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.
Greenspan Trashes Treasuries - and Helps Gold
Chris Temple
The National Investor
Jul 22, 2003
Recent rebounds both in U.S. stocks and the exchange value of the U.S. dollar have served to take a little luster off the price of gold since it topped out at over $370 per ounce in late May. Some have seen this second swoon of 2003 after a strong run (the first after a spike to the $390 level in early February) as more "proof" that gold still has relatively few fans. To a point, that's true; as I commented in a recent article, much of the metal's gyrations this year has been due to hedge fund and other short-term trading, rather than to more serious, longer-term money coming on board.
Still, though, I see gold's recent success in holding above the $340 per ounce level as very positive. Keep in mind that much of the dollar's recent bounce came AFTER gold had already undergone most of its own very orderly consolidation. The fact that gold held its own therefore shows that at least some investors are looking past the day-to-day moves in the dollar and focusing on the longer-term environment; one that both Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the federal government itself have made even more bullish in recent days.
Even though other markets initially reacted with a somewhat confusing array of emotions following last week's semi-annual testimony by Greenspan to House and Senate committees, it appears as though gold traders have the best handle on things (though the reinvigorated bond market vigilantes may dispute that.) In short, Greenspan made it abundantly clear that he intends to keep the monetary spigot opened wide for as long as it takes to bring solid growth back to the economy. The resulting continuation of negative real interest rates for as far as the eye can see augurs well for gold, as does any sign that the Fed's policies will gain at least a little traction. (Keep in mind that the gold INDUSTRY is better served if the economy does NOT completely collapse, but rather regains at least some health.)
Just as important - but little discussed relative to gold - is that Greenspan has at least temporarily removed one of the impediments to investors in larger numbers looking to gold as a "safe haven" asset. Previously, investors have been happy to shift money out of the stock market and into Treasury bonds and notes whenever they felt uneasy about the world, stocks, the economy or life in general. Helping make such a trade a one-way bet for a while were Greenspan and some of his compatriots at the Fed. First, they told us that they were indeed worried about the possibility of inflation going too low, even leading to a broad price deflation. Such words favor bonds, at least in the near term. Adding more fuel to many traders' desire to invest based on the Fed's machinations have been comments of the Fed at some point taking "unconventional" policy measures to lower long-term interest rates by itself purchasing Treasuries. This added to the mad rush over the last few months to ride the bond market bandwagon; a momentum play that many (including Yours Truly) thought was beginning to resemble the tech stock bubble of 1999-2000.
Over the last few weeks, though, the air has started to come out of Treasuries; and in just the last week, they have been positively hammered. It started when the Federal Open Market Committee failed to cut short-term interest rates by 50 basis points, and settled for 25. That was compounded by an accompanying statement that simply confused everyone. Making it worse last week was Greenspan himself, as he ostensibly sought to clarify what was on the Fed's mind. Among other things, he surprised investors by offering a decidedly more upbeat assessment of the economy's prospects going forward; so much so that he added before the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday that the Fed presently was of the opinion that buying long-dated Treasuries might not be necessary after all. Seeing the resulting carnage in the bond pits, Greenspan backtracked on Wednesday, protesting that he "never took anything off the table" and fretting that bond traders apparently misunderstood him. But the damage was done.
As I wrote to my subscribers last week, I believe that Greenspan took a calculated risk. For most of the last four months or so, he's been able to have both the stock market AND bond market advance (the latter, as already indicated, courtesy of his own schmoozing of bond traders) with long-term interest rates hitting their lowest levels in two generations. Knowing this couldn't last forever, he decided he must support one or the other; and having successfully talked down the yield on the current bellwether 10-year Treasury note to 3.1%, his remarks were thus geared toward keeping the buyers coming into stocks.
With all this added to by the government's announcement of even uglier numbers for the expected federal deficit this year and next, bond traders have rebelled. Yet again today Treasuries were trashed, even as the Dow shed a bit over 90 points (a performance that would have been considerably worse were it not for a great day for 3M.). The ferocity with which Treasuries are being sold off has been blamed on hedge funds unwinding "overbought" positions, accentuating the decline in prices and spike in yields. True enough. Some Wall Street shills are also saying that the now 110 basis point (1.1%) rise in the 10-year note's yield means that investors think the economy really will recover. This is more wishful thinking than reality.
I submit to you that perhaps the biggest reason for the sell-off is that bond traders are angry - and somewhat frightened. Worse than watching the government's rapidly deteriorating financial situation further weaken the fundamentals for bonds, traders feel they have been led down the proverbial garden path by Greenspan. Many simply feel used by the Fed chairman. After all, is he that confused himself as to so change his message to the markets in just a few weeks' time; a turnabout that has many trusting bond investors bleeding profusely right now? Is he even closer to the end of his rope than I thought, apparently reduced to an increasingly frantic exercise of tailoring his comments to whatever will help one market today, even at the expense of another?
For now, it's bond traders - the group, in the end, that Greenspan can least afford to piss off - who ended up with the short straw. They don't like it. Whatever else happens, and as the headline of a story by Rich Miller in this week's (7/28) issue of Business Week states, "The Fed Can't Afford a Bond Market Without Faith." That faith has been shaken. Maybe even deliberately betrayed for convenience's sake. One of these days, Greenspan might again need to "talk down" the bond market, and avoid (for a little longer, anyhow) those unconventional measures that in the end will do even more long-term harm than good. What if bond traders reply, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me?"
Having successfully held above $340 per ounce in its recent consolidation, gold moved back North of $350 in today's action. It will be interesting to see how much more mileage comes from this rally attempt. One thing is clear, though: while it is still too early to write the final epitaph for the U.S. government bond market, I am now convinced (I wasn't quite before) that we have seen the lowest yields of this cycle. If the big spenders and would-be world conquerors in Washington hadn't already insured that, Greenspan clinched it. Sure, he can come out tomorrow (especially if it's another day like today for Treasuries) and say that he's changed his mind yet again, and that the Fed is calling Chicago and saying "buy." But how much will it matter after all the foregoing?
Until now I have counseled against getting overly wrapped up in gold, suggesting that we all happily settle for a grinding, "two steps forward, one step back" kind of bull market, rather than work up in ourselves unrealistic hopes and fantasies for a "moon shot." In spite of all the above, that's STILL my position; and I STILL expect 2003 will close with a new trading range for gold having been carved out between $350 and $380 per ounce. Any surprise, though, appears more likely than ever to be on the up side, thanks to Greenspan. If this level is exceeded, it will be because his recent little come-on has so harmed the reliability of Treasury securities - and by extension, the U.S. dollar - that gold will be a more visible and desired safe haven in the next stock market decline, and/or as the foreign entanglements of the U.S. become ever more numerous and troublesome.
-Chris Temple
http://www.nationalinvestor.com
Jul 21, 2003
IRS developing mailing lists for private companies? This is apparently forbidden, but happening!
To view the entire article, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33715
Thursday, July 24, 2003
IRS compromises taxpayer privacy
By John Berlau
Posted: July 24, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Editor's note: WorldNetDaily is pleased to have a content-sharing agreement with Insight magazine, the bold Washington publication not afraid to ruffle establishment feathers. Subscribe to Insight at WorldNetDaily's online store and save 71 percent off the cover price.
Duane Horton knew there was something strange about the tax-preparation software he received in the mail from H&R Block. On its face the pitch looked like one of the normal solicitations from software companies.
"Here's your FREE Kiplinger TaxCut Software from H&R Block," exclaimed the lines just above Horton's address. But it wasn't the package itself that raised his suspicions so much as the address to which it had been sent.
Horton did not receive the mailing at his home in Portsmouth, R.I. Instead, in 2000 he pulled it out of his postal box in the nearby city of Middletown, where he receives important mail. Then he noticed the package also was addressed to his wife, Josephine, who never received business mail at the box. There was only one exception to this rule: Horton and his wife both received their tax documents there from the Rhode Island Department of Revenue and the federal Internal Revenue Service, or IRS.
The more he thought about it, the more Horton, a civilian mechanical engineer for a U.S. Navy laboratory and a self-described libertarian who takes privacy very seriously, became convinced that someone at the IRS was behind this mailing of the product from a private company.
"The mailing label looked exactly like the mailing labels on the income-tax returns that are sent to that P.O. box," Horton recalls to Insight. "It was addressed the same way and in the same format. What I suspected was that someone in the IRS had provided H&R Block with our name and address and violated some statute in doing so. ... I knew that the IRS wasn't supposed to give out name and address information to any nongovernment entity, and I figured that the only way H&R Block could have gotten it was by some illegal means."
After many telephone calls to H&R Block's corporate headquarters in Kansas City, Mo., and the IRS, and after the filing of several Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Horton finally got some of the truth. He was right on one important count: His name indeed was culled from the list of names and addresses on IRS taxpayer returns. He was not alone; the mailing was sent to half-a-million taxpayers.
But the IRS and the Treasury Department maintain the action was legal since it did not directly give out taxpayer information to H&R Block; the names were given to a third-party mailer.
