York-based firm will reduce its dividend payment from
$1.80 per share to 50 cents per share in order to invest in developing its
new digital business.
Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) shares climbed 2.52% to $20.31, helping to counter
Kodak's negative impact on the Dow. Goldman Sachs upgraded the media and
theme park company to "outperform" from "in-line" on the belief that
earnings will rise to "normalized" levels as the company's home video
business sees growth.
Elsewhere in analyst actions, Banc of America Securities (NYSE: BAC)
reduced its outlook for defense contractors, citing rising expenses in Iraq
and a growing deficit for curbing the defense budget. Northrop Grumman
(NYSE: NOC) fell 1.26% to $84.92. Defense electronics maker L-3
Communications (NYSE: LLL) surrendered 4.83% to $42.35.
On the Nasdaq Flextronics (NASDAQ: FLEX) slipped 7.33% to $13.90 following
Wednesday's news that a California jury ordered the company to pay $934
million for settling a contract dispute with Beckman Coulter (NSYE: BEC).
Shares of the medical device maker gave up 3.75% to $44.95.
Bed, Bath & Beyond (NASDAQ: BBBY) put on 0.76% to $39.72 after the home
décor retailer beat Street expectations for its second quarter profit. The
company said revenues surged 29%, on improved sales at stores open at least
one year.
The Commerce Department said orders for goods built to last more than three
years fell unexpectedly last month. Durable goods orders declined 0.9%,
while economists had forecast an increase of 0.5%, on average.
Initial claims declined unexpectedly by 19,000 to 381,000 in the week ended
September 20. However, the drop in claims was attributed to the effects of
Hurricane Isabel, which prevented many people on the East Coast from filing
for benefits. The four-week moving average of initial claims dropped 4,000
to 407,000.
The housing market maintained its red-hot pace in August. New home sales
were up 3% to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.15 million home,
according to the Commerce Department. Existing home sales rose 5.5% to an
annual pace of 6.47 million, according to the National Association of
Realtors. Economists had anticipated a drop in existing home sales to 6.03
million units.
Tupperware (NYSE: TUP) said it was having difficulty recruiting in-home
sales representatives. The company warned that it would lose 2 cents to 3
cents per share in the third quarter, instead of its previous predictions
of a 7-cent per share profit. The company's shares flattened 15.48% to $13.81.
Darden Restaurants (NYSE: DRI) slid 12.26% to $18.75 after the operator of
casual restaurants warned it would miss second quarter earnings estimates
from Wall Street. Darden blamed rising costs for food and singled out the
price of an all-you-can-eat crab promotion at its Red Lobster restaurants.
In small cap trading, the Russell 2000 plummeted 12.81 points or 2.52% to
495.05, while the S&P600 index retreated 4.81 points or 1.98% to 238.68.
Some of the small cap stocks making big moves included Harvard Bioscience
(NASDAQ: HBIO). The maker of medical instruments rallied 16.98% to $8.13 on
volume of 1,912,651 after Thomas Weisel upped its rating on the company to
"outperform" on improving operating performance.
Netegrity (NASDAQ: NETE) slid 11.69% to $9.90 on volume of 1,446,306. J.P.
Morgan cut its view of the stock to "neutral" based on valuation. The
investment bank said the company is improving its operations performance,
and is likely to see a pick up in the fourth quarter.
In commodities trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, November crude
oil futures added five cents to $28.29. November natural gas futures eased
4.9 cents to $4.703. December gold futures slipped $2.50 to $385.90.
Canadian stocks were mired in negative territory throughout the session as
weakness in gold, energy and health pressured the TSX. All of the benchmark
exchange's market subgroups were in negative territory as investors booked
profits following a rally that pushed the Canadian stock average to
fifteen-month highs.
The TSX composite dropped 88.97 points or 1.17% to 7513.37, and the small
cap Venture index stumbled 10.67 points to 0.76%.
The shine was off the gold producing stocks as bullion contracts declined
in New York. Golden Star (TSX: T.GSC), which operates gold mining
operations in West Africa and South America, was off 4.33% to $5.75. Agnico
Eagle (TSX: T.AGE) retreated 3.76% to $17.17.
In the oil patch, Imperial Oil (TSX: T.IMO) shed 0.73% to $50.63, while
Talisman Energy (TSX: T.TLM) gave up 2.25% to $63.35.
Actively traded stocks on Bay Street included Nortel Networks (TSX: T.NT),
down 3.83% to $5.77; Wheaton River (TSX: T.WRM) off 6.45% to $2.61; and
Mitec Telecom (TSX: T.MTM), up 6.77% to $1.42.
In the health group Aeterna Laboratories (TSX: T.AEL) continued to falter
following disappointing results for its kidney cancer drug. The
Quebec-based firm gave up 6.32% to $5.48 Thursday morning.
Lorus Therapeutics (TSX: T.LOR) rebounded from a 9% drop to gain 1.57% and
close at $1.29 after the Montreal firm announced a licensing deal with
Cyclacel of the U.K. The British firm will pay the cancer drug developer
US$400,000 and remit milestone payments for development and
commercialization of Lorus' pre-clinical compound NC 381.
Investors bought shares of Cognos (TSX: T.CSN) after it reported its
strongest second quarter yet. Buying lifted the software maker 1.54% higher
to $42.25.
Tundra Semiconductor (TSX: T.TUN) was able to confirm Thursday that it will
pay US$20 million to take over the PowerPC Host Bridge product line from
Motorola (NYSE: MOT). The Ottawa company had previously made the
announcement and then withdrawn it on Tuesday. Tundra said it expects
revenues to rise 35% to 40% sequentially in the second quarter. As well,
second quarter pro forma earnings are expected to increase nine to ten
cents per share. Tundra's shares surged 8.01% to $19.01.
In the consumer discretionary group, Hudson's Bay Company (TSX: T.HBC)
announced its strategy to triple profit by 2008. The department store said
it has identified five key areas for growth as part of its plan to create
its vision of "one HBC." The company's shares climbed 3.61% to $9.48.
Maple Leaf Foods (TSX: T.MFI) rose 3.8% to $10.38 after it announced plans
to buy Schneider Corp from Smithfield Foods (NYSE: SFD) for US$378 million.
The move will boost Maple Leaf's presence in the Canadian food market. The
TSX venture average of smaller companies rose three points to 1406.
In the telecommunications group, BCE Inc. (TSX: T.BCE) faltered 1.39% to
$29.04. The Canadian stock market regulator blasted the U.S. investment
bank for violating rules of stock trading in a trade of $251 million worth
of BCE shares that failed to show up on either the New York or Toronto
exchanges. The questionable trade was executed in April, and concerned a
block of nine million BCE shares sold by CSFB on the behalf of SBC
Communications (NYSE: SBC), which formerly held a stake of the Canadian
telecom giant.
The Canadian dollar was worth US$0.7408.
TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
************************************
Market Summary At 5:11:28 P.M. ET
---------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Close Change Change(%) Market Name
DJI 9343.96 -81.55 -0.87 DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL
NYA 5679.63 -32.99 -0.58 NYSE COMPOSITE
COMP 1817.24 -26.46 -1.44 NASDAQ COMPOSITE
XAX 998.04 -1.66 -0.17 AMEX COMPOSITE INDEX
SPX 1003.27 -6.11 -0.61 S&P 500
SML 238.68 -4.81 -1.98 S&P 600 SMALLCAP
RUT 495.06 -12.80 -2.52 RUSSELL 2000
NDI 213.64 -3.35 -1.54 INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS 500
IV.JX 1391.69 -10.67 -0.76 S&P/TSX VENTURE
COMPOSITE INDEX
IT.TSXCI 7513.37 -88.97 -1.17 S&P/TSX COMPOSITE
Small Cap Most Active Stocks At 5:11:28 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
BIKO 38207800 0.00 -0.00 BICO Inc.
RBAK 24377500 0.72 -0.04 Redback Networks Inc.
IVAN 17438700 2.80 0.11 Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
WCOEQ 15359900 0.07 0.00 WorldCom Group
DSLN 15351600 0.62 -0.07 DSL.net Inc.
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
HEC 26456200 0.77 0.14 Harken Energy Corporation
VRA 8493900 0.28 -0.02 Viragen Inc.
UAX 4664200 0.20 -0.01 USURF America Inc.
WEL 3281900 0.31 -0.01 Boots & Coots Intl. Well
MXR 2175200 0.45 0.01 Medix Resources Inc.
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
T.MWA 4611400 0.12 -0.01 McWatters Mining Inc.
T.TEK.DB 4459000 84.50 -0.60 Teck Cominco Limited
T.MTM 2875300 1.42 0.09 Mitec Telecom Inc.
T.NSU 2737000 4.85 0.24 Nevsun Resources Ltd.
T.DM 2550100 0.64 0.02 Defiance Mining Corporation
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
V.ECU 3902900 0.14 -0.00 ECU Silver Mining Inc.
V.XDM 2497400 0.70 -0.10 Xentel DM Incorporated
V.CVQ 2077500 0.27 0.08 CV Technologies Inc.
V.YSP 1234500 0.49 -0.01 Sparton Resources Inc.
V.CD 1040000 0.07 -0.02 Cantex Mine Development Corp.
Small Cap Top Percent Gainers At 5:11:28 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
LOCH 53200 0.04 0.03 166.67 Loch Harris Inc.
DAVL 222000 0.03 0.01 56.25 Davel Communications
SMTX 3654700 0.82 0.27 49.09 SMTC Corporation
EBIO 483900 3.56 0.86 31.85 Epoch Biosciences Inc.
TPPP 43600 0.54 0.13 31.71 Triple P N.V.
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
HEC 26456200 0.77 0.14 22.22 Harken Energy Corporation
IPT 1066900 0.58 0.08 16.00 iParty Corp.
MSI 434800 2.45 0.33 15.57 Movie Star Inc.
CFS 309200 0.78 0.08 11.43 COMFORCE Corporation
CVM 2062500 0.97 0.09 10.23 CEL-SCI Corporation
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
T.YM 168800 1.40 0.25 21.74 YM BioSciences Inc.
T.MHG 59100 2.42 0.40 19.80 Medisys Health Group Inc.
T.WNX 462700 1.35 0.22 19.47 Warnex Inc.
T.MSF 52200 0.62 0.09 16.98 MedcomSoft Inc.
T.MCC 473000 0.44 0.06 15.79 Mobile Climate Control
Industries Inc.
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
V.CVQ 2077500 0.27 0.08 47.22 CV Technologies Inc.
V.KIT 105500 0.35 0.08 29.63 Kit Resources Ltd.
V.UBS 406700 0.28 0.05 21.74 Unique Broadband Systems Inc.
V.TEC 2000 0.44 0.07 18.92 Technicoil Corporation
V.NPG 35000 0.53 0.07 15.22 Nevada Pacific Gold Ltd.
Small Cap Top Percent Losers At 5:11:28 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
PCIS 988600 4.14 -1.43 -25.67 Precis Inc.
BENGF 47300 0.11 -0.03 -20.45 Benguet Corporation
HDGC 46400 1.20 -0.30 -20.00 Halsey Drug Company Inc.
BUTL 223300 1.08 -0.27 -20.00 Butler International Inc
FIMG 90400 3.45 -0.80 -18.82 Fischer Imaging Corporati
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
BDE 272300 0.56 -0.11 -16.42 Brilliant Digital Enterta
AVN 709000 1.60 -0.26 -13.98 AVANIR PHARMACEUTICALS
DOC 81300 2.42 -0.31 -11.36 Digital Angel Corporation
MS 217300 1.04 -0.13 -11.11 Milestone Scientific Inc.
AND 536800 0.62 -0.07 -10.14 Andrea Electronics Corpor
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
T.MIS 12000 0.51 -0.14 -21.54 MIST Inc.
T.CCU 191000 0.06 -0.01 -14.29 Constellation Copper
Corporation
T.BAD 8800 1.52 -0.23 -13.14 Badger Daylighting Inc.
T.DDD 14700 1.26 -0.19 -13.10 Dragon Pharmaceutical Inc.
T.AXO 216300 0.44 -0.07 -13.00 AltaRex Corp.
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
V.MNO 125000 0.13 -0.05 -27.78 Mano River Resources Inc.
V.CD 1040000 0.07 -0.02 -23.53 Cantex Mine Development Corp.
V.AAD 51200 0.43 -0.07 -14.00 Archangel Diamond Corporation
V.XDM 2497400 0.70 -0.10 -12.50 Xentel DM Incorporated
V.JPN 120100 0.44 -0.06 -12.00 J-Pacific Gold Inc.
Al-Qa'eda terrorist changes plea
By David Rennie in Alexandria
(Filed: 26/07/2002)
[This is beyond interesting...]
Zacarias Moussaoui, the self-confessed al-Qa'eda terrorist accused of being the 20th September 11 hijacker, yesterday changed his plea from guilty to not guilty after an extraordinary debate with the judge.
Moussaoui, a French citizen and former resident of Brixton, London, explained that his only purpose all along had been to avoid a death sentence in accordance with the Islamic injunction against embracing death.
In a 90-minute hearing at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, that resembled more a legal class in basic law than a trial, Moussaoui, who is representing himself, argued with the grandmotherly figure of Judge Leonie Brinkema that he should be allowed to address a jury of 12 Americans and seek their mercy.
Moussaoui, 34, speaking with a strong French accent and wearing a green jumpsuit with the word "prisoner" in white on his back, made clear his continued contempt for America, the judge, the US government and his own court-appointed lawyers, who he insisted were part of a plot to declare him insane and execute him after a show trial.
Moussaoui initially appeared willing to accept the government's case that he was an al-Qa'eda member. He said he wanted to leapfrog the main phase of the trial and move to the sentencing, when he plans to address the jury on his main obsession: that September 11 was known about by the United States but was allowed to happen in a murderous conspiracy designed to discredit the Islamic world.
Describing Americans as his enemy, Moussaoui said: "Sometimes you can find an honest enemy. Perhaps your normal people will be more honest than this court."
In the absence of any lawyers, Judge Brinkema and Moussaoui sparred, at times like a professor with a brilliant but exasperating pupil. He had earlier declared that his court-appointed lawyers were plotting to kill him.
Yesterday's hearing followed an attempt by Moussaoui a week ago to plead guilty. Then, Judge Brinkema gave him a week to reconsider.
However, the turning point came an hour into yesterday's hearing when the diminutive judge finally managed to interrupt the defendant and engage him directly on what he was agreeing to.
Moussaoui at first pleaded guilty to four of the six charges against him, including conspiracy to commit terrorism, to commit air piracy and to turn a civil airline into a weapon of mass destruction, all of which carry the death penalty.
However, when the judge took Moussaoui through the charges point by point, it became clear that he did not admit to being a September 11 hijacker. Instead, he said he had run a guesthouse for al-Qa'eda, had provided training and served food to one of the hijackers in Kandahar, Afghanistan. "But that does not put me on the plane," he said.
Judge Brinkema made it clear at that point that she was not minded to accept his guilty plea. Suddenly a crestfallen Moussaoui asked for a 15-minute recess. When he returned, he revealed that his only motive was to avoid willingly seeking death.
"Dictated by my obligation to my creator, to Allah, to save my life I withdraw my guilty plea," he said, explaining that his whole purpose in pleading guilty had been to "put forward to the American people, my role, what I did".
In another dramatic change of direction, he announced he would be willing to send written instruction to his reviled stand-by counsel, solely in order to summon witnesses key to his tale of a global government conspiracy.
He named in court Atif Ahmed, "who is a British agent who has taken a very important part of this", whom he wished to summon. "My aim in pleading guilty was to expose the information I have."
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/07/26/wmous26.xml
Cheney may still have Halliburton ties
Congressional report finds Vice President still has financial interest in his old company.
September 25, 2003: 4:28 PM EDT
[Wanna play spot the spin with this one?]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A congressional report concludes that, under federal ethics standards, Vice President Dick Cheney still has a financial interest in Halliburton, the energy services company he used to run.
The report, by the Congressional Research Service, came at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and former player in the corporate world who has pushed Cheney on the issue.
The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
"As this C.R.S. report shows," Lautenberg said, "The ethics standards for financial disclosure is clear. Vice President Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton."
On Sept. 14, Cheney said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
Cheney has insisted in the past that the deferred compensation was set up long before he became a candidate for the vice presidency. The money is insured in case the company goes under and Lautenberg acknowledged that the compensation received so far has been donated to charity.
Lautenberg also acknowledged that the president and the vice president are both exempt from the enforcement of ethics laws.
"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."
In a written release, Lautenberg said, "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued ties with Halliburton to the American people."
Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.
Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) stock closed Thursday at $24.72. The Morningstar stock rating service gives Halliburton a C-minus grade for growth, D-plus for profitability and a B for financial health, even though Halliburton secured $2.25 billion in contracts in Iraq, including a controversial $1.25 billion no-bid contract.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/index.htm
Looks like Bush will dump Cheney and get a fresh start with a new running mate...Cheney can claim health problems...nothing happens in major media without a reason. This story being on CNN is with purpose not without...
Cheney may still have Halliburton ties
Congressional report finds Vice President still has financial interest in his old company.
September 25, 2003: 4:28 PM EDT
[Wanna play spot the spin with this one?]
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A congressional report concludes that, under federal ethics standards, Vice President Dick Cheney still has a financial interest in Halliburton, the energy services company he used to run.
The report, by the Congressional Research Service, came at the request of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat and former player in the corporate world who has pushed Cheney on the issue.
The report says that the deferred compensation that Cheney receives from Halliburton as well as the more than 433,000 stock options he possesses "is considered among the 'ties' retained in or 'linkages to former employers' that may 'represent a continuing financial interest' in those employers which makes them potential conflicts of interest."
"As this C.R.S. report shows," Lautenberg said, "The ethics standards for financial disclosure is clear. Vice President Cheney has a financial interest in Halliburton."
On Sept. 14, Cheney said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "Since I left Halliburton to become George Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."
Cheney has insisted in the past that the deferred compensation was set up long before he became a candidate for the vice presidency. The money is insured in case the company goes under and Lautenberg acknowledged that the compensation received so far has been donated to charity.
Lautenberg also acknowledged that the president and the vice president are both exempt from the enforcement of ethics laws.
"I believe the vice president is an honorable man," Lautenberg said at a news conference, "I just think he made a mistake."
In a written release, Lautenberg said, "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese, and acknowledge his continued ties with Halliburton to the American people."
Lautenberg said $205,298 was paid to Cheney in deferred salary by Halliburton in 2001, and $162,392 last year. Lautenberg said Halliburton stock options held by Cheney were 100,000 shares at $54.50 per share, 33,333 shares at $28.125 and 300,000 shares at $39.50 per share.
Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) stock closed Thursday at $24.72. The Morningstar stock rating service gives Halliburton a C-minus grade for growth, D-plus for profitability and a B for financial health, even though Halliburton secured $2.25 billion in contracts in Iraq, including a controversial $1.25 billion no-bid contract.
http://money.cnn.com/2003/09/25/news/companies/cheney/index.htm
Looks like Bush will dump Cheney and get a fresh start with a new running mate...Cheney can claim health problems...nothing happens in major media without a reason. This story being on CNN is with purpose not without...
GOVERNMENT MADNESS
IT'S THE LAW!!
By: Ted Lang
Can there be anything more absurd than "the law?" The answer is, of course, "yes!" The very reason a law was created in the first place! Take the greatest absurdity in the history of American politics: Bill Clinton. He sells WMD secrets to our future potential nuclear enemies, the Communist Chinese, and we the people get saddled with campaign finance laws! What did we do?! Has Clinton been punished for this treason? His buddy Bush protected him and came after US!
Arab speaking, dressing, and looking young men used box cutters to hijack airliners, and we the people that don’t even remotely connect with the Arab world, are the ones suspected and hassled by our wonderfully protective government. More aggressive screening of Arab folks is verboten thanks to the "pop" stupidity that is termed "political correctness," precluding "profiling" of the most likely culprits.
A while back, a habitual drunk with a long history of drunken driving accidents was continually given back his driver’s license by a state. He got behind the wheel again, and in a drunken stupor, ran down and killed a young girl. The mother got so angry she formed an activist group: Mothers Against Drunk Driving, or MADD. The acronym might connect, but its correctly spelled synonym is much more defining. Rather than being activists inspired by anger, the group is indeed motivated by a variation of group insanity! The founder quit her own organization when it became increasingly apparent that madness was overtaking both anger and reason.
And that’s the problem with most laws. They are agitated for, pressured for, and propagandized to achieve popularity by our left-leaning, socialist media. The media is, as is the case with any left-wing entity, anti-individual and pro-group or commune. Their Marxism supports Big Brother beneficent government.
Yet, if government had done the right thing in the very first instance, as in the case of the drunk driver, he wouldn’t have been able to get behind the wheel of an automobile and kill anyone. The narrow-minded will take this approach: Preventing him from having a license wouldn’t necessarily have stopped him from driving a car; it would only have precluded him from having a valid driver’s license.
But mentally impaired liberal "thinkers" never bring up the logical argument. What should have happened is that this errant individual should have been severely punished and dealt with much earlier, thereby precluding the fatal accident that created MADDness! There were plenty of opportunities where the offender’s license could have been revoked, and if for a serious offense such as repeated drunken driving, the law should have been structured such that were he to be caught driving again intoxicated, with or without his license, he would be required to do a very long stretch in the state’s penitentiary. And if causing a death with such a record, he should be charged with premeditated murder and sentenced to death if found guilty!
Why premeditated murder? Why not?! Was he born drunk? Sometime between his birth and getting behind the wheel drunk, he made a decision while sober to drive drunk. His past record shows him to be out of control when inebriated and behind the wheel of a deadly automobile. He made a decision to put US all at risk. That’s premeditation in my book! But the insanity that is defined as "liberal thinking" respects and protects this type of individual and his weakness from government-sponsored punishment, while on the other hand, subjects all morally strong and decent individuals to government tyranny by abolishing individual freedoms.
Why am I arguing in this vein? What we are dealing with here is individual responsibility. Liberals offer that there is no such thing. The only thing the aberrant "thinking" of liberals would offer in this instance, is that while individuals are irresponsible, large groups of individuals in bureaucracies and agencies in the form of government are responsible, and would never acquire a "mob rule" mentality of disconnect. Government is, therefore, more responsive and more responsible than one person. Has reality ever supported such an idiotic conclusion? What we find consistently in bureaucracies are unresponsive, irresponsible individuals! Why did the state’s DMV keep giving the drunk back his license?
So now we have illegal, unconstitutional road stops by armed police, stopping us, investigating us, and searching our automobiles even though we have committed no crime. No probable cause! No reason for heavily armed police and SWAT units to stop us, other than the standard, tyrannical MADDness: LAW is GOVERNMENT, and GOVERNMENT is LAW! Individual freedoms, our civil rights, our Bill of Rights, no longer apply. The new crime-defining blood alcohol content might have started at 2.0, and was then reduced to 1.5, then 1.0, and then .8, and on and on. Once tyrannical, despotic, inhumane government gets into the numbers game, inspired and provoked by MADDness, there is no limit to the increasing restrictions that are guaranteed to follow.
If criminals like Clinton, or the drunk, or a shooter, were properly dealt with at the outset by the laws of a compassionate and just society, rather than one governed by emotions, the rest of US could enjoy our lives with a lot less government intrusion.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
PROPAGANDA NUGGETS OF TRUTH IN A SEA OF LIES
By: Al Cronkrite
For a Nation without a Department of Propaganda the spin that has been foisted on the American people is indeed humongous. Hitler's Dr. Joseph Goebbels was a master propagandist but his overt ministrations never held a candle to the covert manipulations that for years have been daily fare in America.
Recently on C-Span the Council on Foreign Relations, formerly a shadowy but powerful organization, openly sponsored globalists and apologists for the United Nations in a push to legitimatize both themselves and the agenda they foster. Walter Cronkite ("We must give up some sovereignty in order to have world peace.") who has finally admitted that he is a Liberal and is now writing a syndicated column was lately an hour long guest on Larry King's show. He was later complemented by his protege, Dan Rather (I'd rather not, thank you), both touting UN legitimacy. They may soon be followed by John Ashcroft who in trying to convince Americans that his intentions are benign and that an unconstitutional police state is necessary to provide for our safety called his detractors "hysterics" and pointed to the fact that most of the illegal legislation has never been used.
Fox News, postured as a balanced new source, is a veritable shill for the establishment. The party line is promoted with vigor and rare legitimate dissent is regularly talked down.
The media, both printed and visual, is tightly held by a handful of extremely wealthy elitists and the indispensable role of a critical press has been carefully replaced with support for a profligate government. All this is being done in the name of a free press.
Dr. Nancy Snow lists control of the media as one of the necessary elements of modern propaganda. "Modern forms of communication, including mass media, are instruments of propaganda. Without the monopoly concentration of mass media, there can be no modern propaganda. For propaganda to thrive, the media must remain concentrated, news agencies and services must be limited, the press must be under central command, and radio, film, and television monopolies must pervade."
[Heard a protest song on the radio lately? Bet you were thinking that's because there aren't any protestors...]
As trusting, patriotic Americans plaster their vehicles with stickers supporting war and affirming freedom, our government pulls the strings of tyranny that control their behavior and the Nation maintains its deceitful facade.
The successful beautification of Abraham Lincoln is a feat unsurpassed by the propaganda efforts of the worlds most cruel and tyrannical governments. Under the aegis of freeing the slaves Lincoln was responsible for the illegal invasion of the Southern States, the burning and sacking of the cities of the south and the deaths of 600,000 of the Nations best young men. As if this carnage was not enough his despotic seizure of government power set the stage for the rise of subsequent centralization that has incrementally stolen the freedoms of our citizens.
One of the cruelest governments in world history has been successfully defended by enough of America's power centers to be considered an ally in the elitist quest for world domination. Russia enjoyed favor with enough Americans to have one of its agents author the platform of the organization now being touted for world dominion. It was Alger Hiss, later convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, who was instrumental in crafting the United Nations, which is now being sold to the American people as the ultimate vehicle for world peace.
Paul Weber writes about the roots of American propaganda, "American advertising and propaganda has been refined over the years into a malevolent science, based on the assumption that most people react, not to ideas, but to naked emotion. When I worked at an ad agency many years ago, I learned that the successful agencies know how to appeal to emotions: the stronger and baser the better. The seven deadly sins, ad agency wags often say, are the key to selling products. Fear, envy, greed, hatred, and lust: these are the basic tools for good propaganda and effective advertising. By far, the most powerful motivating emotion - the top, most-sought-after copywriters will tell you, in an unguarded moment - is fear, followed by greed." (Mr. Weber is off a bit on the Seven Deadly Sins which are: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth. He is on target with fear.)
When Fidel Castro was rising to power in Cuba the New York Times not only defended him but also actually promoted his accession. Herman Dinsmore, a defector from the Times, in "All the News that Fits" writes, "The New York Times achieves very considerable editorial effect by selecting and positioning the news.As the Times goes, so goes a large part of the nation's press".
At this writing the consolidation of ownership in companies that disseminate news is already far advanced with governmental approval for continued mergers. Viacom owns CBS and UPN television networks, Showtime, MTV, Paramount Pictures, and Simon and Shuster books. Disney owns ABC, A&E, and Lifetime networks, it operates Disney motion pictures, and co-owns ESPN. AOL Time Warner is the worlds largest Internet provider and also owns CNN, TNT, TBS, and HBO networks. Similar consolidations are in progress worldwide.
[Justin take note: WORLD WIDE.]
These denizens of darkness are not only in the process of promoting unspeakable debauchery but are in absolute unison with coverage of the news. Americans never hear well-articulated dissent. In decisive positions sprinkled through the media structure are establishment cronies who render voice to the standards of the reigning cabal.
How could the congress vote against a bill entitled Homeland Security? Who could possibly be against a secure homeland? No one, of course, and the Congress voted for it without even reading the legislation. Conceptualized, and mostly written beforehand, this egregious, freedom robbing, unconstitutional legislation was accepted by Americans who had been conveniently traumatized by the death and destruction of 9/11.
Our nation has accepted a plethora of absurdities as having substance.
The Federal Reserve System, sold as necessary to prevent the ups and downs of the business cycle, has turned out to be a method of controlling the government while extorting wealth from the population. This breach of Constitutional mandate is still considered beneficial by many of our elected officials.
Welfare sold by the Johnson Administration as a method of eradicating poverty has not only failed to alleviate poverty but has been responsible for the break up families, an increase in crime, and a deterioration of the culture.
Mandatory public education has taken our population from the best educated in the world to one of the lowest and done it at the highest cost per pupil. Integration and busing have been a costly method creating additional unnecessary problems. Continuous efforts to "fix" the system sold to tax payers as solutions to the problem have only bought additional deterioration.
The present success in inserting the homosexual lifestyle into the American mainstream has been directed by the power brokers and played out by the media in perfect harmony.
In the last several decades the media has been spewing out immorality in ever increasing doses.
[And then he goes and puts his imaginary friend in the picture and the article begins to fall apart: illegitimate freedom of speech?]
Buttressed by an illegitimate freedom of speech and an artificially legitimatised diversity the propaganda of debauchery is gaining believers.
Fifty years ago the concept of marriage among Lesbians and homosexuals was too ridiculous to warrant discussion. Media promotion of this societal cancer has been so successful that even politicians who claim the name of Christ pander for Sodomite support.
Etc.
[Wouldn't want them homo's getting married now would ya?]
Governments produce nothing. Their only source of revenue is the citizens whom they govern. When they breach individual responsibility and begin to provide assistance to citizens, they have begun a walk down the road to tyrannizing their constituency.
Franklin D. Roosevelt began the Social Security program (Who could possibly be against social security?) Historically, governments have frequently created crises in order to accumulate power in providing their solutions. This was the case during the Great Depression. With something like 25% unemployment the American people never bothered to question the government's unconstitutional usurpation of power. Many of our citizens and legislators were not familiar with the Constitution nor were they schooled in the dangers involved in allowing government to metastasize.
Fear, that most potent advertising technique, is fueling The War on Terror. Rather than extending their dependence of government, Americans need to regain a healthy suspicion.
Paul Craig Robert describes the illegitimate powers that appear to be in control of our government.
Mark Summer exposes the agenda, "What we are seeing in the Bush Administration, however, is a new dedication to deceit as a primary tool of governance and weapon of choice against all perceived enemies foreign and domestic...The Bush Administration is rapidly moving to construct an impenetrable Information Curtain between the American public and the rest of the world. Removing the last regulatory limits on ownership of media outlets, intimidating networks and journalists into concealing unfavorable information, denying press access to the battlefield, distracting the public with gladiatorial sports spectacles laced with programmed patriotism, and keeping its populace paranoid with the prospect of further attacks: through a well-orchestrated manipulation of the mainstream media..."
Freedom in America is a tragic illusion. http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut15.html The skillful use of propaganda has allowed a peaceful, progressive tyrannization that is unsurpassed in world history.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Ashley said in her article, when she was in the public school system, "They were treating me like just another 'product' (i.e. Human Resource) of the education system, just another number. They want worker bees. Push a button. Pull a lever. Get just enough 'education' to learn how to be compliant, happy little 21st Century workers who don't ask any questions and keep their noses to the grindstone. I thought, 'surely, not my school. I was wrong.'"
http://www.newswithviews.com/Betty/Freauf41.htm
A No-Fault Administration?
By ALON BEN-MEIR
Sep 24, 2003, 06:33
Every time I hear that another of our soldiers has been killed in a violent attack by Iraqis resisting the occupation, I become, like many other Americans, extremely saddened. I expect and accept that some of our men and women will die while fighting for a worthy and well-defined cause. In the case of Iraq, however, I find myself increasingly upset over our casualties, because I am not sure if these terrible losses could have been avoided if we had intervened with the full support of the U.N. Security Council or NATO.
Six months after the war, the Bush administration is finally beginning to recognize the pitfalls of occupation, as evidenced by the loss of lives and the escalating costs of going it alone. The administration has now returned to the Security Council seeking its help. But even at this juncture, U.S. President George W. Bush is unwilling to surrender or even share control of Iraq's political transformation to the United Nations.
France, Germany, and Russia, along with India, Pakistan and others for their part, insist on a clear U.N. mandate before they provide help in peacekeeping, reconstruction or both. They might sympathize more with our current predicament if the administration had shown some humility and admitted that it did miscalculate the reality in Iraq. But this is a no fault-administration: it makes no mistakes, commits no blunders, and continues to pretend that everything is going as planned.