But because H&R Block worked with the IRS to select the characteristics of the taxpayers to whom this would be mailed, the company might have been provided with information from tax returns that Americans trust to be confidential.
The mailing was made for the 2000 filing season, under the presidency of Bill Clinton and his IRS commissioner, Charles Rossotti, a computer specialist who left last November. But word about the mailing just now is gaining currency among IRS watchers and was the subject of a recent lead story in Tax Notes, a prestigious trade journal.
Privacy advocates and at least two former IRS commissioners worry that the action may set a bad precedent. Critics say President George W. Bush's new IRS commissioner, Mark Everson, must make it clear that he will not tolerate any such compromise of taxpayer privacy.
After the arrangement came to light, the IRS and H&R Block justified it as a way of generating more electronic filing of returns and of saving the agency money on processing returns.
Since the late 1990s, the IRS has worked extensively with tax-preparation software vendors to encourage electronic filing. This is in part a response to a goal set by Congress to encourage the IRS to have 80 percent of all taxpayers file their returns electronically by 2007 to achieve cost savings. Currently, the number is around 36 percent. As a result, the IRS promotes some commercial software from H&R Block and other vendors such as Microsoft on its website and in other venues.
But this special deal with H&R Block Inc., which started as a tax-preparation firm but now has branched into tax software and financial services, is causing particular concern because the IRS worked closely with one politically connected company to profile taxpayers to whom a specific commercial product could be marketed. Horton obtained a "memorandum of agreement" signed by IRS and H&R Block officials that outlined five characteristics picked out by the company and the agency in selecting taxpayers to whom to market. The taxpayers (1) had an individual adjusted gross income of $30,000 or a joint adjusted gross income of $40,000 or more on their last returns, (2) had filed paper returns the year before, (3) had not used tax-preparation software the year before, (4) had refunds the previous year and (5) had no paid preparer's signature on the last returns they had filed.
Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the newsletter Privacy Journal, wrote that the memo implies the IRS would consider "similar arrangements with other businesses."
The terminology alone in the documents is enough to raise concern from privacy advocates. The list of taxpayers' names and addresses – information that by law is supposed to be strictly confidential – is referred to twice as the "marketing database" of the IRS. One part of the memo reads, for instance: "The IRS will select from its marketing database 225,000 taxpayers meeting the following criteria."
But there are explicit prohibitions against using information from taxpayer returns as a marketing database, points out Smith, an attorney who for more than 30 years has campaigned for taxpayer-privacy protection. The actions of the IRS, he contends, violate both the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids federal agencies from selling or giving mailing lists to private companies, and section 6103 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976, which bars the IRS from disclosing taxpayer information to private third parties.
"It was involuntarily subjecting taxpayers to commercial marketing," Smith tells Insight. "Paying taxes is an involuntary activity and people ought to be able to do that with a unilateral relationship with the government and not expect that it could conceivably open them up to commercial marketing."
The IRS says it is not now engaged in similar ventures, but maintains it did nothing inappropriate.
"There was never any improper disclosure of taxpayer information," IRS spokesman Anthony Burke insists to Insight. "H&R Block sent us the packages, and we mailed them out." He says "there was no cost to the taxpayer" because H&R Block covered the cost of the mailing. While Burke says H&R Block never saw the names of the taxpayers to whom the software was sent, according to Tax Notes and H&R Block, the IRS did use a private direct-mail company to distribute the packages.
Jeff Trinca, who served as chief of staff of the congressionally created National Commission to Restructure the IRS, says the law does allow the IRS to use private contractors for its mailings, and that the contractors in turn are covered by the privacy provisions of the tax code.
But questions remain about the secrecy in which this project was cloaked, and whether H&R Block would have obtained sensitive taxpayer information when a taxpayer responded to the mailing by using the software or calling the toll-free number that was listed. Smith says that because H&R Block helped set the criteria for the taxpayers to be selected, the company would know detailed information about their incomes and filing habits if taxpayers used the software or dialed the toll-free number.
"If they dealt with H&R Block in any way in response, information about them would become known to H&R Block," Smith says. "They would presumably know that they filed a paper return for 1998, that they had a refund, that they prepared their own return, that they used no software previously and that they had a joint gross income of $40,000 or more. ... This is confidential tax information."
H&R Block initially did not respond to queries about whether it tracked taxpayers who responded to the mailing. It sent a statement to Tax Notes in May saying, "H&R Block does not publicly disclose the results of product or service tests."
Horton, Smith and others suspected the nationally respected company had monitored the responders because of statements in the IRS memo calling for reports with a "measurement of the success of the participant's efforts including the total number of returns prepared and electronically filed" using the software in the mailing. Horton also notes that the mailing contains a source code to give when calling the toll-free number.
After repeated calls from Insight, H&R Block finally responded that it had no way of discerning which of its customers had received the software from the specific IRS mailing. "We had no tracking codes on the TaxCut product that we supplied," says Denise Sposato, a public-relations manager at the company's corporate headquarters. "It was the same software that was sold at retail. If a taxpayer had been, in fact, in this group from the IRS, we would have no way of knowing."
As for the IRS memo, she says maybe the IRS tracked the names it selected to see if they electronically filed.
But Amy Hamilton, author of the Tax Notes story, says sources have confirmed to her that H&R Block placed a tracking device in the software that was mailed, at least attempting to trace customers who responded to the IRS mailing.
"They had a flagger on all of these things," Hamilton says. "When somebody used it, [the intention was that] it would flag it for H&R Block."
The IRS has not yet answered Hamilton's FOIA request to detail how responses to the mailing were tracked.
Upon hearing H&R Block's denial of tracking recipients, Horton says he is suspicious because the role of the IRS was kept hidden in the mailing. He points to statements in the IRS memo discouraging any dissemination of this joint venture to the media.
"Why would H&R Block and the IRS conceal the fact that it was a joint mailing?" he asks.
Burke declined comment on why the IRS concealed its role. Sposato of H&R Block says candidly that the IRS "probably figured it would be much more user-friendly as an industry mailing than as something from the IRS. I think we all as taxpayers kind of quake a little bit when we see 'IRS.'" Which, say critics, is exactly the point.
Sposato says H&R Block decided to participate in the project because "we looked at it as a client-acquisition opportunity."
As to whether the IRS was showing favoritism to H&R Block, Sposato responds that the IRS also offered this deal to other companies, but "no one else chose to participate."
In response to Horton's complaint, the mailing was investigated by the inspector general for tax administration of the IRS parent, the Treasury Department. In a report sent to Horton in which lines were blacked out, or redacted, the inspector general concluded there had been no improper release of taxpayer information.
But two former IRS commissioners disagree, telling Insight that while this arrangement may not have been illegal, it certainly smells.
"Is it legal or within the fair corners of [section] 6103? I'm not prepared to say yes or no," says Donald Alexander, IRS commissioner from 1973 to 1977, who has received praise for resisting the Nixon administration's attempts to politicize the agency. "I am prepared to say I don't think it's a very good idea. ... H&R Block does a very fine job, but it's a private organization for profit, and the IRS has to be very careful in dealing with private organizations for profit where part of the arrangement is taxpayer information that is protected by 6103."
Sheldon Cohen, who was commissioner of the IRS in the administration of Lyndon Johnson, agrees. "It was a bad judgment on somebody's part," Cohen says. "If they were charged with encouraging electronic filing, they could have mailed to everybody in a given area, saying 'Here are five outfits that will prepare your return for free or for nominal costs.' But to do this for one [company] is a problematic thing because it looks like you endorse the one [company], whether you mean to or not."
And the mailing contained not just information about electronic filing, but some of H&R Block's other new products as well, including its Electronic Refund Advance, one of the controversial new refund-anticipation loans.
"Get a refund ad-vance as soon as tomorrow," the H&R Block mailing sent by the IRS says, while mentioning that "a fee is charged for this service." That fee actually can be a triple-digit annualized interest rate, says Jean Ann Fox, director of consumer protection at the liberal Consumer Federation of America, who criticizes these loans as taking advantage of the poor. Of the IRS mailing, she says, "It's certainly inappropriate for the IRS to market things for private companies, especially when they're selling [allegedly] usurious loans for people." Fox tells Insight, "Government agencies need to abide by fair information practices just like private businesses should."
Veronique de Rugy, fiscal-policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, has no opposition to refund-anticipation loans but agrees that the IRS and government agencies shouldn't give out this type of information to help private companies market them. In fact, she says government agencies should be more constrained in giving out financial information than businesses, since taxpayers and citizens often have no choice about whether they provide information to the government.
"We are forced to give this information to the IRS in the first place," de Rugy tells Insight. "It's not like we've consented in the real sense of the term to give the information to the IRS - we have to. In our relationship with the private sector there's a true sense of consent, which we never have in our relationship with the government."
Subscribe to Insight
John Berlau is a writer for Insight magazine.
© 2003
Computer voting is open to easy fraud, experts say
Posted on Thursday, July 24 @ 10:20:39 EDT
By John Schwartz, New York Times
The software that runs many high-tech voting machines contains serious flaws that would allow voters to cast extra votes and permit poll workers to alter ballots without being detected, computer security researchers said yesterday.