Never mind that no weapons of mass destruction have been found, no Iraqi link to al-Qaida established, and no imminent danger that justified our preemptive strike unearthed. The administration simply deflects these realities. So not surprisingly, there has been no admission that it completely misread the social, religious, and political factionalism in Iraq. Quite the opposite: this administration uses its past mistakes and their consequences to justify its demand to retain complete control over Iraq's political transformation.
No matter that more than 300 of our best soldiers have been killed and the staggering cost of the occupation, now in the tens of billions -- have not produced a stable Iraq; in fact, we are far from claiming victory. And while we have nearly 130,000 troops in Iraq, which should certainly give us a say in its reconstruction, we cannot demand a final say on everything that transpires. We are turning to the United Nations for help precisely because we have not established the kind of order we want. Yet we remain unwilling to "pay the price" for our mistakes by, at a minimum, agreeing to share authority, both for our own sake and that of the Iraqi people.
The administration's neo-conservatives -- the Cheneys, the Rumsfelds, and the Wolfowitzes and their cohorts at the American Enterprise Institute -- must not be sleeping well these days. I cannot imagine how much it pains them to have to seek help from either the United Nations, an institution they so deeply revile, or NATO, whose help they also rejected. The people in power have a particularly hard time admitting that the rosy picture of post-war Iraq they placed before Bush was based on illusion rather than the reality of the Middle East.
They have underestimated what it takes to achieve their lofty goals while ignoring all the clear signposts that pointed to trouble and uncertainty ahead. They probably still do not accept that no democracies will bloom throughout the region anytime soon, anti-American sentiments have not subsided but increased, terrorism is not diminishing but growing, and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is in shambles.
Our stakes in Iraq are extremely high, now that we've occupied it. We must find a way to ensure at least limited success and eventually leave the country in the hands of a competent representative Iraqi government. Otherwise, our strategic interests in the region and beyond it will be severely undermined, not to speak of our sustaining a humiliating setback in the war against terrorism. Yet even such modest goals will require the immediate presence of more peacekeepers and major outside financial contributions to aid in the reconstruction of a battered nation. To that end the Bush administration must chose between (1) continuing its efforts to secure a U.N. resolution to aid us in peacekeeping, or (2) asking NATO assume the bulk of responsibility, similar to the arrangement concluded for Afghanistan. Either option would require us to relinquish some control in Iraq. The NATO option is preferable. We are still the dominant power in NATO, which will emerge with a renewed sense of mission -- especially as more nations have joined it. In addition, our turning to it will restore purpose and unity to the alliance, mending the relations with France and Germany so greatly frayed by our failure to obtain a second U.N. resolution and by the rush to war.
Above all, we would be turning our misadventure in Iraq into a joint venture, which will almost certainly guarantee its success. Although the United Nations must still play an important role in sanctioning NATO's role in Iraq, similar to its role in Kosovo, going through NATO offers the administration a predominant role that the organization's members are accustomed to and the opportunity to reshape NATO's global outreach and responsibility beyond Iraq.
Sooner or later, the administration must admit, that notwithstanding our military and economic might, unilateralism cannot be the basic tenet of our foreign policy. Neo-conservatives who see multilateralism as a constraint in dealing with terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction forget that it is the very nature of these threats that makes multilateralism indispensable. To suppress terrorism and arrest proliferation of WMD will take years of cooperation with many countries -- sharing intelligence, policing international borders and tracing the flow of money and dangerous materials.
Although we must retain the prerogative of using our military power unilaterally, we must learn to share responsibility and admit our mistakes. And we must first resort to other sources of power -- economic, technological, informational, and our culture and political ideals to persuade other nations to join our efforts to successfully combat international threats.
(Alon Ben-Meir is Middle East project director at the World Policy Institute, New York, and a professor of International Relations at New York University.)
© Copyright 2003 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_3112.shtml
Is the dollar 'Toast?'
Alex Wallenwein
September 25, 2003
Yes.
The only remaining question is: how dark would you like it?
The Europeans would like it to be a light, golden crisp. The more fanatical of our Arab and Muslim friends probably want it to be incinerated. The Chinese would likely prefer it pretty dark, but with visible, charred remains, so they can still show it off - like a trophy.
At the recent G7 conference in Dubai, some pretty amazing statements were made by our world leaders. Statements that, to those unfamiliar with :,euro vs dollar, logic, most likely sound rather innocuous. But to those who understand this new paradigm of international monetary politics, these statements confirm how far the world has already progressed toward a final transition from the current (past?) dollar reserve system to something entirely new.
First off, there is the statement - or rather the hint - that the signatories of the 1999 Washington Accord have pretty much agreed to renew the accord next year, though with a certain gradual upward bias in gold sales targets.
Some gold commentators interpret this as a thinly veiled threat from notoriously gold-hating central bankers, who are unanimously trying to beat the poor gold-investing masses into submission once again by signalling an intention to sell more gold in order to continue the old gold-suppression game.
The truth is, the days of unanimous anti-gold policies of the world's central banks are over. The fact alone that there is indeed a broad consensus to continue the Washington Accord is proof enough that the world's attitude toward gold has changed, and changed for good. This Accord was not just a one-shot deal. It was an announcement, from the highest levels of international finance, that the world's central banks will no longer support the US's, blatant anti-gold bias - just in order to support the dollar reserve system.
In a world where the dollar was the world's only trade and reserve currency, such support was inevitable. The dollar was the only vehicle by which world trade could be expanded in the way it has been. But this is no longer so. As stated so many times before, an alternative now exists, and the world is reaching for it with both hands. This alternative is the euro, and it happens to be gold-friendly, in that the euro member banks value their gold stocks at market prices.
The talk of an increase in the original sales targets, rather than proving that the same old anti-gold bias is at work, is instead evidence that the world's policy toward gold has changed dramatically from, say, ten years ago. In a September 22, 2003 piece on Dow Jones Newswire by Brian Blackstone and Tom Barkley, the ECB,s Wim Duisenberg reportedly confirmed - once more - that central banks "are willing to do anything required to keep markets calm and they are able to use all the instruments in their arsenal when it comes to adjustment and to help adjustment to go along smoothly and gradually."
He did not elaborate on what he meant by "adjustment," but one theme shines through every last of the ECB's policy actions under his guidance: Exchange rate stability is policy goal number one. That is significant because it is precisely that exchange rate stability that has been setting, and will continue to set, the euro apart from the dollar. It is that policy that elevates the euro in the minds of the world as the preferable reserve currency of the future.
It is this ECB focus on forex-stability, rather than managing the internal EU business cycle, that makes the euro so attractive to central banks and international traders, savers, and investors. In contrast, the US Fed is primarily concerned with keeping the US economy going, and hopefully out of any semblance of a recession -- no matter what. So Easy Al keeps on pumping and pumping the dollar spigot, ratcheting short term interest rates lower and lower, and intending to keep em there for a "considerable time" as he recently declared.
Meanwhile, the ECB follows suit only to an extent, so as to keep the EU economy from contracting too sharply, but not to such a degree that would divert the euro-zone from its primary policy objective: currency stability.
Even under pressure from the German, Italian, and French heads of state to "do more" to keep their respective economies out of trouble, Wim Duisenberg stayed his course. He even sternly reminded them on one occasion that the ECB does not bow to the demands of individual member states, and that their imdividual economies are indeed their own responsibility.
It needs to be understood that the euro, from its very conception several decades ago, was more than just a policy tool for internal monetary adjustments and intra-EU trade enhancement. It was meant from the get-go to eventually supplant the dollar, which from 1971 on forward, was widely regarded as a dying currency, a veritable basket-case.
But it was a basket-case that was still the only game in town.
The only reason the dollar survived this long, and even gained in forex terms during the last decade, was the necessity to keep the world,s only reserve currency alive until another one was ready to take on the burden.
It was recognized early on that a pure fiat currency that competed with gold could not survive in the long term without enormous stress on the world economic system - for the simple fact that this "competition" diverts too many resources and too much macro-economic capital for the sole purpose of keeping the gold-price in check (or "check-mate," as some would have it).
Gold is a natural store of value that requires no trickery, deceit, or economic or poltical arm-twisting to be recognized as such. In contrast, the dollar,s masters, who had the unenviable job of convincing the world that a totally unbacked dollar severed from any gold-convertibility was "as good as gold," were forced by necessity to engage in all kinds of political, economic, and monetary shenanigans to support that illusion.
Hence, the advent of gold and other derivative instruments, which were designed as hedges against all kinds of financial risks inherent in such a deceptive, often abusive, and economic resources-draining system. Hence, also, what has become known as the "gold-banking derivative crisis" with its over-extended gold bankers, overly hedged producers, unreported gold loans - and the producers, current world-wide drive to "de-hedge" as they hear the golden bells tolling.
The euro is now firmly established as a major component of virtually any central bank's forex reserve position. Even Canada, which is in more ways than one to considered to be "close" to the US, has almost as many euro reserves as US dollar reserves (about 13 billion in euros compared to 15 billion USD). The euro has gained sufficient depth - and breadth - even among individual world investors, savers, and speculators, that a gradual exit from the dollar-system and entry into a euro-based international reserve system has become possible.
That is the background before which the statements coming out of Dubai must be viewed. There is wide consensus among IMF officials, international economic leaders, central bankers, and even politicians, that the dollar is set to fall further from here.
In that vein, here is another gem, reported in a Reuters piece of September 22, 2003, by Yonggi Kangi:
"While the G7 meeting in Dubai over the weekend may not have contained the explicit language of the Plaza Accord, the desire to weaken the USD and spread the burden of USD weakness from Europe into Asia could not have been clearer."
Even the US seems "okay" with all that. Here is what one commentator had to say about the US position:
"The wording of the communique seems stronger language than we anticipated. It could be viewed as a victory for the U.S. side of the argument and for (U.S. Treasury Secretary) John Snow."
(John McKenna, quoted by Brian Blackstone and Tom Barkley in Down Jones Newswire piece referenced above). What he is referring to is primarily the US, leaning on Asian nations, primarily China and Japan, to let their currencies appreciate against the dollar to help even out the trade imbalances currently threatening the US system. But it also is a reflection of John Snow,s famous (and last night re-iterated) "white man speak with forked tongue" policy to publicly claim he supports a "strong-dollar" while at the same time declaring that a falling dollar is just hunkydorey with him (in May of this year).
In the short term, such "adjustments" (there is that word again) would be beneficial to the US. A lower dollar vis-a-vis these Asian tigers, currencies would make imports into the US more expensive, hopefully boosting US consumers, spending at home, thus benefitting the domestic economy, and improve the US, export prospects.
The big question is: where and when will this stop?
Once this process is in motion, a weakening dollar will lower incentives for international investors to park their funds in dollar-deniominated assets. Decreased foreign-asset inflows, or downright outflows, would further weaken the dollar, wich will in turn weaken already shaken international confidence in the dollar, etc., etc., - a classical vicious cycle.
While a somewhat lower dollar, temporarily, could indeed be good for US exports and therefore the economy, a continuously dropping greenback will spell disaster for the US - and John Snow knows that.. The Bush administration's apparent satisfaction with the current downward adjustment may be nothing more than the administration resigning itself to the inevitable and making it look like it is "in control" by claiming that it "prefers" a lower dollar.
Yes, Mr. Snow. Certainly, Mr. Snow. But what are you going to say when the dollar never stops falling? Will you claim the administration wanted it that way all along?
The statements coming out of Dubai also underscore and confirm recent speculation on why the dollar has made its considerable recovery against the euro since May this year. It was the Asian "tigers" protecting their export-edge by manipulating their own currencies lower against the dollar. It was never the "booming" US stock market (bubble No. 2).
The reports of these statements out of the Dubai meeting convey that an unspoken, but clearly felt, consensus exists that the dollar will (and must) fall.
Couple these statements with the earlier released IMF draft report criticisng the US for its mammoth current-account deficit and predicting a sharply lower dollar, and you have a very clear policy direction that is shared by the entire world, and now - by necessity - even by the US: That direction is:
"Down with the dollar."
And all understand that this means: "UP with Gold!"
This IS the time to buy gold.
Gold will not be this cheap in fiat currency terms for decades to come. If the entire world (even minus the consistently weakening US) stands behind a higher gold price, who or what will stop Gold?
The US has not been able to do it alone, even during its economic heyday. Witness the Australian bombshell in 1997, the British gold auctions, the Swiss sales, the bullfrog-like posturing by Mr. Welteke during the nineties (without any real follow-through, of course), etc.
Sure, there will still be central bank gold sales. The Washington Agreement will be continued. Other nations will accede to it. The sales targets will gradually increase (or maybe not). But all of this will no longer be done to "squash" the price of gold. From now on the new policy is called "adjustment." A smooth transition, in other words, only to make sure the world system does not undergo more severe strains than abolutely necessary to ensure that the transition ultimately succeeds.
But all of this will from now on be done with a near-unanimous view toward a naturally higher gold price. When the time is ripe, gold will be allowed to find its absolute, politically undisturbed equilibrium. And that equilibrium is likely to be higher than anyone today imagines.
Looking for a time-table? A "road-map?"
Who cares! Gold is going higher, and there is a presently announced, international shared resolve not to stop it. Only to ensure that "adjustment" is ultimately successful.
Once it is successful, there is no more stopping for gold - because by then, all countries (minus the US?) will benefit from rising gold.
May our political/financial "masters" hear the bell tolling, and adjust their policies accordingly. If they do not, it,s every American for him or herself.
Fiat hyper-inflation is much more easily endured with some hard assets under your belt. And the hardest of all hard assets is and remains - that funny yellow metal.
Got gold?
Alex Wallenwein
Editor, Publisher
The EURO VS DOLLAR CURRENCY WAR MONITOR
September 25, 2003
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/wallenwein/wallenwein092503.html
How the Protection of Law Was Lost
by Paul Craig Roberts
[What saddens me is that most people won't read this thing 'till the end...]
This paper was given at the Mt. Pelerin Society meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on September 21, 2003.
The Enron-era accounting scandals have resulted in new legislation, Sarbanes-Oxley, which imposes criminal liability on the CEO and CFO of corporations with incorrect accounting statements. This reform will have unintended consequences, as have previous reforms.
A case can be made that the recent scandals are themselves the consequences of past reforms. The emphasis on quarterly earnings is the result of reform that aimed to provide investors with more timely information about the profitability and financial condition of public companies. Stock options resulted from reforms that sought to tie executive compensation to shareholder return as measured by the company’s stock price. Another reform capped executive salaries at $1 million. Compensation above this amount must be paid from after-tax profits or justified by performance. The practice of giving executives large options whose value depends on driving up quarterly earnings (the measure of performance) came from this reform. In the early 1990s the S.E.C. itself launched fictional quarterly earnings reports when that agency changed Rule 16b. Previously, executives who exercised their stock options were required to purchase the stock at the option price and to hold it for six months before selling. The rule change permitted executives to sell the stock the minute they exercised their options, thus eliminating the executives’ exposure to the market.
Reform took its toll on the culture of accounting firms. In a judgmental era, loose dealings ruined reputations. Partners were paid according to seniority. The accounting industry operated under self-imposed bans on price competition and advertising. With charges that the absence of price competition was anticompetitive, the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice destroyed this accounting culture during the 1970s. Competition on the basis of reputation and probity was replaced with price competition. Partners ceased to be paid by seniority. Instead, they were paid according to the business they brought to their firms. Accounting firms began consulting with the corporations that they audited, adding conflict of interest ingredients to the more accommodating stance toward clients that price competition had forced upon accountants. Price competition brought pressure to make the client happy. The need to make the client happy undermined the independence of the auditors.
Reformers assume that rules can substitute for character, and they ignore the unintended incentives created by rule making. An accounting culture based on probity was replaced by one in which sharp practices are acceptable as long as they comply with SEC rules.
By making top executives criminally liable for material errors, regardless of whether fraud is intended, Sarbanes-Oxley violates two protective principles of our legal system: mens rea (no crime without intent) and actus rea (evidence of a criminal act). Violating these legal principles is a far greater offense than accounting fraud.