"We found some stunning, stunning flaws," said Aviel D. Rubin, technical director of the Information Security Institute at Johns Hopkins University, who led a team that examined the software from Diebold Election Systems, which has about 33,000 voting machines operating in the United States.
The systems, in which voters are given computer-chip-bearing smart cards to operate the machines, could be tricked by anyone with $100 worth of computer equipment, said Adam Stubblefield, a co-author of the paper.
"With what we found, practically anyone in the country — from a teenager on up — could produce these smart cards that could allow someone to vote as many times as they like," Mr. Stubblefield said.
The software was initially obtained by critics of electronic voting, who discovered it on a Diebold Internet site in January. This is the first review of the software by recognized computer security experts.
A spokesman for Diebold, Joe Richardson, said the company could not comment in detail until it had seen the full report. He said that the software on the site was "about a year old" and that "if there were problems with it, the code could have been rectified or changed" since then. The company, he said, puts its software through rigorous testing.
"We're constantly improving it so the technology we have 10 years from now will be better than what we have today," Mr. Richardson said. "We're always open to anything that can improve our systems."
Another co-author of the paper, Tadayoshi Kohno, said it was unlikely that the company had plugged all of the holes they discovered.
"There is no easy fix," Mr. Kohno said.
The move to electronic voting — which intensified after the troubled Florida presidential balloting in 2000 — has been a source of controversy among security researchers. They argue that the companies should open their software to public review to be sure it operates properly.
Mr. Richardson of Diebold said the company's voting-machine source code, the basis of its computer program, had been certified by an independent testing group. Outsiders might want more access, he said, but "we don't feel it's necessary to turn it over to everyone who asks to see it, because it is proprietary."
Diebold is one of the most successful companies in this field. Georgia and Maryland are among its clients, as are many counties around the country. The Maryland contract, announced this month, is worth $56 million.
Diebold, based in North Canton, Ohio, is best known as a maker of automated teller machines. The company acquired Global Election Systems last year and renamed it Diebold Election Systems. Last year the election unit contributed more than $110 million in sales to the company's $2 billion in revenue.
As an industry leader, Diebold has been the focus of much of the controversy over high-tech voting. Some people, in comments widely circulated on the Internet, contend that the company's software has been designed to allow voter fraud. Mr. Rubin called such assertions "ludicrous" and said the software's flaws showed the hallmarks of poor design, not subterfuge.
The list of flaws in the Diebold software is long, according to the paper, which is online at avirubin .com/vote.pdf. Among other things, the researchers said, ballots could be altered by anyone with access to a machine, so that a voter might think he is casting a ballot for one candidate while the vote is recorded for an opponent.
The kind of scrutiny that the researchers applied to the Diebold software would turn up flaws in all but the most rigorously produced software, Mr. Stubblefield said. But the standards must be as high as the stakes, he said.
"This isn't the code for a vending machine," he said. "This is the code that protects our democracy."
Still, things that seem troubling in coding may not be as big a problem in the real world, Mr. Richardson said. For example, counties restrict access to the voting machines before and after elections, he said. While the researchers "are all experts at writing code, they may not have a full understanding of how elections are run," he said.
But Douglas W. Jones, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa, said he was shocked to discover flaws cited in Mr. Rubin's paper that he had mentioned to the system's developers about five years ago as a state elections official.
"To find that such flaws have not been corrected in half a decade is awful," Professor Jones said.
Peter G. Neumann, an expert in computer security at SRI International, said the Diebold code was "just the tip of the iceberg" of problems with electronic voting systems.
"This is an iceberg that needs to be hacked at a good bit," Mr. Neumann said, "so this is a step forward."
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/
24/technology/24VOTE.html
'Flaws' found in computer voting system
Hopkins study details how touch-screen devices could be manipulated; Md. among states to adopt machines
The Associated Press
Originally published July 24, 2003, 2:31 PM EDT
An electronic voting system used in some states and recently adopted by others, including Maryland, is so flawed that it could be easily manipulated, computer security researchers concluded in a Hopkins study released today.
The study found "significant security flaws" with the system designed by Diebold Election Systems. The system was vulnerable to unscrupulous voters as well as "insiders such as poll workers, software developers and even janitors," who could cast multiple votes without a trace, the study reported.
The system allows ballots to be cast on a 15-inch touch-screen monitor.
"I don't think it can be done right now this way," said Avi Rubin of Johns Hopkins University, a lead researcher on the study, which was the first review of the software by independent computer security researchers.
Diebold reached an agreement this month with Maryland to provide up to $55.6 million in voting technology, expanding the use of touch screens from four counties to the rest of the state.
Rubin said he planned to urge state officials not to use the system.
"You guys just bought something that doesn't work," Rubin said he planned to tell Maryland election officials. "Go get a refund."
Mike Jacobsen, a spokesman for the North Canton, Ohio-based company, declined to comment in detail about the study until company officials had more time to review it. But he said the company's systems "pass rigorous certification tests at the federal and state governmental levels."
"However, we welcome the opportunity to work with credible organizations, including Johns Hopkins, to continue to improve and strengthen the security of our systems," Jacobsen said.
Jacobsen also said the software analyzed in the study was about a year old, and problems with it may have been fixed.
But Rubin said a secure electronic system would require a different methodology and there was no quick fix for the current software.
"You would have to start over," he said.
Rebecca Mercuri, an independent consultant who specializes in studying electronic vote tabulation, said the report raises questions about the security of electronic voting systems. But widespread manipulation of the system described in the study was "highly unlikely," she said.
"There would have to be a massive violation, systematically, of a huge amount of protocols, for this to take place," Mercuri said.
Rubin said a glaring weakness in the system is a lack of a verifiable audit trail that could be used to double-check voting results.
"I think they need to have paper trails, and I don't think these kinds of machines should be used for voting," he said.
The study also concluded the system was vulnerable to a group or foreign government wanting to influence an election.
The findings were based on a July study of the computer code used in the voting system. The code was posted anonymously on the Internet earlier this year.
The results are significant, Rubin said, as cities and states consider computer screen voting as an alternative to punch-card ballots that governments decided to replace after problems during the 2000 presidential election.
Last year, about 33,000 Diebold voting stations were used in elections in Maryland, Georgia, California and Kansas and other locations, according to the company.
For the study, three researchers from the Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute and a computer scientist at Rice University analyzed tens of thousands of lines of programming code.
The researchers were critical of a "smart card" used in the system. An ATM-like card given to each voter is designed to make sure that voter casts only one ballot. But the researchers said a voter could easily bring a specially programmed counterfeit card to the polls and use it to cast multiple votes.
Bogus cards could be made by a 15-year-old computer enthusiast and sold for various amounts of money depending on the number of votes it would enable a person to cast, researchers said.
The system also was susceptible to poll workers who wanted to alter ballots, the study concluded.
On the Net:
Johns Hopkins Information Security Institute: http://www.jhuisi.jhu.edu
http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-votingflaws0724,0,3912884.story?coll=bal-nationworld-hea...
Diebold Voting Systems Grossly Insecure
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/07/24/153258.shtml?tid=103&tid=126&tid=128&tid=99
MEDIA AND GUNS: NY TIMES SHODDY JOURNALISM AND FRAUD
By: Ted Lang
Look at any state in the union with a concentration of high population urban centers, and those serviced by left-liberal big Democrat Party-leaning newspaper monopolies, and you’ll find the vast majority of the masses in these urban centers completely brainwashed favoring liberalism. In New York City, and therefore the State, the New York Times rules the roost, not only as regards control of news and information with respect to its domination over competing print media, but also as the key influential gatekeeper and content controller for the three major national TV news networks as well.
The Times, as well as the network news shows, namely those of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, as well as even lesser media news outlets such as cable stations and PBS, all follow the same script when it comes to selecting, emphasizing, suppressing and opining on what is important and what isn’t. In effect, all news in America is dependent upon a small, secretive, elitist cabal of New York Times editors and editorial managers who dictate what is to be said and what isn’t. And this small cabal of news and events-reporting editors and managers at the Times leans heavily left-liberal and adores the Democratic Party.
The basic premise of a left-liberal political philosophy is simple: big government can be engineered to be compassionate, egalitarian and protective of all the needs of the ruled masses. Government limited by the law of the land, and representation of the masses in that government by elected representatives, precludes a rule by the majority, since the latter form of political organization is in reality a mobocracy impervious to individual uniqueness. Liberalism faces down individual uniqueness with a "one-size-fits-all" style of government.
Liberalism, as is also the case with socialism, especially with respect to the latter’s worst form of collectivism, namely communism, suppresses and crushes individualism; a limited government constitutional republic such as ours was designed to be, glorifies and protects each and every individual’s basic human rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
The Founders examined history before designing the government of this nation and found that all governments, no matter to what extent were the good intentions that initiated them, serve and protect themselves, grow themselves, and do so by continually and incrementally encroaching upon the basic human rights and freedoms of its individual citizens. Hence, the anti-Federalists demanded that the Bill of Rights become part of the Constitution to ensure that those individual rights never be supplanted by government selfishness.