We often hear that "the rule of law" is an advantage we have over our competitors, but the rule of law has been replaced with the discretion of regulators and prosecutors. Today Americans draw prison sentences for unknowingly violating vague regulations, the meanings of which are interpreted by the regulatory police who enforce the regulations. Americans are indicted on the basis of novel interpretations of criminal liability created by the indictment. When felony was ruled by intent, legal certainty was required in order that people could be aware of acts that constituted criminal violations. Now that intent is no longer required, certainly in law has lost its relevance.
The U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal indictment of Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill and California’s criminal indictment of Lincoln Savings & Loan owner Charles Keating were path-breaking examples of criminalizing accidents and civil liability in order to interpret felony statutes without regard to intent (Roberts and Stratton, 2000).
It is absolutely certain that Exxon did not purposely run the Valdez oil tanker aground with the criminal intention of polluting the water and killing migratory birds without a license. Yet, the DOJ’s criminal indictment charged that Exxon did. The indictment interpreted oil worth $150 million as "refuse matter" that was "thrown, discharged and deposited" by Exxon without a permit. Exxon was also charged under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for killing birds without a license. By threatening Exxon executives with prison, the DOJ guaranteed a big settlement.
In the Keating case, prosecutors with the connivance of Judge Lance Ito criminalized the civil tort doctrine of respondeat superior, which holds a "master" economically liable for wrongdoings by his "servant." This allowed Keating to be held responsible for alleged wrongdoings by employees.
Recently Paul Rosenzweig in a Heritage Foundation paper noted that accidents have become regulatory crimes that subject the innocent to criminal liability regardless of intent or even of fault (Rosenzweig, 2003). He illustrates the point with Edward Hanousek, a manager with a railroad in Alaska. A worker, at the worker’s own initiative, used a backhoe to move some rocks from a train track and accidentally ruptured an oil pipeline, causing a few thousand gallons to spill into the Skagway River. Mr. Hanousek, who was off-duty at the time, was imprisoned for failing to supervise the worker.
Law, once a shield of the innocent, has become a weapon in the hands of government. Today anyone can be criminally prosecuted for offenses created by the indictment. What William Blackstone defined as law – "the Rights of Englishmen" – has been lost.
In the Anglo-American legal system, law consists of a few basic principles: due process, the attorney-client privilege, equality before the law, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the prohibitions against crimes without intent, bills of attainder, self-incrimination, retroactive law, and attacks against a person through his property. Each of these protective principles has been breached. Today prosecutors create bills of attainder by tailoring novel interpretations of law to fit the targeted defendant. A favorite tactic is to criminalize civil infractions. Clark Clifford and Robert Altman were indicted not for a statutory violation but on a prosecutor’s "novel theory" that two separate legal transactions comprised a "conspiracy." Accidents and mistakes in filling out government forms have been criminalized. The ancient legal principle of mens rea has been obliterated.
The New Deal laid the groundwork for destroying the tort/crime distinction and using criminal sanctions to achieve public welfare goals. An important feature of New Deal legislation was congressional delegation of lawmaking power to regulatory agencies. Delegation combined statutory authority and enforcement authority in the same hands. The bureaucrats’ ability to define criminal offenses by their interpretation of the regulations that they write gives regulatory police vast discretion. A cooperative "offender" may get off with a civil penalty, whereas a person who sticks up for his rights or a person who presents a high profile opportunity to an ambitious prosecutor may receive a criminal indictment. The bureaucrats’ ability to create criminal offenses spontaneously by interpretation makes law uncertain and incapable of fulfilling its purpose of commanding what is right and prohibiting what is wrong.
The Enron era scandals produced the Benthamite proposal that corporate lawyers be required to rat on their clients. Just as Hanousek’s case follows from the Exxon Valdaz, the proposal to breach the attorney-client privilege has its precedent in U.S. assistant attorney general Stuart M. Gerson’s indictment in 1990 of the blue-chip law firm Kaye, Scholer as "an abettor of crime" for not divulging to thrift regulators information pertaining to its client Charles Keating. The DOJ’s indictment of Kaye, Scholer was based on presumption as Keating was yet to be tried. But by freezing the law firm’s assets and the personal assets of the firm’s 400 partners, Gerson was able to force the law firm into a $41 million settlement. Such actions by the DOJ smell of robber barony, not of the rule of law.
Superfund took retroactive law back generations and placed liability on people and organizations that never contributed hazardous waste to a Superfund site. Child abuse cases violate due process and the right to confront one’s accusers. Anonymous allegations serve as grounds for seizing children and placing them in the hands of "therapists" who coax them into accusations. The DOJ and HUD have coerced neighborhoods into abandoning their rights under zoning ordinances to keep commercially operated halfway houses and drug treatment clinics out of residential areas.
The function of justice is to find the truth. This function has been destroyed by plea bargains. Plea bargains have corrupted the justice system by creating fictional crimes in place of real ones. The practice of having people admit to what did not happen in order to avoid charges for what did happen, or is alleged to have happened, creates a legal culture that elevates fiction over truth. By making the facts of the case malleable, plea bargains enable prosecutors to supplement weak evidence with psychological pressure. Prosecutors pile on charges, as in the Mike Milken case, until the defendant or his lawyers throw in the towel. Many innocent people cop a plea just to end their ordeal. Legal scholar John Langbein compares "the modern American plea bargaining system" with "the ancient system of judicial torture" (Langbein, 1978, 8). Confession and self-incrimination have replaced the jury trial in about 95 percent of felony indictments (Maguire and Pastore, 1995, 461–63, 483–86). Just as Bentham wanted, torture has been resurrected as a principal method of conviction. As this legal culture now operates, it permits prosecutors to bring charges in the absence of crimes.
How are firms to operate when managers face criminal liability for accidents committed by employees and for accounting mistakes in overseas subsidiaries? The criminalization of error has turned the justice system into a lottery that can assign criminal charges to anyone. To compensate for this liability, executives will be better remunerated. Operating expenses will rise as ever more accounting safeguards are implemented and audits are expanded. Corporate counsel will multiply as executives strive to establish that they have taken every step to prevent fraud and negligence. The vulnerability of firms to indictments will prevent any independence of voice as business executives seek political protection.
Just as many defense attorneys are former prosecutors and many corporate lawyers come from backgrounds in regulatory agencies, future business executives might be drawn from the ranks of regulatory bureaucrats as protection of the firm and its management from indictment becomes an important goal.
The vagueness of laws and undefined crimes, such as insider trading, make it easy for prosecutors to bring charges and coerce monetary settlements. Alan Reynolds noted in the Washington Times (May 25, 2003) that New York prosecutor Elliott Spitzer managed to shake down Merrill Lynch without developing any real evidence of fraud. Spitzer’s settlement agreement with Merrill Lynch was reached without "the court making any findings of fact or conclusions of law." Nothing in the settlement "may be deemed or used as an admission of, or evidence of, the validity of any alleged wrongdoing or liability." As Reynolds puts it, "the case against Merrill is officially one with no accusation of fraud, no admissible facts, no legal findings and no evidence of wrongdoing."
It is amazing that people still believe that the U.S. is a country where property rights are protected. In torts, what formerly were dismissed by judges as "nuisance suits" are now settled for large sums. Asset freezes and forfeitures have exploded. The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which was supposed to be targeted toward the mafia, has found its way into divorce cases. Asset confiscations, which were supposed to be targeted toward drug lords, take their daily toll on a large number and wide range of totally innocent parties. Grandparents lose their homes because police suspect that grandchildren brought drugs into the house. Elderly disabled people are evicted because their care providers bring drugs on their premises. People are confiscated of cash because police surmise that the amounts imply drugs. Motels, cars, boats, and airplanes have been confiscated as a result of police surmise that they facilitated the commission of a crime or because renters or passengers (including hitchhikers) possessed drugs or premises were used for prostitution or to solicit prostitution. California multimillionaire Donald Scott lost his life, because Los Angeles deputy sheriff Gary Spencer planned to confiscate his 200-acre Malibu estate on the basis of false allegations that marijuana plants were growing on his land.
In our book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, Larry Stratton and I devote a chapter to asset confiscations. I have not kept up with forfeiture since the book was published in 2000. According to the latest information we had at that time, the 1984 forfeiture provision, which targeted drug trafficking, had been expanded to cover 140 other federal criminal offenses. Scores of similar state and local forfeiture laws have been added to the books. According to former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Florida, Texas and other states permit civil forfeiture for any criminal activity. New Jersey allows forfeiture for any alleged criminal activity.
The innocent owner’s defense is extremely weak. Police and prosecutors have taken advantage of it. Levy reports that in 80% of forfeiture cases no charges are filed against owners of confiscated property (Levy, 1996). In other words, the confiscations acknowledge that the owners whose properties were seized are innocent of the alleged criminal activity for which their property was confiscated. As Rep. Hyde said, Americans face "endless possibilities to be caught in the snare of government forfeiture" (Hyde, 1995, 10).
The Patriot Act and follow-up proposals are destroying habeas corpus and permitting warrentless searches and spying. Supposedly, these police state measures are directed toward terrorists, but they are certain to expand, just as asset freezes and forfeitures expanded. On May 21 of this year the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department acknowledged in a 60-page report to the House Judiciary Committee that it has used many of the anti-terrorism powers granted in the wake of September 11 to pursue defendants for crimes unrelated to terrorism, including drug violations, credit card fraud and bank theft. Some people say police and prosecutors will protect the innocent by exercising careful discretion. If asset forfeiture is the example of police discretion, 80% of those incarcerated under the new anti-terror laws will be innocent.
The grand jury is supposed to determine that a crime has occurred and that an indictment of an individual is justified. The trial jury is supposed to determine the innocence or guilt of the indicted party. Just as the trial jury has been displaced by the coerced plea bargain, the grand jury has lost its function. A recent Cato Institute paper shows that the federal grand jury is "a stalking horse for prosecutors to bypass the constitutional rights of individuals and organizations. . . .In truth, the government has been using the facade of the ‘grand jury process’ to subvert the Bill of Rights – especially the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures of private papers and the Fifth Amendment’s ban on compulsory examination under oath" (2003, 1, 4).
Grand juries do not determine whether a crime has occurred. They merely accept the prosecutor’s word for it, who, in turn, accepts the police’s word. In two Arlington, Virginia, child sex abuse cases that I investigated, no evidence was ever presented that an offense occurred. The same detective and prosecutor simply lied to the grand jury that offenses had occurred. Once they had the indictment, they proceeded to convict the defendants.
In one case parents, concerned about the relationship of their underage daughter with an older woman in their apartment building, insisted on chaperoning their meetings. To continue the relationship, the daughter accused her father of sex abuse. No investigation was ever made by the police. Child Protective Services stepped in and forced the mother to abandon her husband or lose custody of the child to CPS. This isolated the father. The detective lied to the grand jury that the father had confessed. Isolated and indicted, the father was forced into a deal.
In the other case a skateboard coach took his team to New York City for a competition. One of the boys wanted to purchase drugs. Fearful that any rumor of drugs would destroy parents’ confidence, the coach threatened to tell the boy’s parents. The boy struck first by accusing the coach of sex abuse. Again, no investigation was made. The skateboard team came to testify as to what really happened. The trial judge, suspected by a clean government group of being under the prosecutor’s thumb, jailed one of the young witnesses on a trumped-up technicality. This served both to intimidate the young witnesses and to cast aspersion on the credibility of the witnesses.
The reason that the vast majority of felony cases are settled with a plea bargain and the vast majority of civil suits are settled out of court is that no one has any confidence in the justice system.
This lack of confidence should tell us something about the fate of entrepreneurs and executives when criminal sanctions are used in order to obtain "public welfare" goals.
When felony no longer requires intent, criminal conviction loses its moral condemnation. When error is criminalized and third party criminal liability assigned, people can be found guilty of felonies of which they have no knowledge or personal connection. When law is morally arbitrary, unknown and uncertain, prosecutors escape all restraint.
Former U.S. attorney Robert Merkel says that prosecution "is a result-oriented process today, fairness be damned." Merkle says prosecutors are pressured to justify budgets with convictions, "and that causes them to prosecute absolutely bogus cases to get those statistics" (Moushey, 1998, 3–4). Former deputy U.S. attorney general Arnold I. Burns wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "it is time for a sober reassessment of the power we have concentrated in the hands of prosecutors and the alarming absence of effective checks and balances to prevent the widespread abuse of that power" (Burns, 1998, A23). A law school textbook, Prosecutorial Misconduct, is evidence that the problem is not going away on its own.
In 1998 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette summed up its investigative reports of prosecutorial misconduct as follows:
Hundreds of times during the past 10 years, federal agents and prosecutors have pursued justice by breaking the law. They lied, hid evidence, distorted facts, engaged in cover-ups, paid for perjury and set-up innocent people in a relentless effort to win indictments, guilty pleas and convictions. Rarely were these federal officials punished for their misconduct. . . . Perjury has become the coin of the realm in federal law enforcement (Moushey, 1998, 40).
[Hence the term test-a-lie instead of testify.]
The traditional prosecutorial ethic required prosecutors to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and to strive for a fair trial. This ethic has been lost. Today prosecutors strive for conviction at all costs. Prosecutors try defendants in the media, not in the courtroom. They overdraw charges in order to elicit a plea. They withhold exculpatory evidence.
A recent case of withholding exculpatory evidence was reported by Alexander Cockburn in the Los Angeles Times (May 26, 2003). Ed Rosenthal was designated by the City of Oakland to be the legal supplier of medical marijuana under the terms of California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Federal agents arrested Rosenthal under federal anti-marijuana law. At Rosenthal’s trial in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the prosecutor presented Rosenthal as a major drug dealer. Judge Charles Breyer (brother of the U.S. Supreme Court justice) prevented Rosenthal’s attorneys from introducing the fact that he was supplying medical marijuana to the City of Oakland under the terms of a California state law. Misled by judge and prosecutor, the jury convicted Rosenthal. When the jurors learned that they had been deceived, they protested in front of the U.S. courthouse. Do we want people who will intentionally mislead jurors in order to obtain a conviction serving as prosecutors and judges?
The mendacity of prosecutors knows no bounds. In Stigler, Oklahoma, prosecutor Ron Boyer is prosecuting 32-year-old Shannon Denney for the crime of "outraging public decency and public morals." Denny is guilty of nursing another woman’s 3-month old baby while caring for her in a daycare center. The baby could not stop crying and refused the offered bottle, so Denny, who was nursing her own baby, offered the distressed infant her breast. For this act of kindness, Denny faces up to a year in jail.
The prosecution of Denny epitomizes the complete destruction of law. Denny had no notice that her act of kindness constituted a crime. Indeed, how could wetnursing – a normal activity for thousands of years prior to the invention of the baby bottle and infant formula – be construed as a crime? Actus rea and mens rea are absent, and normal human behavior with an ancient tradition has been criminalized without notice.
Martha Stewart’s indictment by U.S. attorney James B. Comey is another example of crimes invented by prosecutors. Stewart is not charged with felony "insider trading," but with felony obstruction of justice for allegedly trying to cover up evidence that might be construed as insider trading (if a person without a fiduciary relationship with the firm, ImClone, whose stock she sold can be guilty of insider trading). How can a person be indicted for covering up a crime for which one is not accused?
In addition, Stewart is charged with felony "securities fraud" for declaring her innocence publicly. According to the prosecutor’s "new legal twist," her declaration of innocence constitutes an illegal manipulation of the stock of her own company, Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia. By declaring her innocence, the prosecutor says, she was attempting to prevent her indictment from driving down the shares of her company, which depends on her leadership. The prosecutor’s invented charge ignores that in our legal system a person is innocent until proven guilty. At the time she declared her innocence, Stewart had neither been tried nor found guilty.
Many people have the misconception that justice is a function of the size of the pocketbook. In actual fact, it is easier to frame a white-collar defendant than to frame a poor member of a minority group. The common law crimes associated with the poor – theft, assault, and murder – are well defined. Frame-ups for such crimes require prosecutors to suborn perjury, suppress exculpatory evidence, and coerce false confession. To frame a white-collar victim, a prosecutor need only interpret an arcane regulation differently or with a new slant.
As a result of past reforms, the bulk of executive compensation depends on performance-related bonuses. It is easy for employees to become dependent on bonus income and to be tempted to fudge results when profits turn down. To hold a CEO and CFO criminally liable for accounting misstatements that cannot be detected in advance is tyranny.
Many justifications have been used for past tyrannies. We now have tyranny in the name of corporate governance and the prevention of accounting fraud.
References
Burns, Arnold J. 1998. What By-the-Book Prosecutors Can Get Away With. Wall Street Journal, March 23, A23.
Dillard, W. Thomas, Stephen R. Johnson, and Timothy Lynch. May 13, 2003. A Grand Facade: How the Grand Jury Was Captured by Government. Policy Analysis. Washington, D.C. Cato Institute.
Hyde, Henry. 1995. Forfeiting Our Property Rights: Is Your Property Safe from Seizure? Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
Langbein, John H. 1978. Torture and Plea Bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review 46 (October), 3-22.
Levy, Leonard W. 1996. License to Steal: The Forfeiture of Property. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L. Pastore, eds., 1995. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1994. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Moushey, Bill. 1998. Win at All Costs. Pittsburgh: PG. Stories reprinted from the November 22, 23, 24, 29, and 30, and December 1, 6, 7, 8, and 13 issues of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Roberts, Paul Craig, and Lawrence M. Stratton. 2000. The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Roseville, Calif.: Prima Publishing.
Rosenzweig, Paul. April 17, 2003. The Over-Criminalization of Social and Economic Conduct. Legal Memorandum. Washington, D.C.: Heritage Foundation.
September 24, 2003
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts9.html
Interesting:
17% reduction in holdings...uh that would be a sign of insider selling. They know they're in trouble...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=dbd
Fools and Their Freedoms Are Soon Parted
By DOUG THOMPSON
Sep 24, 2003, 07:08
One of the best-running comedies in Washington these days comes from the show the Republicans are forced to put on defending the various screw ups of George W. Bush and his increasingly error-prone administration.
From finding new excuses to defend the distortions, falsehoods and outright lies that have belched out of 1600 Pennsylvania to the innovative, if lamebrain, attempts to justify the dangerous actions of power-mad attorney general John Ashcroft, die-hard Republicans look as ridiculous as the Democrats who tried so hard to defend the many misdeeds of Bill Clinton.
In order to accept Dubya’s actions, Republicans ask us to believe:
Distorting the truth is OK if it is used to oust a dictator in a foreign land (like Iraq) because the end justifies the means;
Trampling roughshod over the Constitution is OK because these are extraordinary times and extraordinary means must be used to combat terrorism, even if it means abandoning the very freedoms that provide the foundation for our way of life;
It’s OK to lie to the American people about the health hazards from the toxic air quality in New York City after the World Trade Center towers fell because letting the public know about the dangers would, somehow, violate “national security;”
Letting the American public know about the secret meetings of Vice President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force somehow violates the sanctity of the Executive Branch, even if the oil companies who have long controlled both Cheney and Bush were part of the Task Force;
Lying to our allies is an acceptable foreign policy;
Balanced budgets are bad while record deficits are good.
This list expands because, nearly every day, we learn of a new situation where the Bush administration hid the facts, distorted information or just plain lied to the American people. Whether it is using hyped – and discredited – intel on Iraq’s fantasy purchase of enriched uranium or admitting – five months late – that no proof exists of a link between Saddam Hussein and the 9-11 terrorist attacks, the record of the Bush administration is a growing chronology of miscalculation, misstatement and misinformation.
Yet hardcore Republicans continue to defend his actions as “great leadership” or “necessary actions in time of war.” Then they attack those who dare criticize their “great leader” as “Bush hating leftists” or claim it is all part of a great “liberal Democratic conspiracy.” Sounds like the shrill rantings of Hillary Clinton and her claims of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to get her husband.
Those who ignore logic, reason and truth to defend Dubya at all costs should step back and take a second look at some who question the actions of their hero. No one with an IQ above that of the average plant would ever accuse a rabid right-winger like Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum of joining the great liberal Democratic conspiracy, yet Schlafly has joined forces with the American Civil Liberties Union to fight the constitutional abuses of John Ashcroft’s USA Patriot Act.
Or how about David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union? His organization opposes Ashcroft’s attempts to expand police powers “because they unreasonably infringe on civil liberties.”
Other Republicans who have raised questions about the Iraq war and/or the actions of Ashcroft include Senators Larry Craig of Idaho and John Warner of Virginia. Warner has told the White House it will have to “be more forthcoming” about the Iraqi war if Bush wants to get his request for reconstruction money through an increasingly skeptical Republican Senate.
A sizable chunk of the 51 percent of Americans that polls say now question the validity of statements by the Bush administration are not lefties or part of any great liberal Democratic conspiracy. A breakdown of those polls show an increasing number of conservatives and Republicans doubt the integrity of their President.
But we know what the Greek Chorus that surrounds George W. Bush will say about this:
It’s just part of a vast, lefty, media conspiracy to get Dubya and those of us here on this web site are part of it -- just like we were when we questioned the actions of another President:
William Jefferson Clinton.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_3104.shtml
Extreme Gloom and Doom:
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/gordon/2003/0921.html
BlackBoxVoting.org Shut Down 'Temporarily'
9-24-3
Due to a dispute with Diebold, Incorporated, and its wholly owned subsidiary Diebold Election Systems, Inc. (collectively "Diebold"), which is claiming links to certain materials that do not reside on the blackboxvoting.org website constitute copyright infringement, blackboxvoting.org has been temporarily disabled.
We regret any inconvenience this may cause visitors and journalists to the blackboxvoting.org site and hope to have this matter resolved shortly.
In the interim, send questions or information requests to admin@blackboxvoting.org
Comment
From Alfred Lehmberg
alienview.net
9-24-3
This is outrage bereft of all hyperbole!
I take this act of Diebold as a clear and active threat to any SEMBLANCE of continuing to live in a free society for any one of us! Additionally, it is an unwarranted, unwelcome, and unnecessary religion intrusion (with regard to the convictions of the, too few, owners) on same! Next, at best, it is hobblingly regressive! At worst it's culturally dangerous! Among too many other criticisms to list, it is socially unrewarding and without any respect for the individual aspiring to quality-- its biggest injury/insult.
I'd suggest that this -abomination- of biased control through -our- (...public! You can bet we paid for it!) voting software and hardware (by an -extremely- canted minority), is an affront to our nation constitutionally and a clear conflict of public interest!
This is an -unambiguous- case of the corrupt behemoth crushing the tiny righteous whistle-blower, and so it is an illustration of our programmed and manipulated times, though... What's Diebold Afraid Of? They're a freaking -monopoly-, by all god's, saints, and sinners! The Justice Department (yeah, -right-!) should take them down and NATIONALIZE the company!
CONGRESS! NATIONALIZE OUR VOTING MACHINERY AND INDUSTRY, NOW! It is obvious that it is TOO damned important to leave in the hands of a few private companies of debated competence and arguable veracity!
Lehmberg@snowhill.com
EXPLORE "AlienViewGroup" at its HostPros URL. http://www.alienview.net
"I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by the scabrous and specious scurrilous.
Vanishing Act
By Chris Floyd
09/22/03: (Moscow Times) It's a shell game, with money, companies and
corporate brands switching in a blur of buyouts and bogus fronts. It's a
sinkhole, where mobbed-up operators, paid-off public servants, crazed
Christian fascists, CIA shadow-jobbers, war-pimping arms dealers -- and
presidential family members -- lie down together in the slime. It's a
hacker's dream, with pork-funded, half-finished, secretly programmed
computer systems installed without basic security standards by politically
partisan private firms, and protected by law from public scrutiny. It's how
the United States, the "world's greatest democracy," casts its votes. And
it's why George W. Bush will almost certainly be the next president of the
United States -- no matter what the people of the United States might want.
The American vote-count is controlled by three major corporate players --
Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia -- with a fourth, Science Applications
International Corporation, coming on strong. These companies -- all of them
hardwired into the Bushist Party power grid -- have been given billions of
dollars by the Bush Regime to complete a sweeping computerization of voting
machines nationwide by the 2004 election. These glitch-riddled systems --
many using "touch-screen" technology that leaves no paper trail at all --
are almost laughably open to manipulation, according to corporate
whistleblowers and computer scientists at Stanford, Johns Hopkins and other
universities.
The technology had a trial run in the 2002 midterm elections. In Georgia,
serviced by new Diebold systems, a popular Democratic governor and senator
were both unseated in what the media called "amazing" upsets, with results
showing vote swings of up to 16 percent from the last pre-ballot polls. In
computerized Minnesota, former Vice President Walter Mondale -- a
replacement for popular incumbent Paul Wellstone, who died days before the
vote -- was also defeated in a large last-second vote swing. Convenient
"glitches" in Florida saw an untold number of votes intended for the
Democratic candidate registering instead for Governor Jeb "L'il Brother"
Bush. A Florida Democrat who lost a similarly "glitched" local election went
to court to have the computers examined -- but the case was thrown out by a
judge who ruled that the innards of America's voting machines are the "trade
secrets" of the private companies who make them.
Who's behind these private companies? It's hard to tell: The corporate
lines -- even the bloodlines -- of these "competitors" are so intricately
mixed. For example, at Diebold -- whose corporate chief, Wally O'Dell, a top
Bush fundraiser, has publicly committed himself to "delivering" his home
state's votes to Bush next year -- the election division is run by Bob
Urosevich. Bob's brother, Todd, is a top executive at "rival" ES&S. The
brothers were originally staked in the vote-count business by Howard
Ahmanson, a member of the Council for National Policy, a right-wing
"steering group" stacked with Bushist faithful.
Ahmanson is also one of the bagmen behind the extremist "Christian
Reconstructionist" movement, which openly advocates a theocratic takeover of
American democracy, placing the entire society under the "dominion" of
"Christ the King." This "dominion" includes the death penalty for
homosexuals, exclusion of citizenship for non-Christians, stoning of sinners
and -- we kid you not -- slavery, "one of the most beneficent of Biblical
laws."
Ahmanson also has major holdings in ES&S, whose former CEO is Republican
Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. When Hagel ran for office, his own company
counted the votes; needless to say, his initial victory was reported as "an
amazing upset." Hagel still has a million-dollar stake in the parent company
of ES&S. In Florida, Jeb Bush's first choice for a running mate in his 1998
gubernatorial race was ES&S lobbyist Sandra Mortham, who made a mint
installing the machines that counted Jeb's votes.
Sequoia also has a colorful history, most recently in Louisiana, where it
was the center of a massive corruption case that sent top state officials to
jail for bribery, most of it funneled through Mob-connected front firms.
Sequoia executives were also indicted, but escaped trial after giving
immunized testimony against state officials. The British-owned company's
corporate parent is private equity firm Madison Dearborn -- a partner of the
Carlyle Group, where George Bush I makes millions trolling the world for war
pork, privatizations and sweetheart deals with government insiders.
Meanwhile, the shadowy defense contractor SAIC has jumped into the
vote-counting game, both directly and through spinoffs by its top brass,
including Admiral Bill Owens, former military aide to Dick Cheney and
Carlyle honcho Frank Carlucci, and ex-CIA chief Robert Gates. SAIC's history
of fraud charges and security lapses in its electronic systems hasn't
prevented it from becoming one of the largest Pentagon and CIA
contractors -- and will doubtless pose little obstacle to its entrance into
election engineering.
The mad rush to install unverifiable computer voting is driven by the Help
America Vote Act, signed by Bush last year. The chief lobbying group pushing
for the act was a consortium of arms dealers -- those disinterested
corporate citizens -- including Northop-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin. The
bill also mandates that all states adopt the computerized "ineligible voter
purge" system that Jeb used to eliminate 91,000 eligible black voters from
the Florida rolls in 2000. The Republican-run private company that
accomplished this electoral miracle, ChoicePoint, is bagging the lion's
share of the new Bush-ordered purge contracts.
The unelected Bush Regime now controls the government, the military, the
judiciary -- and the machinery of democracy itself. Absent some unlikely
great awakening by the co-opted dullards of the corporate media, next
November the last shreds of a genuine American republic will disappear -- at
the push of a button.
Annotations
E-Voting: How it Can Put the Wrong Candidate in Office
Common Dreams, Sept. 3, 2003
The Theft of Your Vote is Just a Chip Away
Thom Hartmann, July 31, 2003
How George W. Bush Won the 2004 Presidential Election
Infernal Press, September 2003
Now Your Vote is the Property of a Private Corporation
Thom Hartmann, March 11, 2003
The Diebold AccuVote TS Should be Decertified
USENEX Security Symposium, Aug. 6, 2003
Who Counts the Votes?
Southern Exposure, Winter 2002/2003
Florida Invests $24 Million in Wireless Voting Machines
Wireless News Factor, Jan. 31, 2002
Diebold Internal Mail Confirms U.S. Vote Vulnerabilities
Scoop, Sept. 12,2002
Voting Machine Controversy as Diebold Chief Backs Bush
Cleveland Plain Dealer, Aug. 28, 2003
The Voting Machine Fiasco: SAIC, VoteHere and Diebold
Online Journal, Aug. 20, 2003
Hacking Democracy?
Salon.com, Feb. 20, 2003
Possible Flaw Triggers Electronic Voting Concerns
Houston Chronicle, Sept. 11, 2003
Piecing it Together
Black Box Voting, Aug. 25, 2003
Bay of Pigs 2000: The November Surprise
Madcow Morning News, Dec. 26, 2000
Slavery Under God's Laws
The Institute for Christian Economics,
Stoning: Integral to Commandment Against Murder
The Institute for Christian Economics,
World Conquest: The Obligation of Christian Politics
The Changing of the Guard, Dominion Press,
An Anthology of Reconstructist Thought
Christian Reconstructionism, November 2002
Judicial Warfare: Christian Reconstructionism and its Blueprint for Dominion
Crown Rights Press, 2003
British Firm Buys Controlling Interest in Sequoia Voting Systems
Eastbay Business Times, May 29, 2003
A High-Tech Ambush
Eco Talk, Oct. 29, 2002
Louisiana Election Commissioner Pleads Guilty in Kickback Scandal
The Oak Ridger, Nov. 28, 2000
Pipeline Partnership Take Under: Madison Dearborn and Carlyle
Meter Reader Energy Stock Analysis, April 24, 2003
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4801.htm
Used to put wrap up on old JFSAG board anybody care?
Want to see don't want to see it...
If I knew how I'd set up a survey...
PM me or post with your response...or you could email me but my server sux at the moment...
DAILY WRAP-UP
************************************
Wall Street averages were sharply lower Wednesday after a surprise
production cut announcement from OPEC fuelled worries that the economic
turnaround could be stifled by higher energy costs. The announcement
prompted investors to take profits off the table. Technology, financial and
biotech issues were weakest.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average forfeited 150.53 points or 1.57% to
9425.51, and the Nasdaq composite surrendered 58.02 points or 3.05% to
1843. 70. The broader S&P 500 gave up 19.65 points or 1.91% to 1009.38.
Volume on the NYSE improved to 1.543 billion shares. At the Nasdaq, some
2.207 billion shares traded hands.
Investors were caught out by the news that the organization of petroleum
exporting countries elected to curb oil output by 3.5% in order to boost
flagging oil prices. At its regularly scheduled meeting in Vienna, the
cartel announced it would slash its oil output ceiling by 900,000 barrels
per day, beginning November first.
Viacom (NSYE: VIA.B) shares dimmed 3.58% to $38.83 after the parent of CBS,
Nickelodeon and MTV cut its outlook for earnings and sales for 2003. The
media firm cited slow local advertising markets for its lowered guidance.
Viacom shares slid % to $
Oil services stocks and exploration firms were higher after the decision
was announced in Vienna. Murphy Oil (NYSE: MUR), a mid-tier explorer,
producer, refiner and marketer of oil and gas, rallied 3.93% to $59.75.
Transocean (NYSE: RIG), the largest offshore oil driller, surged 5.79% to
$20.10.
Shares of Cisco Systems (NASDAQ: CSCO) bounced around and finished down
3.92% to $20.32. The networking giant announced Tuesday that its board had
authorized up to $7 billion in fresh funds for its stock repurchase program.
Tech stocks were broadly lower. Oracle (NASDAQ: ORCL) slid 3.08% to $11.66
and Applied Materials (NASDAQ: AMAT) slumped 5.84% to $18.54.
Genentech (NYSE: DNA) stumbled 5.21% to $82.85 after Lehman Brothers (NYSE:
LEH) issued a downgrade on the drug developer to "equal weight" from
"overweight" on valuation concerns.