The real challenge, therefore, to ensure our continuing individual freedom, is not in terms of a "separation of church and state," a concept designed by a left-liberal Supreme Court Marxist in his efforts to denigrate the power of the individual, but instead for a separation of government and the press. Supporting big government at the expense of individual liberties is now a press and media that supports the left-liberalness of the Democratic Party. And that left-liberalness is a threat to individual freedom. Senator Edward M. Kennedy espouses "facing down the individual" and has actually both stated this as well as posted it once on his website. That statement goes against the very foundations of this nation!
Senator Kennedy’s left-liberalism, combined with the shooting deaths of his two brothers, makes him an avid three-tier gun controller: rich and powerful, publicly famous as a gun violence victim, and a motivator and identifier with the media-brainwashed masses. The Founders established the Second Amendment to protect the basic right of American citizens to acquire and keep firearms, all firearms, not just the ones government and its media doesn’t like. The media supports liberalism and the Democratic Party, and both prefer maximum government power over each and every individual; ergo, they both support disarming all Americans.
The New York Times is the leading advocate for gun control in America. In his book, The Gospel According to The New York Times [© 2000 - Broadman & Holman Publishers, Nashville], William Proctor, a former journalist and reporter for the New York Daily News offers in the book’s preface, "it has become increasingly apparent to me that the Times is pursuing a highly potent, largely clandestine, and unnoticed strategy to promote a particular worldview - not only in editorials, op-ed columns, or other opinion pieces, but also in news stories. In many instances, news stories, pictures, reviews, op-ed pieces and editorials actually seem orchestrated to promote deeply held values that are an integral part of the Times corporate culture."
It should be noted that Proctor’s book was published three years before former editor, Howell Raines, was confronted by reporters complaining of compromised journalism due to the "Times’ corporate culture," and the now famous Jayson Blair fiasco. And it was New York Times "reporter" and fiction writer Jayson Blair who was sent to cover the DC Sniper shootings. Proctor exposes what he calls "the seven deadly sins" the Times has ordained itself in combating, among them, the Second Amendment.
Proctor offers: "[E]ven though it seems that the Times would have no objections if somehow every gun in America could be registered or even confiscated, it’s equally clear to those who run the paper that this is not going to happen overnight. Consequently, the Times seems content to pursue a relatively low key strategy of moving public opinion toward an anti-gun position." Proctor summarizes his chapter documenting numerous examples of biased journalistic tricks by saying, "In the Times worldview, one of the deadliest sins is to interpret the Second Amendment in such a way that the individual citizen retains any significant right to bear arms. Only the federal government can be trusted with this responsibility. Moreover, through the process of Culture Creep, you can expect this message to seep into your consciousness through other news sources - whether you happen to be a Times reader or not."
In his book, The Bias Against Guns - Why Almost Everything You’ve Heard About Gun Control is Wrong [Regnery Publishing, Inc., Washington, DC], Dr. John Lott cites the numerous letters written to the New York Times to clear up seriously flawed statistics used in the "Red Lady’s" gun control agenda. In chapter two of his book, entitled "The Media on Guns," Lott points out: "Recently the New York Times ran an unusually long twenty-thousand-word series of articles on so-called ‘rampage killings,’ which the newspaper defined as any type of nonpolitical murder of two or more people in a public place. The series reported the results of the research conducted by the Times itself."
Lott goes on: "The series is interesting if only because the Times is viewed as the objective ‘publication of record’ for so much of the media. Among the Times’ conclusions? Its research ‘confirmed the public perception that [rampage killings] appear to be increasing’ and that another ‘crucial factor in rampage killings, access to guns, can be affected through legislation and regulation.’ The tighter gun control laws mentioned included everything from ‘background checks at gun shows’ to ‘trigger locks.’ The national editor at the Times proudly noted that ‘most experts have praised [the series] as an aggressive and objective look at a complex, emotion-laden problem.’"
Lott then explains that the numbers were too pat, too direct, and too conveniently even. What about statistics prior to 1995? Lott, a world-renowned statistician and gun affairs analyst began raising some basic statistical questions. In short, he found the statistical sampling of the Times to be horrifically flawed, and the "experts" that promoted and praised the Times’ findings, were very biased against the Second Amendment. And as to "confirming public perception," who generated this "public perception" in the first place using the journalistic techniques of Raines and Blair?
Even after Lott contacted the Times reporter and the editorial staff to point out their mistakes, they simply ignored this world-renowned expert and stuck to their error-laden "research." Know what you call error-laden research that is not retracted after it’s been proven faulty? If not officially retracted or qualified to the public as having been challenged, it then becomes fraud! And you know what you call fraud delivered in mass to the public in order to create a politically biased position? It’s called propaganda! And that represents the dangerous connection of a biased media that favors government over the freedoms of the individual, best held in check by not allowing government to infringe on any and all gun rights granted to the people individually in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/lang072403.shtml
The Doubting Generation
Richard Russell
Dow Theory Letters
Jul 24, 2003
Extracted from the July 23, 2003 issue of Richard's Remarks
-- So the big battle on the part of almost every nation is -- "How do we keep our currencies weak against the dollar and against every other currency? The answer, and I've been predicting this for quite some time is -- COMPETITIVE CURRENCY DEVALUATIONS. "Begger thy neighbor" is the new trend in currencies.
This presents an ideal background for real money -- gold. And for gold's "little sister" -- silver. The precious metals are in a most interesting position. Think about it -- here's the Fed, printing $150 billion of BS paper in six weeks. That's enough junk paper to buy the entire gold industry and have roughly $50 billion left over. What that means to me is that gold shares are "dirt cheap," and so is their product -- the yellow metal, gold.
There's also an amazing irony in the money-gold situation. Because of a two-decade bear market which followed the bursting of the precious metal bubble in 1980, a new "doubting generation" of Americans has grown up. It's a generation which has watched gold and silver go nowhere for almost two decades. On top of that, the new generation has swallowed the great lie promulgated by the central banks -- the lie that paper currency is wealth -- and real money, gold, is just a relic of the past.
Now we see an extraordinary process. We see the central banks of the world creating tens of billions in their own fiat paper as they move to buy dollars while selling their own currencies. As a result of the creation of all this new currency, these nations have built up huge productive capacities, and thus too many goods and too much merchandise is being thrust upon the world, and particularly upon the US. The result of this mass of new production is a rise in deflationary forces -- and an end of pricing power as we know it.
But the forces of deflation are a death-threat to the debt-logged US economy. The Fed knows this, and it has an answer. The Fed's answer -- inflate, inflate, drop interest rates again and again and inflate some more. Again, the ideal background for real money -- gold.
In investing, occasionally, great value-opportunities present themselves. In 1942 the Dow sold as low as 92, at a time when it looked as though the Allies could lose the war to Nazi Germany. I saw another such great opportunity in 1949 when the Dow sold as low as 161, during a time when everyone thought we were on the edge of a second Great Depression. In 1974 the Dow sunk to 577, presenting a third historic buy opportunity for investors and readers of Dow Theory Letters.
And I wonder here in 2003, whether gold (and possibly silver and even platinum) aren't presenting us with another great buying opportunity in an item that is totally out of favor with investors?
But this time the item in question is even more fundamental than are stocks. This time the out-of-favor item is far more emotionally charged than stocks. Veteran readers of these reports remember the late 1970's when I would write repeatedly that "There's no fever like gold fever."
I believe we'll live to hear that same phrase again -- but probably not until gold has moved into its third psychological phase. The third phase of a bull market is the phase that sees the public rush into the market as they finally buy with total abandon.
By my reckoning, we are still in the first psychological phase of the gold bull market. This is the phase where informed investors quietly accumulate the desired item. These investors are in no hurry, and they are not interested in "bulling" their acquisitions. These early investors want time to accumulate, and they want as little public recognition and competition as possible.
In the second phase of a bull market, the item rises as smart fund managers and professionals begin to see the picture, and they too join in the buying. In the second phase the best-informed members of the public may also join in the bull market, and here the item begins to accelerate to the upside.
...Well, enough about gold.
More follows for subscribers . . .
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/russell/russell072403.html
Fakin' It
The Washington Post
August 13, 1989, Sunday, Final Edition
SECTION: WASHINGTON POST MAGAZINE; PAGE W9; CRITIC AT LARGE
HEADLINE: Fakin' It
BYLINE: Richard Cohen
AS MUCH OF THE WORLD KNOWS by now, the movie "When Harry Met Sally . . ." contains a scene in which a woman shows a man how she fakes an orgasm. She does so at a place called Katz's Delicatessen, which, until now, was best known for its pastrami. In the scene, Meg Ryan oohs and aahs, whines and tootles, clanks and whizzes, yodels and screeches until -- am I remembering this right? -- her eyeballs disappear in a fog of sexual bliss that, unlike the pastrami at Katz's, is not the genuine article.
Women love this scene. This is the screenwriter, Nora Ephron, letting men in on one of the shared secrets of womandom: They sometimes fake it! Implied in the scene is one -- maybe the only -- shared impulse of all women, stronger even than the nurturing instinct: the urge to ridicule men. As for men, reports from audiences everywhere indicate some confusion. At first, there is consternation, and then grudging laughter, as men realize that the scene is supposed to be funny. It's hard to laugh, though, when the joke's on you.
Of course, many men have known for some time that women occasionally fake orgasms. They thought, however, that other men were being fooled, not them. In the movie, though, Meg Ryan makes it plain that "other men" is all men. And it is this realization that makes the scene so funny and so discomforting to men. Women are not laughing just at what's on the screen: They're laughing at all men.
So it is in the interest of equal time, otherwise known as revenge, that I would like to say that men fake it too. No, not orgasms, because that would be too difficult, and, anyway, we are too sincere to do something like that. I am talking of something more important: listening. We pretend to listen. Mostly, we pretend to listen to women, to open our eyes wide in totally insincere interest, nod our heads occasionally and say, at appropriate intervals, "Right, honey."
To fake an orgasm is one thing, a bit of talent wedded to artifice that the average woman is called upon to practice on the rare occasions she is called upon to practice it. Listening is a different matter. A man is called upon to fake this several times a day, dozens of times a week, hundreds of times a month. He pretends to listen in the morning, when he is barely awake and is thinking of the workday ahead. He pretends to listen when he is still, really, asleep -- and this is no easy thing to do. He acknowledges remarks, remembers a fragment from a previous conversation, censors things he's heard from other women and pretends to be engaged in a conversation. Actually, he's hardly in the room.
To do this sort of thing day in and day out is, truly, heroic. But most men not only do it, they do it so well women are oblivious to the act being put on for their benefit. Worst of all, as the women's movement has made inroads, as its one-time-radical tenets have become accepted, this task of pretending to be something you're not has gotten harder and harder. From the dawn of creation until 1973, men had to pretend to listen on only a few occasions. Now they have to pretend all the time. Otherwise, they can be accused of not being sensitive.
As a result of the women's movement, out of this awesome fear of not being thought sensitive, many men now spend most of their time faking it. And the faking is not limited to listening. They pretend to see women colleagues as persons. (There is not a man alive who knows what a person is. A person is either a man or a woman, and the difference is discernible to the naked eye.) They pretend not to notice other women. They pretend to be interested in parenting, in housework, in, of all things, relationships (even their own).
Older men, those who came of age before 1973, make no such demands upon themselves. You see them all the time. They will come into a restaurant with their wife, order a drink and then say nothing for the rest of the meal. Sometimes the woman will say something. The man will make a one- or two-word reply and then look down. That's it. He will say nothing more until the check comes and he has to leave a tip. "How much should I leave?" are about the only words he utters throughout the entire meal.
The new, sensitive, contemporary man does not do this. All during the meal, he pretends to listen. He fakes conversation. He can seem animated. He uses body language and, sometimes, grunts and groans. But it is a fake. A pretense. An artifice. His mind is elsewhere, on things he would prefer not to discuss and, indeed, could not discuss. So successful is this pretense that not for a moment could he tell you what is in his own mind, since most of it has nothing to do with business but with emotions. Emotions are not to be discussed.
To live a life of utter, heroic pretense is not something every man can do. Just most of them. To pretend to be part of a couple when, deep down and atavistically, you see yourself as a loner -- an Indian brave, a fisherman, a hunter -- is a pose that all men strike, and strike well. To fool literally billions of women billions of times a day -- and to do it while at the same time making money and war -- is a tour de force to which faking an orgasm is a mere nothing. It cannot be compared.
So that is what's so funny about the delicatessen scene. There is Sally showing Harry how women fake an orgasm. All the women in the audience are screaming their heads off, and Harry, to his credit, makes his eyes bulge and has a look of absolute shock on his face. It's very funny. But the laugh's on you ladies.
He wasn't even listening.
The Washington Post
August 18, 1989, Friday, Final Edition
SECTION: METRO; PAGE C3;
HEADLINE: The Great Pretender
BYLINE: JUDY MANN
By late Wednesday afternoon, enough of my female colleagues had voiced objections to a recent column that appeared in this newspaper that I went back into the library, made a copy of it and read it. The bad news is that Morton Downey Jr. appears to have resurrected himself as a columnist for The Washington Post.
I speak, for others who missed it, of a column that appeared in the Sunday magazine by Richard Cohen titled "Fakin' It."
What set him off was a scene in the movie "When Harry Met Sally . . . " in which a woman demonstrates to a man -- with considerable histrionics -- how she fakes an orgasm.
"Women are not laughing just at what's on the screen," writes Cohen. "They're laughing at all men."
Hell hath no fury like a male ridiculed.
In the finest spirit of getting even, Cohen reveals to the world that men fake it too. "We pretend to listen. Mostly we pretend to listen to women, to open our eyes wide in totally insincere interest, nod our heads occasionally and say at appropriate intervals, 'Right, honey.' "
As a result of the women's movement, he writes, men now have to pretend to listen all the time, lest they be "accused of not being sensitive."
The faking by men, he writes, "is not limited to listening. They pretend to see women colleagues as persons . . . . They pretend not to notice other women. They pretend to be interested in parenting, in housework, in, of all things, relationships (even their own)."
As for the movie scene, Cohen concludes: "Harry, to his credit, makes his eyes bulge and has a look of absolute shock on his face. It's very funny. But the laugh's on you ladies.
"He wasn't even listening."
So there.
Insulting to women? You bet. When you tell half of your audience that they aren't worth listening to, that's about as nasty a put-down as there is.
What's the point? Well, August is a slow month for columnists. Step out on a limb and say something outrageous and you're sure to generate some hate mail, get a little personal publicity, make a little rep for yourself.
Folks in the media business might pretend to be above such crass self-aggrandizement and commercialism, but don't let them fool you.
Across the Potomac, USA Today founder Al Neuharth got himself back into the headlines by insulting flight attendants and wishing for a return to the days of post-adolescent "sky girls."
William Randolph Hearst started the Spanish-American War to sell newspapers. We come from a somewhat tainted tradition.
Columnists are supposed to be opinionated, thought- provoking and sometimes outrageous. Unfortunately, they are also supposed to be -- dare I say it? -- a little sensitive.
Thus, it would be poor form for a columnist to write an anti-Semitic diatribe, to indulge in an anti-Catholic screed, or to mount a full-scale attack against Hispanics or blacks.
Newspaper editors are loath to censor columns, and good editors encourage columnists to be as free-wheeling in their writing and thinking as they can be. But there are limits -- and no editor in his right mind is going to want his newspaper labeled anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Hispanic or racist.
They don't have the same reservations, however, about printing stuff that is patently sexist and as offensive to women as a polemic against blacks.
Would we have published a white columnist making light of whites not listening to blacks? Would USA Today have printed a column wishing for a return to the days when servile black bellmen eased the travel of white train passengers?
Hardly.
The media have failed to develop the same level of sensitivity -- or plain good sense -- when it comes to writing about women. Or not, in another case, writing about women.
An obituary that recently ran in this newspaper described Nobel laureate William B. Shockley as the "son of a consulting mining engineer and grandson of a whaling captain." No mention of his mother or grandmother. Was his a reverse immaculate conception?
Newspapers aren't alone. "Rhymes with Rich" was the headline on a recent Newsweek cover story on Leona Helmsley -- who hasn't been convicted of anything.
From 1982 to 1987, the number of women who read a newspaper four days out of five declined by 26 percent, according to the Newspaper Advertising Bureau.
This decline is sometimes explained by the theory that women have less time. Men have more? Hardly. They are busier than ever (pretending to be busy with parenting, housework and relationships).
Women would read newspapers if they were vital to them and served their needs. Women have money now and they need information.
What has happened is that their need for newspapers has declined, and insulting them is not the way to bring them back.
Is anybody listening?
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 10:03:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Ryan Mouncey <ricosuave-drexel rocketmail.com> Subject: When Harry Met Sally To: abrams drexel.edu
I came across this article, and I thought that it might be interesting for the class:
The Washington Post
September 10, 1989, Sunday, Final Edition
HEADLINE: WHO'S FAKING IT?
IT SOUNDS LIKE RICHARD COHEN [CRITic at Large, August 13] is experiencing a little more than "consternation" in regard to the scene in "When Harry Met Sally . . . " when Meg Ryan demonstrates a woman faking orgasm. It sounds like he is afraid, no, panicked about his own virility and sexual prowess. The smug, insulting tone of his lame rebuttal suggests a man who has had his worst fear, his worst-case scenario, blasted up on a movie screen for all to see and cackle at.
He embarrasses himself by exposing how disturbing the scene is to him -- as though he'd reviewed every sexual encounter he'd ever had and replayed all the breathy moments trying to uncover any possible histrionics substituting for true passion.
Based on the offensive attitude he displays toward women and his even more repulsive tactic of exacting revenge by writing about "not listening," it's no wonder he's worried. You only get what you contribute, and if his whole relationship with women is based on perfunctory nods and well-placed "yes, honeys," then it's easy to imagine a woman with him having to simulate some form of pleasure.