Not all biotech issues were down on the session. Cell Therapeutics (NASDAQ:
CTIC) said clinical trial data showed "encouraging" preliminary result for
its Xyotax ovarian cancer treatment. The company, which also makes the
leukemia therapy Trisenox, climbed 4.08% to $12.24.
Forest Labs (NYSE: FRX) received a crucial endorsement for its new
Alzheimer's disease treatment called memantine. An FDA advisory panel
unanimously found the drug to be a safe and effective treatment for
moderate to severe indications of the disease. The drug could win final FDA
clearance as soon as the new year. Shares of the company raced 6.09% higher
to $51.70.
Dow member McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) nosed ahead 0.13% to $23.93 after the
fast food giant said it would boost its annual dividend by 70% to 40 cents
per share.
Flextronics (NASDAQ: FLEX) could slide when it re-opens for trading. A
California jury ordered the company to pay a $934 million award to Beckman
Coulter (NYSE: BEC) for breach of contract, economic distress and fraud.
Flextronics had been contracted to supply circuit boards to Beckman
Coulter, but a dispute interrupted the relationship. Beckman's shares rose
2.08% to $46.70.
In small cap trading, the Russell 2000 slumped 11.50 points or 2.21% to
507.86, while the S&P600 index gave up 4.7 points or 1.89% to 243.49.
Some of the small cap stocks making big moves included Ultralife Batteries
(NASDAQ: ULBI). The company surged 23.28% to $14.30 on volume of 962,886
after it announced a contract win with the U.S. Army. Ultralife will garner
$3.1 million for the purchase of manufacturing equipment to expand its
battery-making capabilities.
Exult (NASDAQ: EXLT) tumbled 11.58% to $8.40 on volume of 5,955,704 after
the maker of process management software announced plans to sell $100
million in convertible senior notes. The offering has an over-allotment for
the sale of an additional $10 million in notes.
In commodities trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, November crude
oil futures gained $1.11 to $28.24. November natural gas futures added 5.5
cents to $4.752. December gold futures were up $1.40 to $388.40.
Canadian markets were lower as falling tech and health issues countered
rising energy stocks. Investors elected to take profits after the sharp
rise on the TSX Tuesday.
The TSX composite slid 41.70 points or 0.55% to 7602.34, and the small cap
Venture index gained 12.74 points or 0.92% to 1402.36.
In the energy sector PennWest Petroleum (TSX: T.PWT) gained 1.63% to $46.74
and Imperial Oil (TSX: T.IMO) advanced 2.37% to $51.00. Ivanhoe Energy
(TSX: T.IE) surged 22.56% to $3.64 after announcing it was readying to
drill its first development well at the Dagang field in China.
News of the OPEC production cut buoyed shares of Talisman Energy (TSX:
T.TLM) shares. The company also announced that it had begun pumping oil at
its Blake Flank North Sea project. Talisman, which is the number two
Canadian oil explorer, gained 2.62% to $64.81.
Quebec's Aeterna Laboratories (TSX: T.AEL) tumbled 34.64% to $5.85 after
the company reported Phase III trials of its Neovastat kidney cancer drug
failed to meet a key endpoint of improving patient survival. Drug maker
Biovail (TSX: T.BVF) retreated 3.63% to $52.05.
Information technology stocks slumped 3.59%. The group was pulled down by
Zarlink Semiconductor (TSX: T.ZL), which announced late Monday that it
would not meet previous earnings targets. The company said it would record
a wider-than-anticipated loss as the result of lower sales and a
restructuring charge. Zarlink shares gave back 16.42% to $5.75.
Placer Dome (TSX: T.PDG) announced that U.S. gold producing giant Newmont
Mining (NSYE: NEM) would take a 25% interest in its Turquoise Ridge gold
mine in Nevada. Placer Dome will continue to operate the mine, which
started up in April; and Newmont will buy up to 1800 tonnes of ore per day.
The company's CEO said that the joint venture agreement would reduce
capital expenses, lower operating costs, and result in a more efficient use
of resources. Placer Dome's shares edged 0.15% higher to $19.60.
Elsewhere in the gold group, Wheaton River (TSX: T.WRM) fell 3.46% to
$2.79. The Vancouver-based junior miner announced it would raise $100
million in a bought deal offering of units. The company said the proceeds
would be allocated to development of its properties and used for potential
purchases.
In earnings news, AGF Management (TSX: T.AGF.B) reported narrower third
quarter profits as volatile markets crimped management and advisory fees
for the fund manager. The company said net earnings amounted to $21.8
million or 23 cents per share, versus year ago earnings of $30.7 million or
34 cents a share. Revenues shrank to $138.1 million from $156.6 million in
the year before quarter. AGF shares dipped 0.06% to $17.00.
Cascades (TSX: T.CAS) gave up 0.52% to $13.40 after the company announced
it would restate earnings for its second quarter as the result of a
mistaken calculation of foreign exchange. The paper maker said the
restatement would cut its profit from 49 cents a share to 36 cents a share.
The composite leading index of future economic activity rose more than
expected in August, according to Statistics Canada. The index gained 0.5%
last month outpacing expectations for a rise of 0.4%. Seven of the ten
components in the index advanced, while three retreated.
The Canadian dollar was worth US$0.7403.
TODAY'S HIGHLIGHTS
************************************
Market Summary At 5:15:48 P.M. ET
---------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Close Change Change(%) Market Name
DJI 9425.51 -150.53 -1.57 DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL
NYA 5712.62 -81.60 -1.41 NYSE COMPOSITE
COMP 1843.70 -58.02 -3.05 NASDAQ COMPOSITE
XAX 999.70 -1.07 -0.11 AMEX COMPOSITE INDEX
SPX 1009.38 -19.65 -1.91 S&P 500
SML 243.49 -4.70 -1.89 S&P 600 SMALLCAP
RUT 507.86 -11.50 -2.21 RUSSELL 2000
NDI 216.99 -3.76 -1.70 INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS 500
IV.JX 1402.36 12.74 0.92 S&P/TSX VENTURE
COMPOSITE INDEX
IT.TSXCI 7602.34 -41.70 -0.55 S&P/TSX COMPOSITE
Small Cap Most Active Stocks At 5:15:48 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
BIKO 81054000 0.00 0.00 BICO Inc.
AKLM 39076400 0.98 0.08 Acclaim Entertainment
WCOEQ 35741400 0.07 -0.01 WorldCom Group
APPI 30568900 0.04 0.01 Advanced Plant Pharmaceut
GERN 23198900 13.83 -0.97 Geron Corporation
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
HEC 11404400 0.63 0.06 Harken Energy Corporation
VRA 7719500 0.30 -0.01 Viragen Inc.
UAX 5521300 0.21 -0.01 USURF America Inc.
AVR 3107500 0.20 0.00 Avitar Inc.
EAG 2605900 0.49 -0.03 Eagle Broadband Inc.
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
T.ZL 10101400 5.75 -1.13 Zarlink Semiconductor Inc.
T.AEL 4084300 5.85 -3.10 Aeterna Laboratories Inc.
T.MWA 3727900 0.13 -0.00 McWatters Mining Inc.
T.IW 3671800 0.38 -0.06 Infowave Software Inc.
T.DY 3214400 1.18 -0.03 Dynatec Corporation
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change Company Name
V.ECU 3697400 0.15 0.04 ECU Silver Mining Inc.
V.CD 1621900 0.09 -0.01 Cantex Mine Development Corp.
V.PTM 948500 0.80 0.18 Platinum Group Metals Ltd.
V.APC 870000 1.10 0.14 Apac Minerals Inc.
V.SPQ 755000 0.11 0.02 Spider Resources Inc
Small Cap Top Percent Gainers At 5:15:48 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
DRUG 600200 1.10 0.36 48.65 Dragon Pharmaceutical
SSVC 4300 2.05 0.55 36.67 Star Services Group Inc.
HDGC 127800 1.50 0.40 36.36 Halsey Drug Company Inc.
CBQI 67700 0.04 0.01 25.00 CBQ Inc.
ULBI 962800 14.30 2.70 23.28 Ultralife Batteries Inc.
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
PYR 164800 0.62 0.09 16.98 PYR Energy
GEB 1052700 1.14 0.16 16.33 Genetronics Biomedical Co
CFS 497600 0.70 0.08 12.90 COMFORCE Corporation
EMA 388300 1.69 0.19 12.67 eMagin Corporation
BDE 997100 0.67 0.07 11.67 Brilliant Digital Enterta
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
T.BSW 1000500 0.60 0.20 50.00 Black Swan Resources Ltd.
T.CCU 544000 0.07 0.02 40.00 Constellation Copper
Corporation
T.AXO 515800 0.50 0.11 28.21 AltaRex Corp.
T.MIS 15000 0.65 0.14 27.45 MIST Inc.
T.IE 2123000 3.64 0.67 22.56 Ivanhoe Energy Inc.
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Gain Company Name
V.MNO 63500 0.18 0.08 80.00 Mano River Resources Inc.
V.LOO 175900 0.15 0.05 50.00 Loumic Exploration Inc.
V.ECU 3697400 0.15 0.04 38.10 ECU Silver Mining Inc.
V.PTM 948500 0.80 0.18 29.03 Platinum Group Metals Ltd.
V.IPC 367100 1.50 0.25 20.00 IPC Financial Network Inc.
Small Cap Top Percent Losers At 5:15:48 P.M. ET
(Market Capitalization Between $10,000,000 and $750,000,000)
************************************
NASDAQ / OTC
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
AELA 5259900 4.30 -2.17 -33.54 AEterna Laboratories Inc
MNHG 2000 1.75 -0.55 -23.94 Millenium Holding Group
PWAV 10545700 7.38 -1.59 -17.72 Powerwave Technologies
ADST 140000 1.68 -0.35 -17.24 AdStar Inc.
IPLY 336200 0.13 -0.03 -16.67 Interplay Entertainment C
AMEX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
CVM 1973400 0.88 -0.20 -18.52 CEL-SCI Corporation
MEM 669000 0.95 -0.20 -17.39 MCF Corp.
NSO 333700 0.82 -0.12 -12.77 nStor Technologies Inc.
AND 1077400 0.69 -0.09 -11.54 Andrea Electronics Corpor
HRT 55200 6.02 -0.78 -11.47 Arrhythmia Research Techn
TSX
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
T.AEL 4084300 5.85 -3.10 -34.64 Aeterna Laboratories Inc.
T.ZL 10101400 5.75 -1.13 -16.42 Zarlink Semiconductor Inc.
T.MSF 267500 0.53 -0.10 -15.87 MedcomSoft Inc.
T.IW 3671800 0.38 -0.06 -13.64 Infowave Software Inc.
T.WRX 981400 1.70 -0.25 -12.82 Wireless Matrix Corporation
TSX-V
*********************
Symbol Volume Close Change %Loss Company Name
V.EIH 17000 0.30 -0.09 -23.08 Events International
Holding Corporation
V.GNO 87200 0.18 -0.03 -12.50 Genoil Inc.
V.HGM 63000 0.26 -0.04 -12.07 Holmer Gold Mines Limited
V.AZD 335000 0.53 -0.07 -11.67 Azure Dynamics Corporation
V.STU 59500 2.01 -0.24 -10.67 San Telmo Energy Ltd.
GOLD:
by Jon Warner
September 24, 2003 (usagold.com)
NEW YORK:
New York spot gold settled higher at $387.00 an ounce, up $1.20 an ounce from yesterday’s close. Gold settled higher on light fund buying as the U.S. dollar slipped lower. "If worldwide dollar demands keep falling, then the new overhang of unwanted dollar liquidity circulating at home and abroad could trigger a new bout of inflation," said Erik Gebhard, president of Altavest Worldwide Trading. "Gold prices are marching toward $400, a level that some economists believe is a signal of excess liquidity and higher future inflation," he said. In terms of technicals, "the path of least resistance continues to be higher, with uptrend support near $380 and resistance at prior highs near $390," he said. "A pop above $390 will almost certainly take out stops and shoot us towards $400," Gebhard said. "Declining industry-wide exploration expenditures over the last five years supports our view that aggregate gold production will continue to decline for the foreseeable future," said Wayne Murdy CEO and Chairman of Newmont Mining Corp.
"Gold prices should be down, and gold stocks should be down, but they keep going up," said John H. Hill, a former geologist turned vice president of equity research at Citigroup's Smith Barney investment division. So what is behind all this? Analysts say there is just enough uncertainty in the marketplace to tap investors' interest. They see some kind of protection in gold, thinking they can win no matter which side of the coin they get. If the U.S. economy gets stuck in a deflationary grip that stalls the recovery, gold benefits. If there is another terrorist act, gold is good. If the U.S. government's aggressive monetary and fiscal policies -- like low interest rates and tax cuts – over stimulate the economy and lead to a rise in inflation, the value of gold goes up. If an improving global economy generates more gold jewelry demand, the price of gold increases. "Are we in for deflation or inflation? We don't know. Are interest rates on their way up? We don't know. Is the economy really back on track? We don't know," said Lynn Russell, a fund analyst at Morningstar in Chicago. "Those unknowns make gold attractive."
Comment:
Gold rose modestly in the last two hours of trade on a weaker U.S. dollar after trading most of the day in a narrow range. However, gold started to pick up strength toward the end of trading as equities sank like a rock on surprise news that OPEC would cut back oil production by nearly a million barrels per day. It appears that overoptimistic reports by analysts and government reporting agencies said that oil inventories would build strongly and in response OPEC today has effectively called their bluff in a “put up or shut up” response (maybe it’s more a matter of “oh yeah, how do ya like dem apples?”). Much of the “inventory build” projections are based on presumptions that Iraqi oil would provide an increase of nearly 2 million additional barrels per day in oil supply. However, Iraqi infrastructure remains in a horrible state of disrepair, oil reservoirs have been damaged (or even destroyed) with substantial loss in reservoir pressures, and all the while Saddam loyalist/terrorists continue to blow up the Kirkuk Pipeline on an almost weekly basis. Even then, Iraqi oil piped into Turkey must sit in “settling tanks” for several days due to contamination. Nevertheless OPEC called for a cut in production as oil prices have fallen over $3/bbl in the last month. As a result of this news from OPEC U.S. equities markets tumbled, the U.S. dollar pulled back, and gold got a modest boost before trading ended as some Funds and speculators took the opportunity to lock in more gold.
The fundamentals for higher gold prices remain firmly in place. Gold production is likely to decline for the foreseeable future as stated by many producers including Wayne Murdy, CEO of Newmont Mining at this week’s Denver Gold Conference. Exploration activity has been rather muted since 1996 when gold began to fall to recent lows of about $252 an ounce on the Clinton-Rubin “strong dollar policy” killing any incentive by miners and independents to seriously search for precious metals ore deposits. As a result it will be several years before gold production will catch up to previous levels as mature mines deplete remaining low cost reserves and leaving many higher cost reserves permanently lost due to changes mine engineers made as producers gutted the heart out of mining operations.
The U.S. dollar will (must) weaken further as the extreme imbalances of the current account and trade deficits suck the life out of the U.S. economy (aka “jobless recovery” – don’t you just love these Wall Street euphemisms?), and the soaring budget deficits keep rising will no end in sight. In response the U.S. Federal Reserve talks of “deflation” and continues pumping out dollars in a massive flood of paper in order to stimulate economic growth by weakening the dollar. This is partly to help make U.S. manufactured goods competitive in a shrinking global consumer market. The problem is how to do this without scaring off too many large holders of massive U.S. debt causing a run for the exits and therefore there is the incessant talk of a “deflation” threat when in reality “inflation” has been rising quite nicely. In a world of “competitive currency devaluation” there really isn’t any other currency choice for wealth preservation expect the precious metals.
As all currencies continue to “devalue” gold, silver, and platinum have remained the only real viable safe haven option left. Even real estate has been seen as vastly overvalued and the threat of rising interest rates put rising real estate prices in jeopardy, even a possible collapse of pricing as the bubble deflates. No Bull Market marches straight up in a vertical ascent so expect occasional pullbacks and range bound trading in the precious metals, but the trend is definitely in place for rising precious metals prices to offset the decline in the value of currencies. As long as nominal interest rates are at near zero and inflation (“official” and “real”) is higher, the resulting “negative real rates” make precious metals the place to be.