LISA BOYLAN
Washington
TO ASSUME WOMEN WAKE IN THE morning only to prattle on about the weather, the kid's new tooth or the stock market is an insult to most women's time, effort and intelligence. I doubt if I would bother "faking" an orgasm for Richard Cohen. How could he tell? He wouldn't even be listening.
DONNA M. KENT
Indian Head
RICHARD COHEN HAS APPARENTLY been eyewitness to numerous fake orgasms, or he wouldn't be so bitter about Sally's re-creation of a fake one in Katz's Deli. He claims he doesn't listen to women, but evidently his ears are still ringing from the truth in Meg's moaning.
KELLEY KRAFT
Washington
LET ME EXPLAIN THE FACTS OF LIFE TO you, Mr. Cohen. Women fake orgasms because men do not have the patience or the unselfishness to learn how to please them. We know because we've asked already. We're trying valiantly to overcome generations of conditioning that it is "unladylike" to express our sexual needs.
We've also learned of the fragility of the male ego. The only alternative left to many women is to give up and fake it. When men grow up (and there are a few who have), women can be honest with them. No, Mr. Cohen, the laugh's still on you.
NANCY GENTRY
Crofton
RICHARD COHEN SHOULD KNOW THAT "fakin' it" is most definitely not a "shared impulse of all women." Truly liberated women have no need to stoop to pretense to bolster the allegedly oh-so-fragile male ego. That's because we choose equally liberated partners who understand that orgasm is more a result of open communication and shared desires than of complex technique and physiology. When men listen, women don't have to fake it.
BONNIE NELLE DUNCAN
Rockville
IT WOULD SEEM THAT MR. COHEN IS A bit defensive about women who fake orgasms. Since human nature is such that we often fake something to impress or please another, my guess is that women who fake orgasms are trying to reach out to men who aren't listening to them in the first place.
Foolers fooled, Mr. Cohen.
PATRICIA DANVER
Reston
IN SEEKING "REVENGE" ON WOMEN FOR faking orgasms, good ol' male chauvinist and resident misogynist Richard Cohen has unwittingly succeeded only in insulting men.
RICHARD P. O'DONNELL
Bethesda
RICHARD COHEN'S COLUMN WAS DEgrading not only to women but men also. I can only guess that his bitterness stems from the fact that he can't even become romantically involved enough with a woman to consider orgasmic possibilities.
JAN ALBRECHT
Damascus
POOR RICHARD. ANOTHER FAILURE. IN the 20 years of our acquaintance, he has never, not even for a moment, fooled me into thinking he had the remotest interest in anything I had to say. But he's more of an egalitarian than he lets on. He's probably bored by a lot of his male colleagues as well.
GERRY REBACH
Washington
THAT MEN DON'T LISTEN IS NO GREAT mystery. Women have been aware of that sorry fact for centuries.
Perhaps if men would spend less time fantasizing about being Indian braves, hunters, fishermen and other assorted he-man types and come back into the real world where, luckily for them, we women are here to stay, they would have the opportunity to develop listening skills.
LINDA RUCKER
Dumfries
WELL, WELL. WILL THE TRUE RICHARD Cohen please stand up? Is this the man who so understood the plight of women and so sympathized with their frustrations? The one who seemed so intelligent and remarkable in his insights? So unprejudiced? So liberal? No, I'm afraid not. He must have been fakin' it.
JENNIFER WILSON
Fairfax
DID MR. COHEN SAY SOMETHING ABOUT "fakin' it"? I wasn't even listening.
KRISTI KORELL
Arlington
THANK YOU FOR INCLUDING RICHARD Cohen's column in your magazine each week. It fits perfectly at the bottom of my bird cage.
CAROL DODD
Alexandria
OOOH, AAAH, OOOH, RICHARD!
Sorry to report that your column wasn't as good for me as it was for you!
LEILA JOCELYN COMPE
Bailey, N.C.
http://httpsrv.irt.drexel.edu/faculty/ina22/cliplib/clip-faking_it.htm
SUSAN TOMPOR: State-themed coins losing popularity; program rolls on
July 23, 2003
BY SUSAN TOMPOR
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
The economic slowdown has hit clothing, car sales, trips to the mall and nights on the town. So why wouldn't the superstar of U.S. coins be effected: the once wildly popular state quarter?
Yep, we're not flipping out over collectible change like we used to.
In 2000, the U.S. Mint made more than a billion of each of the five state quarters issued that year. And the latest 2003 issue, the Maine quarter? A mere 449 million werestruck.
It's another sign of the slowdown in commerce -- and the fact that some folks are no longer hoarding Delaware quarters and other state treasures like they did in the good old days.
All this could put a crimp on the Michigan quarter, which will roll out in January. The design is expected to be finalized by September.
How many Michigan coins will clink into cash registers and pockets next year will depend on how well the economy is chugging along.
2003 coins released
The Illinois quarter, featuring a young Abraham Lincoln and the Chicago skyline, was the first quarter of the 2003 lineup. The U.S. Mint struck 463 million. Production fell to 457 million coins for Alabama quarters. They highlight state native Helen Keller and are the first circulating U.S. coin to feature braille.
Maine's quarter shows a schooner at sea and the Pemaquid Point Light.
The 2003 quarters are chump change next to the state quarters' billion-plus heyday. Nearly 1.6 billion Virginia quarters were minted in 2000.
Why the slowdown?
"The primary driver of coin demand is the economy," said Michael White, a spokesman for the U.S. Mint in Washington, D.C.
When the economy runs slower, he says, the production of quarters lowers. Two quarters set to be released this year -- Missouri and Arkansas -- will likely be in the 450- to 500-million minting range.
What about Michigan's? If the economy picks up steam, White said, the total production could be above or around 500 million. Or it could be lower.
Quarter craze dies down
We also need fewer coins because the money mania is over.
Remember when people tried to triple their money by collecting anything? Beanie Babies. Dot-com stocks. And, yes, state quarters.
Once we had talk of the great quarter shortage. Some said it was virtually impossible to find a Delaware quarter in circulation -- the first in the state quarter program. The U.S. Mint issued nearly 775 million Delaware quarters in 1999.
Think about it; 775 million of something? And these things were rare? Talk about nutty times.
You'd hear stories of some folks paying $60 for a roll of Delaware quarters, said Pat Heller, owner of Liberty Coin Service in Lansing. A roll based on face value alone is worth but 10 bucks. If you're cheap and patient, you could collect all 50 state quarters through 2008 for a mere $12.50.
The Internet buzz a few years ago said that in 10 years, one uncirculated state quarter could be worth $100.
Check your change now. Spot any Delaware quarters?
Michele Orzano bets that you do. Over the last few weeks, Orzano, who writes about state quarters for CoinWorld, the bible of coin collecting, has seen a lot more Delaware quarters than in the past.
"My guess is people have been saying, 'What am I going to do with these?' " she says.
During the peak of the quarter frenzy, Orzano remembers many people buying new state quarters by the bag full. Now, during far less ebullient economic times, all those coins can cover a few trips to vending machines or the corner store.
A new state quarter is worth, well, 25 cents. If you can't wait for someone to hand you a Maine quarter in your change, you could pay 25 cents to 50 cents for a new one at a coin store.
And an uncirculated 1999 Delaware quarter? You can get one at a coin store for $1.25.
"We're at that side where the demand has fallen off, where people realize they're not going to double their money in two months," Heller said.
Contact SUSAN TOMPOR at 313-222-8876 or tompor@freepress.com.
http://www.freep.com/money/business/tompor23_20030723.htm
The Know-Nothing Congress
What the Senate doesn't want to learn about Iraq.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Wednesday, July 23, 2003, at 3:32 PM PT
Last week, as brows furrowed and evasions spread about uranium cake, aluminum tubes, and the 16 words in the State of the Union address—all issues that feed into the larger, and more politically damaging, question of why we went to war in Iraq—the U.S. Senate held a three-day debate over the military budget, during which the Republican majority bluntly quashed seven separate attempts to require, or even simply seek, answers to these increasingly intriguing puzzles.
The attempts came in the form of amendments to the Fiscal Year 2004 Defense Appropriations Bill. All were offered by Democrats, though one was co-sponsored by a Republican. Two of the amendments went beyond the realm of oversight to advocate shifts in policy, but the other five did little more than aim to discover some facts about American foreign and military policy that more and more people would like to know—in short, to exercise traditional legislative responsibilities.
For instance, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota proposed that the president submit a budget request to Congress, within two weeks of the defense bill's passage, covering the costs of U.S. military operations in Iraq. This seemed a logical thing to do, since a) the Pentagon's comptroller, Dov Zakheim, has cited figures in congressional hearings, yet b) the FY04 defense budget contains not a dime for those operations. The amendment was tabled—i.e., sent back to the appropriations committee (in other words, for all intents and purposes, killed)—by a 53-41 vote, with every Republican voting to table it.
Next up, Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico called on the Defense Department to submit a report to Congress, listing every person that the administration had labeled an "enemy combatant" as well as the plans the Pentagon has to charge them with a crime or boot them out of the country. One might argue that specific names should be withheld or kept classified (to keep them from fellow terrorists), but the main goal—to get a handle on how many people are being detained and whether they are receiving anything remotely resembling due process—is a vital one. The measure was co-sponsored by eight other senators, including one Republican, Arlen Specter. It was voted down 52-42, and so disciplined was the GOP's opposition that even Specter ended up rejecting it.
Sen. Barbara Boxer of California offered an amendment requiring the secretary of Defense to issue a report to Congress every 30 days on a) the total and monthly cost of the Iraqi operation; b) the number of U.S. personnel in Iraq; c) the monthly and total contributions by foreign governments and international organizations; d) the number of foreign military personnel taking part; e) the number of U.S. casualties in Iraq by date and cause; and f) all contracts exceeding $10 million that the U.S. government lets out for Iraq's reconstruction. These are all facts that Congress has a right to know; they are fair indications to the course of U.S. policy in the region; they would be easy for the Pentagon to compile. It was voted down 50-45.
Sen. Jon Corzine of New Jersey proposed an amendment to create a 12-person National Commission on the Development and Use of Intelligence Related to Iraq, which would look into whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, had links with al-Qaida, attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, procured aluminum tubes for the development of nuclear weapons, possessed mobile labs for the production of weapons of mass destruction, or possessed delivery systems (i.e., missiles or aircraft) for such weapons. These are indeed the questions of the hour. The amendment was tabled 51-45.
Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois took a slightly different approach. Rather than forming a commission, he proposed simply to ask the administration the same questions and to withhold $50 million from intelligence operations until the questions were answered in a report. This went down 62-34.
The revealing moment came when Sen. Robert Byrd offered an amendment that expressed the "sense of Congress" that, in the future, the administration should include, as part of its annual defense budget, specific requests of money for ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. A "sense of Congress" resolution is merely that; it has no binding power. The Senate gladly approved this one, 81-15.
But Byrd, one of the Senate's most passionate if rhetorically baroque war-critics, was daffy to offer this amendment. It gave all his hawkish foes the chance to paint themselves (in forums where the disguise might be useful) as hard-headed critics of Bush's excessive secrecy—while at the same time relieving the president of any requirement to reveal a thing.
The few press reports about the Senate debate emphasized its importance in indicating that Democrats are starting to confront and criticize Bush on the war. First, this isn't quite true. Most of the amendments simply demanded or requested information, though this of course can have subversive consequences. The one motion that tied the submission of a report to the appropriation of even a relatively piddling sum of money—Durbin's—met a resounding defeat.
Second and more important, the real story here was how firmly the GOP leaders kept their rank and file in line. Until a few Republicans can be persuaded to swing, the Democrats' assaults won't mean a thing.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085955/
But seriously folks, it's getting close...but I hope it take quite a while longer to break loose.
Time is now to accumulate...I hope and expect "them" to push it back down...but they can't keep a lid on it forever...
If I recall correctly you were one of them guys razzing me about gold when it was under $280.00...
Ed, get on it...it takes a while to build a bunker.
I lined mine with silver it's more asthetically pleasing to the eye...and it keeps the wine cool...
Did you know honey doesn't spoil?
I'm Thinking
Richard Russell
Dow Theory Letters
Jul 23, 2003
Extracted from the July 22, 2003 issue of Richard's Remarks
-- During a "normal" bear market the excesses of the preceding bull market are corrected. The usual process is that people and corporations pare down or get rid of debt. But this time, due to the frantic machinations of the Fed, corporations, individuals and even cities and states have INCREASED their debts. This has put them in the worst position possible to withstand deflation.
In a primary bear market, the bear will attack the weakest link in the economy. The weakest link in the US economy now, I believe, is debt. The nation is in no position to withstand deflation. In deflation debt looms ever more difficult to carry. And this worries me no end. And I can guarantee you that it worried Mr. Greenspan.
So these are my thoughts for my subscribers.
First, get out of as much of your debt as possible. Forget those juicy mortgage terms, own your home outright if you can.
Second, pare down your stock holdings. If we get deflation, you won't need any stocks. In fact, you'll wish to God that you didn't own any stocks.
Third, get out of all bonds except possibly short-Treasury notes, maybe maturities of three years or less.
Fourth, rather than T-notes, I'd prefer 91-day T-bills which are just a safe form of cash.
Fifth, have some gold. First gold coins, and second gold stocks. If you have only one gold stock, I'd make it Newmont.
Question -- What about owning currencies other than the dollar?
Answer -- Great idea, if I knew which one to own. Personally, instead of searching around for a "better currency," I'd rather buy the one currency that can't go bust, and that's physical gold.
The recently strong currencies of the "commodity" nations, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, are now all declining. I'm not enamored of any particular paper currency now, so I'd just as soon stay in T-bills
-- and gold.
More follows for subscribers . . .
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/russell/russell072303.html
Conclusion buy gold on dips accumulate stupid amounts of silver...pray it goes back under 4.50....okay 4.75 then...
You are all too optimistic
Gabe Harris
I've been reading the hundreds of articles spewed forth from Bill Bonner, Dr Kurt Richebächer, David Tice, Mogambo and all the folks at gold-eagle to the Austrian economist down in Alabama at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I'm becoming convinced that all these folks are hopeless optimists.
I've done pretty well in the stock market over the last 3 years gaining a few percent on my meager savings instead of losing a few percent. I also saved enough lunch money over a couple years to buy a few bars of silver and some old coins. Most importantly I have managed to find a new job a couple of times after working for a couple of swan diving corporations. I even managed to earn a couple of credentials for my resume that should help me get future jobs. We all see that the economy isn't good and it is going somewhere even worse. Just add up wildly escalating debts in the US with the decimation of the sectors of our economy that produce real stuff and a reckless thirty year experiment with the world's first reserve fiat currency and things are not going to turn out good. Many of us invest in the precious metals sectors because we don't know what else to do.
The argument can be attractive. If Greenspan and Bernanke do as they say (is that too much to ask?) and print dollar bills until the cows come home, I'd be in high cotton. My mortgage debt is set at a low fixed rate; Argentina-style inflation would reduce that debt to trivial amounts in only a few years. Gold rising and maintaining a level near that seen in the 1980's level of $800/oz would increase the value of some of my more speculative gold mining stocks by ten fold. I'd be able to sell the stocks and pay off my mortgage and my wife's education loans without in 2-3 years instead of 28 years. Even if the market value of my home drops by 90% due to higher interest rates, I'd be better off debt free that with the big mortgage. My indentured servitude would be over, I'd be able to maintain the same lifestyle with 1/3 of the salary (although hopefully I'd be able to talk myself into a higher salary). The really fun part would be seeing many of my peers struggling with the realities of high-debt and a horrible economy, while I get to where a quiet smirk. I'd be well known amongst my friends and family as "the guy who knew what he was doing". If I had enough money left over, maybe I'd finally be able to start my own hedge fund, or buy a significant amount of property in rural county and commence to start my own kingdom…. This is the wet dream of many a gold bug. However, I have suffered from immature delusions often enough in my life.
It goes against everything I have experienced in my short thirty years on this planet to believe that keeping a few thousand dollars in some gold mining stocks is going to save me from the impending economic crisis in the United States, while everyone else struggles.
For one thing, how would a big inflation really get started? Greenspan says he'll do unconventional measures "if needed", but as soon as things start looking halfway decent he turns away from such ideas. Then interest rates rocket up immediately and threaten to drive thousands of people into default on mortgages, stop corporate bond driven cap-ex and cease any other forms of monetary expansion quicker than Greenspan can say "conditions appear to be moderating in a pleasantly in a non downward sloping growth trajectory". This is not the path for my hoped for hyperinflation. One can safely assume that the political pressure to "do-something" will increase exponentially if interest increases were to start putting too much pressure on the millions of American that are mortgaged to the hilt on their homes. This is because 10 million people defaulting on their mortgages would ruin any presidency much quicker than killing a government scientist or getting a BJ from a college intern or eavesdropping on a bunch of democrats. Yes, 10 million people defaulting on their homes and getting thrown into the streets would be a dangerous as hand out pitchforks and machine guns to the crowds outside the Bastille gates. The ruling elites (these guys or the next ones) would have to try and inflate their way out of that type of predicament eventually.
But it appears that the government will do what they can to avoid the big inflation unless they have to. In reality they know that would mean the end of their power just as certainly as the angry defaulters would be the end for the rulers. A few thousand anarcho-libertarian-right-wing gold bugs would suddenly become the richest folks in the country in the case of hyperinflation. This shift of power in the country, coupled with the drastic drop in the dollar on international markets would certainly be enough to topple the current mercantilist, socialist, empire building regime.
So we have established that Greenspan will try to do to something to keep the interest rates from rising too much (and I do believe he is still capable of working them lower if he puts his mind to it). I sense that the majority of folks believe that the trough in interest rates is in, that nothing Greenspan does from here on in will be able to get them down to new lows. People fear that the rumors of European banks running away from GSE debt will start the mad dash for the exits as countries try to preserve all the capital they have locked up in dollar assets. But this doesn't quite make sense because the Chinese and Japs own way more US debt than the Europeans and they seemed more determined to support a high dollar than anybody. There entire economies are built around exporting crap to American consumers. If the dollar falls against their currencies then their ruling elites will get overthrown as well because they would have obscene levels of unemployment and idle factories (aka malinvestments). It appears that these countries will prop up the dollar indefinitely, preventing hyperinflation in the US.