-Jon H. Warner-
http://www.usagold.com/DailyQuotes.html
Press reaction to George Bush's speech at the United Nations general assembly
[Read to bottom...]
Wednesday September 24, 2003
Fred Kaplan, Slate
"Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the general assembly as the one George W Bush gave this morning?
Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism-even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing. Bush to World: Drop Dead!
Steven R Weisman, New York Times
The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States. Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more sceptical than ever of Mr Bush's assertions. Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the UN
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, Los Angeles Times
There has been much talk in recent weeks about President Bush's apparent determination to change course in Iraq. Exhibit One is his decision, reiterated in Tuesday's speech to the United Nations, to seek a new UN resolution encouraging other countries to contribute troops and money to the Iraq reconstruction effort. The White House, it appears, has finally recognised that it cannot succeed on its own in Iraq. The President's Thorny Olive Branch
Libération
France and the US have to try and reach a compromise, however difficult. Even the most hawkish voices in the Pentagon understand that Washington can't run postwar Iraq on its own, especially a few months before the beginning of the presidential race. For its part, France needs to stop itself being perceived as the enemy of the world's only superpower
But this time, each country has set the bar too high. The timetable France wants for the transfer of power to Iraqis, six to nine months, is far less than Bosnia or Kosovo needed. ... With the two countries so far apart, the UN risks only being able to agree on a vague resolution which would make very little difference on the ground. A difficult but inescapable compromise
Le Figaro
Jacques Chirac has been blowing hot and cold ever since he arrived in New York. On the one hand, he has come out with plenty of soothing words about the importance of Franco-American unity.... On the other, he has staked out his position on Iraq: willing to help them get out of the morass they have got themselves into, but very critical of how they want to do it.
Chirac seems determined to help the US - but from a distance. There's no question of sending French troops at the moment, but only helping (along with Germany) to train police and soldiers in Iraq. In short, France wants to act as an outside consultant - involved, but not fully engaged." Helping America - but from a distance
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused critics of Bush's policies in Iraq of encouraging terrorists. In actuality, it is American aimlessness that offers succour to its enemies by creating the impression that for all its might, the superpower is a very confused beast. Countries like France and Germany do not want America to fail, but nor do they want to be part of a disaster that they rightly see as being perfectly preventable. Their involvement might come with a heavy political price tag, but their continuing estrangement will be even more expensive. Bush can only stall for so long before Iraqi quagmire drags him down
Amir Taheri, Gulf News
The only justification for involving the UN (in Iraq) may have to do with American domestic politics. Bush may want to be in a position to tell his electorate that the UN is now on board in Iraq.
And this is precisely why France, Germany and a few others, who do not wish to see Bush re-elected, are determined to push the price so high as to make it impossible for Washington to accept without losing control of the situation in Iraq. The message that Paris and Berlin wish to convey is this: Bush and his "neo-cons" created a mess, now we enter to save Iraq from destruction! Using international precedents to find a system that suits Iraq
Daily Nation, Kenya
The appeal (for help on Iraq) is mainly financial and technical and, therefore, is aimed especially at Japan (and) the European Union, especially Germany and France.
But the last two were the very same states which Mr Bush treated with such arrogance when they disagreed with his methods. You would, therefore, expect the US leader to come to them like a chastened man.
But not Mr Bush. He is still demanding that the UN do it strictly under US terms. Yet the mess is America's own. If it wants the international community to mop it up for him, he should ask for it with at least some studied humbleness. Should he not, in fact, hand over everything to the UN? Let the UN heed Bush plea
Jyoti Malhotra, The Indian Express,
The lion's roar in the unipolar jungle gave way today to a conciliatory acknowledgement of other voices in the forest, as US President George W Bush virtually accepted an expanded role for the United Nations in Iraq. On the back foot, Bush seeks UN help, offers room
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1048822,00.html
What other US Media had to say:
Joe Sixpack, Faux news,
Bush did good job. We like Bush. Bush good. French and Germans very bad, no like Bush. Bush popular, look at pole. UN not help enough.
Remember Bush good, rest of world bad bad bad. Bush no lie, only slight fib to rile you up so sacrifice of son or daughter not seem so bad.
Fred Slaboatnick, SeeBS
It is incredible to this reporter that the UN wouldn't jump at the chance to reconcile with the US and send as many troops as our valiant President asks for, after our astounding success in Iraq. How any in the UN can justify not putting troops and money under our sole control is mystifying especially after all that honest, forthright testimony before the UN done so well by Collin Powell.
The world seems so out of touch with reality sometimes. Everything we have reported thus far is verified and true, especially about the WMDs and those bio-chemical trailers that turned out to be hydrogen stations for weather balloons...with evidence like that in our favor coupled with the complete military victory it in outrageous that the UN is dragging it's feet...
Ann ChikenHaak, Contains No News,
911, Iraq, Pipelinestan, these are all good reasons for the Patriot act. As shown by the UN's continued skeptical attitude toward what has got to be the greatest American President of our time,the world has become a very dangerous place and we should all live in fear of terrorists. The only thing that could possibly save you from this threat now is giving up all of your civil liberties and putting all trust and faith in the US government, since it's obvious that if as the great man said before "if you are not with us you are against us."
Since the UN has become uncooperative, it's time to call your congressman and urge them to pass Ashcroft's Patriot ActII....
sideeki, whatever happened to that kid they at Logan who the TSA trumped up charges against for putting a note in his bag...? Been trying to find info on that...none found...
Absurdistan in America
by Stephen Baskerville, PhD
In Iowa, the government has confiscated the savings of 11-year-old Rylan Nitzschke. Rylan saved $220 from chores and shoveling snow, but that now belongs to Iowa. Why? Rylan’s father allegedly owes child support (to Rylan), and his father’s name was on the boy’s bank account.
OK, so this is a mistake, and Iowa will return the boy’s savings, right? Wrong. State officials have no intention of returning the money. After all, they receive federal funds for each dollar they collect (and for each father they incarcerate). Rylan’s piggy bank helps balance the budget.
As Congress prepares to pass the Welfare Reform bill, the Washington Times reports that child support enforcement officials are ecstatic over provisions that will allow them to plunder and criminalize more citizens, using children as the justification. Yet no evidence indicates that there is, or ever has been, a problem of unpaid child support other than that created by the government. The child support "crisis" consists of little more than the government seizing people’s children, imposing patently impossible debts on parents (and others) who have done nothing to incur those debts, and then arresting those who, quite predictably, cannot pay.
Now this dishonest and discredited hoax is creating a Western version of "Absurdistan" – the name given by East European dissidents to the Soviet dictatorships that were not only repressive but, at times, simply buffoonish.
West Virginia officials cleaned out the bank account of an 85-year-old grandmother whose son allegedly owed child support. The son paid in none of the $6,450 taken from the account, which comprised her life savings. She was also charged a $75 processing fee.
Canada has a name for such grandmothers: "deadbeat accomplices." These are grandparents, second wives, or other relatives, who can be forced to disclose and part with their savings to government officials.
In California, minor boys raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped them. "State law entitles the child to support from both parents, even though the boy is considered the victim of statutory rape," the district attorney's office says. One boy was drugged before the sex. Kansas courts have likewise held that "the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of a minor child born of such activity." So much for not letting criminals profit from their crimes.
The elderly can also become targets of rape-for-profit. A disabled 85-year-old man, sexually assaulted by his housekeeper and awarded damages for the assault, was ordered to pay her child support, and his pension was garnished. The court denied him access to the child.
According to the Keystone Cops who enforce child support, a "child" is not a dependent minor but any recipient of their chivalry. "We've got some 40- to 45-year-old ‘kids’ running around who are owed child support," says Nick Young, enforcement director in Virginia. In Ohio, a 77-year-old great grandfather who had always paid on time was told he owed $45,000 in back child support and had his wages garnished, even though his youngest child was 46 years old.
In Canada, runaway children sue their parents for child support. In California, a 50-year-old divorce lawyer successfully sued his own parents for child support because, he said, depression rendered him unable to work. Startlingly, such suits were probably intended by a legislature dominated by trial lawyers. Judge Melinda Johnson observed that the statute is "unambiguous," and an attorney notes, "The statute didn't come about by accident."
In Canada and Australia, stepfathers are now ordered to pay the custodians of their stepchildren. Stuart Miller of the American Fathers Coalition comments wryly that such rulings open the door to multiple marriages to obtain multiple child support proceeds from multiple men without the inconvenience of multiple children. In fact, this is already happening, as judges allow "double-dipping," whereby both the biological father and stepfather are ordered to pay full child support to the same custodian for the same children.
Child support has little to do with providing for children. Its purpose is to redistribute money – and power – among grown-ups. Iowa officials say the only way Rylan’s father can prevent the looting of Rylan’s savings in the future is to give the boy's money to the adult with custody.
But the miracle is that Rylan bothers with chores at all. Rylan’s father "owes" his son money, according to the government, not because Rylan earns it through hard work but because his mother divorced the old man. Rylan can simply demand the money of his father, and the state will make him cough it up. Why teach youngsters to work when you can teach them to sue.
Indeed, some states now force fathers to pay college tuition. So kids, don’t work to save for college or study hard for a scholarship. If you can convince your mother to divorce your father, the government will force Dad to pay at the barrel of a gun. Once fathers can be forced to pay law school tuition the machine will be completely self-financing.
States create instant deadbeats simply by increasing burdens. In Virginia, the author of sharply increased guidelines, William Rodgers of William and Mary College, tells officials that if they do not like his formula, he would "create a schedule to suit." Presumably Dr. Rodgers proposes the guidelines he considers fair and reasonable. But if Virginia officials prefer guidelines that are not fair and reasonable, he can provide those too. This is Groucho Marx government: "Those are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others."
Thus does child support simultaneously corrupt both public ethics and private morals, turning children into cash prizes and even "cash crops." One girl tells a Toronto newspaper of her savvy career plans: "I'm going to marry a really rich guy, then divorce him," she says. "But first I'm going to have his kids, so I get child support."
September 24, 2003
Stephen Baskerville, PhD, [send him mail] teaches political science at Howard University.
Copyright © 2003 Stephen Baskerville
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/baskerville2.html
Hey rico7, what are you doing for stocks?
Or are you doing metals...
Or are you just accumulating shares of PCBM, MDCE and HTAC?
Rico lives! BTW I objected bitterly, loudly and repeatedly from the get go...
And still say:
"Pentagon too lucky."
What the papers [had to] say
Press reaction to George Bush's speech at the United Nations general assembly
Wednesday September 24, 2003
Fred Kaplan, Slate
"Has an American president ever delivered such a bafflingly impertinent speech before the general assembly as the one George W Bush gave this morning?
Here were the world's foreign ministers and heads of state, anxiously awaiting some sign of an American concession to realism-even the sketchiest outline of a plan to share not just the burden but the power of postwar occupation in Iraq. And Bush gave them nothing, in some ways less than nothing. Bush to World: Drop Dead!
Steven R Weisman, New York Times
The audience of world leaders seemed to perceive an American president weakened by plunging approval ratings at home, facing a tough security situation in Iraq where American soldiers are dying every week, and confronted by the beginnings of a revolt against the American timetable for self-rule by several Iraqi leaders installed by the United States. Nor did they seem eager to help. If anything, they appeared more sceptical than ever of Mr Bush's assertions. Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the UN
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, Los Angeles Times
There has been much talk in recent weeks about President Bush's apparent determination to change course in Iraq. Exhibit One is his decision, reiterated in Tuesday's speech to the United Nations, to seek a new UN resolution encouraging other countries to contribute troops and money to the Iraq reconstruction effort. The White House, it appears, has finally recognised that it cannot succeed on its own in Iraq. The President's Thorny Olive Branch
Libération
France and the US have to try and reach a compromise, however difficult. Even the most hawkish voices in the Pentagon understand that Washington can't run postwar Iraq on its own, especially a few months before the beginning of the presidential race. For its part, France needs to stop itself being perceived as the enemy of the world's only superpower
But this time, each country has set the bar too high. The timetable France wants for the transfer of power to Iraqis, six to nine months, is far less than Bosnia or Kosovo needed. ... With the two countries so far apart, the UN risks only being able to agree on a vague resolution which would make very little difference on the ground. A difficult but inescapable compromise
Le Figaro
Jacques Chirac has been blowing hot and cold ever since he arrived in New York. On the one hand, he has come out with plenty of soothing words about the importance of Franco-American unity.... On the other, he has staked out his position on Iraq: willing to help them get out of the morass they have got themselves into, but very critical of how they want to do it.
Chirac seems determined to help the US - but from a distance. There's no question of sending French troops at the moment, but only helping (along with Germany) to train police and soldiers in Iraq. In short, France wants to act as an outside consultant - involved, but not fully engaged." Helping America - but from a distance
The Daily Star (Lebanon)
US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld has accused critics of Bush's policies in Iraq of encouraging terrorists. In actuality, it is American aimlessness that offers succour to its enemies by creating the impression that for all its might, the superpower is a very confused beast. Countries like France and Germany do not want America to fail, but nor do they want to be part of a disaster that they rightly see as being perfectly preventable. Their involvement might come with a heavy political price tag, but their continuing estrangement will be even more expensive. Bush can only stall for so long before Iraqi quagmire drags him down
Amir Taheri, Gulf News
The only justification for involving the UN (in Iraq) may have to do with American domestic politics. Bush may want to be in a position to tell his electorate that the UN is now on board in Iraq.
And this is precisely why France, Germany and a few others, who do not wish to see Bush re-elected, are determined to push the price so high as to make it impossible for Washington to accept without losing control of the situation in Iraq. The message that Paris and Berlin wish to convey is this: Bush and his "neo-cons" created a mess, now we enter to save Iraq from destruction! Using international precedents to find a system that suits Iraq
Daily Nation, Kenya
The appeal (for help on Iraq) is mainly financial and technical and, therefore, is aimed especially at Japan (and) the European Union, especially Germany and France.
But the last two were the very same states which Mr Bush treated with such arrogance when they disagreed with his methods. You would, therefore, expect the US leader to come to them like a chastened man.
But not Mr Bush. He is still demanding that the UN do it strictly under US terms. Yet the mess is America's own. If it wants the international community to mop it up for him, he should ask for it with at least some studied humbleness. Should he not, in fact, hand over everything to the UN? Let the UN heed Bush plea
Jyoti Malhotra, The Indian Express,
The lion's roar in the unipolar jungle gave way today to a conciliatory acknowledgement of other voices in the forest, as US President George W Bush virtually accepted an expanded role for the United Nations in Iraq. On the back foot, Bush seeks UN help, offers room
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1048822,00.html
What other US Media had to say:
Joe Sixpack, Faux news,
Bush did good job. We like Bush. Bush good. French and Germans very bad, no like Bush. Bush popular, look at pole. UN not help enough.
Remember Bush good, rest of world bad bad bad. Bush no lie, only slight fib to rile you up so sacrifice of son or daughter not seem so bad.
Fred Slaboatnick, SeeBS
It is incredible to this reporter that the UN wouldn't jump at the chance to reconcile with the US and send as many troops as our valiant President asks for, after our astounding success in Iraq. How any in the UN can justify not putting troops and money under our sole control is mystifying especially after all that honest, forthright testimony before the UN done so well by Collin Powell.
The world seems so out of touch with reality sometimes. Everything we have reported thus far is verified and true, especially about the WMDs and those bio-chemical trailers that turned out to be hydrogen stations for weather balloons...with evidence like that in our favor coupled with the complete military victory it in outrageous that the UN is dragging it's feet...
Ann ChikenHaak, Contains No News,
911, Iraq, Pipelinestan, these are all good reasons for the Patriot act. As shown by the UN's continued skeptical attitude toward what has got to be the greatest American President of our time,the world has become a very dangerous place and we should all live in fear of terrorists. The only thing that could possibly save you from this threat now is giving up all of your civil liberties and putting all trust and faith in the US government, since it's obvious that if as the great man said before "if you are not with us you are against us."
Since the UN has become uncooperative, it's time to call your congressman and urge them to pass Ashcroft's Patriot ActII....
Hope you had a stop in at 90 if you were in IBM...expect that was a top but too early to tell...
Walks like a duck...
Gold $389.00, Silver holding $5.25 e
My mail server sux that's why. e
PILGER FILM REVEALS COLIN POWELL SAID IRAQ WAS NO THREAT
EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.
"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."
Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.
An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.
Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.
In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."
This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.
Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".
Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.
In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11 2001 as an"enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."
Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.
At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.
An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.
CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.
On that day, Bush signed a top-secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."
The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that."
It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds.
The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.
Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."
"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.
"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."
The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington.
BOLTON boasted to me that the killing of as many as 10,000 Iraqi civilians in the invasion was "quite low if you look at the size of the military operation."
For raising the question of civilian casualties and asking which country America might attack next, I was told: "You must be a member of the Communist Party."
Over at the Pentagon, Feith, No 3 to Rumsfeld, spoke about the "precision" of American weapons and denied that many civilians had been killed. When I pressed him, an army colonel ordered my cameraman: "Stop the tape!" In Washington, the wholesale deaths of Iraqis is unmentionable. They are non-people; the more they resist the Anglo-American occupation, the more they are dismissed as "terrorists".
It is this slaughter in Iraq, a crime by any interpretation of an international law, that makes the Hutton inquiry absurd. While his lordship and the barristers play their semantic games, the spectre of thousands of dead human beings is never mentioned, and witnesses to this great crime are not called.
Jo Wilding, a young law graduate, is one such witness. She was one of a group of human rights observers in Baghdad during the bombing. She and the others lived with Iraqi families as the missiles and cluster bombs exploded around them. Where possible, they would follow the explosions to scenes of civilian casualties and trace the victims to hospitals and mortuaries, interviewing the eyewitnesses and doctors. She kept meticulous notes.
She saw children cut to pieces by shrapnel and screaming because there were no anaesthetics or painkillers. She saw Fatima, a mother stained with the blood of her eight children. She saw streets, mosques and farmhouses bombed by marauding aircraft. "Nothing could explain them," she told me, "other than that it was a deliberate attack on civilians."
As these atrocities were carried out in our name, why are we not hearing such crucial evidence? And why is Blair allowed to make yet more self-serving speeches, and none of them from the dock?
Click on link recommended.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=901642&t=-1
Bremer and his masters of war in Washington may not be aware of it, "but it was the Americans themselves who created the Iraqi resistance".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EI24Ak03.html
ACLU Chief Assails Patriot Spin By Kim Zetter
02:00 AM Sep. 23, 2003 PT
Coming on the heels of Attorney General John Ashcroft's summer tour to promote the Patriot Act, President Bush is pushing to expand government powers with Patriot Act II. But experts say the government's assertions about what the first Patriot covers constitute outright deception of the public.
Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaking Friday at a conference on information technology and homeland security at the University of California at Berkeley, said the government has "repeatedly made false statements about the Patriot Act, presumably to deceive listeners into thinking the act gives the government less unilateral power than it actually does."
Last week Ashcroft told the National Restaurant Association, "No one believes in our First Amendment civil liberties more than this administration."
But Romero says the government's actions over the past two years show otherwise.
"This is an administration which has unilaterally assumed the power to arrest and detain an American citizen on American soil, not charge this person with a crime, and insist in federal court papers that that American citizen on American soil does not have the right to confer with his counsel. So when ... the attorney general (has) the audacity to say 'I believe in civil liberties' ... and you see the actions of that Justice Department, you realize from whence our healthy skepticism comes," Romero said.
Romero's remarks refer specifically to the case of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen who is also known as Abdullah Al-Mujahir, who was arrested last year in Chicago after returning from a trip to Pakistan. Padilla was designated an enemy combatant, held in a military jail and refused the right to consult with an attorney until a judge ruled that the government was out of line in preventing Padilla from speaking with his counselor.
In his talk on Friday, Romero systematically detailed false statements the Justice Department has made in public and on its website about the powers the act grants the government.
Focusing on Section 215 of the Patriot Act (PDF), Romero said the law allows the FBI to collect a suspect's library records as well as information about a suspect's Web-surfing habits; medical history; business, financial and employment records; and even genetic information. In addition, the law allows the government to impose a gag order on parties who are forced to give up those records, such as librarians, to prevent them from disclosing when the government has requested information.
To staunch criticism, the Justice Department has repeatedly said the section applies only to foreign nationals, not to U.S. citizens. But Romero said in truth the law does not specify that it applies only to foreign nationals and therefore could apply to anyone.
Last week, the Justice Department admitted that it had not used the Patriot Act to obtain library records of patrons in the last two years. Romero said this is proof the law is unnecessary and should be repealed.
"How is stockpiling law enforcement powers good for a democracy? If you haven't had to use these powers to fight the war on terror in the last two years, then perhaps we ought to talk about taking some of them back," Romero said.
The government has also insisted that parts of the Patriot Act that deal with sneak-and-peek searches are simply extensions of pre-existing laws. But Romero said this isn't true.
"The sneak-and-peek searches ... allow them to come into your home, search your personal effects, download information from your computer and not tell you until after the fact. The law states that notice must be provided within 'a reasonable time frame,' but it provides no guidance as to what is reasonable," Romero said.
In another instance, the government cited the need for the Patriot Act to grant it important powers it didn't have previously. Romero said the government stated that, "Prior to the Patriot Act the FBI could get a wiretap to investigate the Mafia, but not to investigate terrorists."
But Romero said that government always had the authority to get a wiretap on suspected terrorists through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. He also said the government has misused the Patriot Act to prosecute standard criminal cases.
"Most Americans believe that the Patriot Act, which was pushed through in record time in 45 days after 9/11, was focused on fighting terrorism. And yet when you read the provisions of the act, you find that they go much further than just fighting terrorism, that (they apply) to ordinary, run-of-the-mill investigations," Romero said.
He said federal prosecutors in California, for instance, used the Patriot Act to file weapons-of-mass-destruction charges against a man who was wounded when a pipe bomb exploded in his lap. And the Patriot Act was used to go after a group of telemarketers who absconded with some $4.5 million from elderly U.S. citizens who believed they had won a lottery.
Romero said the ACLU acknowledges the government's need to fight terrorism and protect citizens, but he said security measures should not be misused or come at the expense of First Amendment rights.
"The tacit assumption I fight the most is this idea that one has to give up civil liberties ... in the name of national security. The task for all of us here has got to be to find a way to secure both goals, not to set up a Faustian bargain where you're asked to give up one in the name of the other," Romero said.
Romero said he is gravely concerned about the lack of truthful information about the Patriot Act, and the likelihood that the public and Congress are being misled about how the government plans to use the laws.
Complicating the matter is the fact that the Justice Department refuses to speak with anyone about the laws. During his recent national tour to promote the Patriot Act, Ashcroft refused to take questions from reporters. And Romero said the Justice Department has repeatedly refused access to the ACLU and other critics.
"We've petitioned (Ashcroft) several times just to have a basic meeting to talk about how (they) are or are not using the Patriot Act. We can't even get an appointment.
"It's the first attorney general in the modern history of the government with which we have not had access to the country's highest-ranking law enforcement official. Under every other president, including President Reagan and the first President Bush, we had better access," Romero said.
There is, however, one bright note in recent events. Last week, as a result of a lawsuit the ACLU filed nearly three months ago seeking information about how the government has been applying the Patriot Act, Ashcroft finally agreed to declassify certain information.
Laura Murphy, Director of the ACLU's Washington national office, welcomed this first step in a press announcement released last week, but questioned why the government is now willing to reveal information it previously withheld in the name of national security. "If before, as the attorney general has said, disclosing this and similar information would harm the war on terror, what makes it OK today? How political is this move?"
Romero said he is tired of the government's back-and-forth movement that involves classifying information one week, only to declassify it the next week. He called on the government to come out from behind its veil of secrecy to make its processes more transparent to the public.
"What's most necessary at this time is making sure that the public have the facts they need to engage this debate," Romero said.
Story location: http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,60541,00.html
Now and again a gem:
By: ipswichidiot
23 Sep 2003, 06:39 PM EDT
Msg. 421365 of 421418
(This msg. is a reply to 421273 by greengold.)
Jump to msg. #
Greenie,
During my tour in Germany, I was Group S-1(an O-4 slot), responsible for personnel matters for three bns and HQ. I hada direct line on my desk to Engr OPO at Ft. Belvoir. Regularly, I would get a call from a COL who would identify EMs and young officers who were NOT to appear on any levy for Vietnam. Verbal order, no paper follow-up. The Group CO and XO knew I received these calls, and indicated that failure to comply would not only have a bad effect on my military career, it would also land my "young azz" on the next possible levy.
Does that answer your question??
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GOV&read=421365
Patriot Act Finds Trouble in Texas
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t / Perspective
Monday 22 September 2003
I have listened to the defenses of the Patriot Act offered tonight. The essence of the defenses, the essence of the rebuttals to our reservations and complaints, is "Trust us. We're the government. We're the constitutional scholars. Trust us."
I've heard that before.
There are tons of mass destruction weapons in Iraq. Trust us. There are al Qaeda terrorists all over Iraq. Trust us. September 11 happened because of enemies who hate our freedoms. Trust us.
With all due respect, I say hell no. The one thing this government's behavior has not created is trust.
Ladies and gentlemen, I have come here today to appeal to your patriotism. We are all patriots here, every one of us. Let no one deny that or doubt that.
What are our duties as patriots? Is one a patriot if they fly the flag, to stand for the national anthem? Yes…and no. One may do these things and be filled with love of country, but if that is all you do, then you have not done enough. In this time, and in this place, and with all that is happening in this country and around the world, the duties of a patriot go far, far, far beyond flying the flag.
The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
That is how our freedom began 227 years ago. We said 'No.' Now, we must talk, and listen, and ask questions, and understand. If we do not like where we find ourselves, we must once again say 'No' with roaring voice, and without fear.
So let us, as patriots, speak tonight about the Patriot Act. The full name is the USA Patriot Anti-Terror Act, passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. Interestingly, and disturbingly, the document was written long before those attacks ever took place. If you believe the advertising, the Patriot Act serves us all by defending us against terrorist attacks, by casting a fine net to snare those who mean to do us harm. The Act itself is a huge sheaf of paper, written in that dense legalese so common to legislation. Attorney General John Ashcroft has been on a tour of American cities in the last month touting the Act before police organizations. He believes it is a vital and necessary weapon against terrorism.
I am not going to stand up here today and try to claim that the events of September 11 do not require a response from the American legal system. That would be patently absurd. One of the cruelest ironies of that day is that the terrorists used our greatest American strength against us. They used our freedom of movement against us. They came here, rented cars, got hotels, got on airplanes, and dealt us a mighty blow. Because we are free to go where we wish and stay where we wish, we were open to their trauma.
But I must now ask you my first question of the night, one I will repeat as we go on. What price security? How much can we give up before we become a country that is not America?
At bottom, at the end of the day, and when all the shouting and chest-beating is over, America is an idea. You can take all of our roads, our cities, our crops, our people, our armies - you can take all that away, and the idea that is America will still be there as pure and great as anything conceived by the human mind. What is that idea? The idea is simple and stupendous simultaneously.
The idea that is America says you can go where you want, say what you want, think what you want, spend what and where you want, pray to whomever you want, or not pray at all, and the government cannot restrict your doing this unless you are demonstrably causing harm to a fellow citizen. Simple…and amazing. The document says we are gifted the unalienable right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The substance of those rights are the freedoms I have listed, and all the others I have not named. That is the idea that is America. We are unique in all the world to have such concepts be an essential part of our founding.
If you murder the idea that is America, you have murdered America itself. You can keep all of our roads, our cities, our crops, our people, our armies - you can keep all that, but if you murder the fundamental idea that is America, you have murdered America itself in a way that ten thousand September 11ths could never do. No terrorist can end this country. No terrorist can destroy the ideals we hold dear. Only we can do that, we who are most comforted by that blanket of freedom, and I fear that we have begun to do so with the passage of this thing they call the Patriot Act.
There are hundreds and hundreds of sections to the Patriot Act. My personal favorite is Section 213. Legal scholars have dubbed this the "Sneak and Peek" provision. Section 213 of the Patriot Act gives authority to agents of the Federal government to enter your home, search your belongings, tap your phone, tap your computer so every keystroke and website and email is recorded. They can do this without getting a warrant, and without ever letting you know they were there.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But this is all supposed to be about going after terrorists, right? Why should terrorists have access to the protections of the Fourth Amendment? They key here is the definition of 'terrorist,' and the Patriot Act leaves that definition very, very vague.
Section 802 of the Act creates the federal crime of "domestic terrorism." Among other things, this section states that acts committed within the United States "dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws" can be considered acts of domestic terrorism if they "appear to be intended" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion," or "to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." This provision applies to United States citizens, as well as aliens.
Ever been to a protest? A lot of protests are acts intended to attack or throw light upon a particular government policy. According to the nebulous definition of 'domestic terrorism' as espoused by Section 802 of the Patriot Act, such acts of dissent now fall under the definition of terrorism.
Nancy Chang of the Center for Constitutional Rights writes: "Vigorous protest activities, by their very nature, could be construed as acts that 'appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.' Further, clashes between demonstrators and police officers and acts of civil disobedience - even those that do not result in injuries and are entirely non-violent - could be construed as 'dangerous to human life' and in 'violation of the criminal laws.' Environmental activists, anti-globalization activists, and anti-abortion activists who use direct action to further their political agendas are particularly vulnerable to prosecution as 'domestic terrorists.'"
There is more. Section 411 of the Patriot Act purportedly defines foreign terrorist organizations. However, as the ACLU points out, this provision "permits designation of foreign and domestic groups," since the provision defines these groups as "any political, social or other similar group who publicly endorse acts of terrorism" - which, of course, under the Section 802, could mean lawful protest.
I'll give you one quick example. On December 6, 2001, Attorney General Ashcroft stood before Congress to testify about the Patriot Act. In his opening statements, he said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists -- for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve."
Therefore, according to Mr. Ashcroft, if you criticize the Patriot Act you are, under section 411, publicly endorsing terrorist activity by "frightening people with phantoms of lost liberty." If you criticize the Patriot Act publicly, you are also potentially in violation of section 802.
Opportunities for abuse of these broad new powers are immense, and that is the rub. Of course there must be a legal response to the crimes committed against us on September 11. But the Patriot Act goes much, much too far. The Patriot Act asks us to completely surrender that mistrust of government that caused us to make this country in the first place, that mistrust of government that is essential to our standing as free citizens. The Patriot Act asks us to believe that no government official would ever, ever, ever abuse these sweeping powers in the pursuit of a political agenda. Why worry? That's never happened before…
The Patriot Act asks us to throw over the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution, period.
The Patriot Act allows the government to detain, indefinitely and without access to an attorney or a trial by jury, anyone they deem to be a terrorist.
That definition is left to the sole discretion of the federal government, and to John Ashcroft. That definition, as we have already seen, can be applied to citizen and non-citizen alike. It can apply to you, and to me. As we sit here, there are well over 1,000 people sitting in prisons without access to an attorney or a jury trial. There is no time limit on their detention. Some of them may very well be terrorists that mean to do us harm. Many others, however, are people who fit a preconceived notion of what a threatening person may be.
In an Associated Press article from last Sunday, said Dan Dodson, a spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, said, "Within six months of passing the Patriot Act, the Justice Department was conducting seminars on how to stretch the new wiretapping provisions to extend them beyond terror cases. They say they want the Patriot Act to fight terrorism, then, within six months, they are teaching their people how to use it on ordinary citizens."
Clearly, the powers of the Patriot Act are already being abused.
September 11 happened. There must be a response. I submit to you today that the Patriot Act is the wrong response, a dangerous response, a response that wrecks far too much of what makes this country excellent and unique. I submit to you that John Ashcroft, who accused anyone who disagrees with the Patriot Act of aiding terrorists from the well of our Congress, is the wrong man to hand such sweeping powers over to. I submit that we have surrendered to the terrorists with this Act. We have done what they tried to do. We have done what they could never do. We have helped to murder the idea that is America. We have given those attackers the victory they sought on September 11. They never need to come back again. Thanks to the Patriot Act, their work is done.
Thomas Paine once said, "If there is to be trouble, let it be in my day, so my child may be safe." We did not want this trouble, but we've got it. I ask you, here and now, to make trouble for those who would trouble us with this terrible law.
I ask you, here and now, to stand for a better way than this, a way that defends this nation while standing in the required reverence and awe of the ideals that make this country what it is. I am asking you, as patriots, to stand against this Patriot Act.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/092203A.shtml