Even if the dollar does depreciate wildly against Asian currencies, my wife points out that "the end" still wouldn't occur. She says the Chinese would just force their folks to work at cheaper wages, "big deal" she says, "it wouldn't be the first time, they'll just keep making stuff for us, but at less and less money, who else are they going to sell too? What else are they gonna do with their time?". I had to admit she had a point, I was so worked up about how we were going to get this great hyperinflation to make me look smart and relatively wealthy, but it just seems too optimistic.
The only real big social economic changes that have come about since I've been on the planet 1973, has been when the baby boomers do something. When I was a toddler, they were in there 20's, it was "free love and experimenting with drugs", and as soon as I get to the end of elementary school it is "safe sex, AIDS and 'just say no'". When I was born they said "screw the gold standard, let us borrow buy houses and enjoy watching our mortgage payments dwindle towards zero as uncle Nixon and Carter pay off our houses for us". When I turned 20 the boomers were celebrating the lowering of inflation and interest rates that helped their bond and stock portfolios blossom. A mere half-decade after doubling social security taxes and volunteering my generation to pay for more medical benefits for their ageing hippy assess. It hasn't been all bad, I had less competition in getting into a good college than kids nowadays (do to my lucky status of falling into the trough of the population waves.), but I digress.
Extrapolating this trend, I can easily see the baby boomer generation hanging on and squeezing as much money as they can out of my generation before dying off or possibly being kicked off the dole by my generation as the debts become to big to bear. However, again that is probably too optimistic, after all the boomers "educated" my generation and they did a good job of avoid subjects like interest, debt, hell basic 6th grade math and reading. They will probably have no problem duping the millions of idiots in generation x into living like slaves for the deadbeat boomer generation. The non-stop preaching of the virtues of self-sacrifice for "the others" and "the community", has worn a neural path as wide as Hillary Clinton's ass through the brains of most Gen-x'rs. There will probably be no rebellion against the parasites that prey on our generation and my child's generation. No, our Empire will just slowly crumble away.
But maybe I'm being too pessimistic.
Gabe Harris
gabeharris@alum.mit.edu
www.gabeharris.com
23 July 2003
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/gharris072303.html
Hey guys, made the switch to IHUB,
Come check out my board: JFSAG of course.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=181
Looking forward to more of your picks...hope you got some silver under 4.50...
Trying to get people to buy bullion is like pulling teeth.
Expect a few more folks to show up over here...will still put the occaisional post up on RB mostly MDCE since it's a board we all check...and BARMS...
But enough with their BS already how hard is it to maintain a server...?
The world's next superpower
China is growing with bewildering speed, but it is undergoing social upheavals on the way to becoming an economic superpower
By Jonathan Fenby
THE OBSERVER
Wednesday, Jul 23, 2003,Page 9
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2003/07/23/2003060590
COMEX gold rallies on steep euro gains, silver shoots up
Reuters, 07.23.03, 11:30 AM ET
NEW YORK, July 23 (Reuters) - COMEX gold shot up to a one-month high Wednesday morning, shrugging off prior-day losses when the euro scaled a 16-day peak against the dollar, gold traders said.
The euro grabbed back all of Tuesday's losses and more on Wednesday when several official comments on foreign exchange intervention implied a more hands-off reaction to the dollars' recent declines.
"The spot (gold) market was firmer this morning; a strong euro and strong fund buying. That's also the case in silver. The currencies against the dollar were strong and that's what's prompting the buying in here," said Jimmy Quinn, commodities market analyst at AG Edwards.
August futures <GCQ3> on the New York Mercantile Exchange's COMEX division were up $6.00 at $356.80 an ounce, after earlier hitting its highest level since June 23 at $357.20.
Volume amounted to 26,000 lots by 1000 EDT.
A firmer euro and yen make dollar-denominated gold a more attractive investment in key European and Asian markets.
The euro <EUR=> soared to $1.1454/62 on Wednesday, its highest level since July 7. The day's low was $1.1314
Spot gold <XAU=> rallied to $356.50/7.25, up sharply from $350.50/1.00 in late Tuesday dealings, on euro strength. London dealers fixed the morning spot reference price at $352.20 an ounce.
U.S. stocks lost ground in early dealings as investors were dismayed by tepid forecasts from industry leaders Boeing Co. (nyse: BA - news - people) and AOL Time Warner (nyse: BA - news - people).
A declining stock market implies less confidence in economic growth, which increases gold's status as a safe-haven investment.
The break of $355 for COMEX September gold points to next resistance levels around prior highs at $357.70 and $365.70. Support rests initially at Wednesday's low of $350.30 and then the $340.60/80 area, traders said.
Silver launched a major move to the upside when gold began its ascent. Once it pushed above heavy resistance at $4.90 cents, brokers said it triggered massive stop-loss buy orders that sent it all the way to $5.00 an ounce.
COMEX September silver <0#SI:> steadied at a 14.0-cent gain at $4.93 an ounce after carving out massive gains in a range that ran from $4.79 to $5.00.
COMEX silver volume was 15,000 lots by 1000 EDT.
Spot silver <XAG=> surged to $4.91/93 from $4.75/77 late Tuesday. It was fixed at $4.8325.
October platinum futures <0#PL:> gained $4.60 to $692.50 an ounce. Spot platinum <XPT=> rose to $692.50/699.50.
September palladium <0#PA:> lost $2.95 to $163.00 an ounce. Spot <XPD=> was quoted lower at $160.00/165.00 an ounce.
Copyright 2003, Reuters News Service
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2003/07/23/rtr1034327.html
Living Constitution, Dying Republic
By
W. James Antle III
The U.S. Supreme Court's recent affirmative action and sodomy decisions were attended by a great deal of debate: Does Grutter v. Bollinger point to the eventual end of racial preferences or does it entrench them? Does Lawrence v. Texas increase the likelihood of judicially mandated gay marriage? Even if you agree with striking down anti-sodomy laws (as I do), was Lawrence the constitutional way to do it? What are the permissible ways of achieving campus diversity under Grutter?
These are all important issues, but it is worth noting how much attention is paid to the political and policy concerns as opposed to the constitutional questions that the Supreme Court is called upon to resolve. Indeed, the rulings themselves seemed to be based in large part on political considerations. It is said that the Court follows the election returns, but nobody elected them to be a national super-legislature of last resort.
Whatever you think of either decision, they both read like political treatises in search of constitutional rationales rather than politically neutral applications of the written law. In Lawrence, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a majority opinion that overturned Court precedent on a divisive social issue even though they would seem to be at variance with the position on stare decisis he took in upholding legal abortion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Concurring was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who voted the opposite way when the question last came before the Court in Bowers v. Hardwick. O'Connor's majority opinion in Grutter seems to suggest that some of the affirmative action programs that are now constitutional will cease to be in 25 years.
In other words, these two justices apparently do not believe that the Constitution has any fixed meaning. Instead of explaining how they became persuaded that their own prior interpretations were mistaken, they seemed to be tailoring their rulings to the circumstances. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that they decided to vote the politically correct way first and work out a constitutional justification later. One wonders how they would have voted in a climate where elite opinion on these subjects was different.
Justices Kennedy and O'Connor, both Republicans appointed by President Reagan, are not unique in seeking to re-interpret the Constitution in this fashion. A great many highly pedigreed jurists and scholars regard this as perfectly acceptable, a way of treating the Constitution as a "living document."
During one of the 2000 presidential debates, Al Gore said that he would appoint justices "who understand that our Constitution is a living, breathing document." He suggested "it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
How ironic: Appealing to the Founding Fathers in order to rationalize a complete disregard for their intent in framing the Constitution. A written constitution that can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what those who drafted it intended is no constitution at all. The idea that the Constitution means whatever some branch of government says it means is inimical to the rule of law. Law, especially constitutional law, must bind the government as well as the governed.
Of course, the Founding Fathers did intend some flexibility and room for interpretation within the Constitution. Farsighted as they were, not even they could anticipate every issue that could be raised or every need of the new Republic. Just because technology changed to make trucks part of a postal service and an air force part of national defense does not mean that the Constitution must be changed. For greater changes allowing the federal government to assume new powers, they devised an amendment process. This is a built-in process to change the Constitution by soliciting the consent of the governed, in sharp contrast to the modern notion that it can be changed by the "reinterpretations" of nine unelected judges.
Our entire constitutional framework makes clear that it could not be any other way. The Constitution contains the enumerated powers that the American people delegated to the federal government. The only legitimate way to change those powers is to have the people consent to the changes. Contrary to Gore's assertion, the Founders would have unilateral changes to federal power by the federal judiciary, a branch of the central government, to be usurpation rather than part of the constitutional design.
Go back to before the Constitution was even written to the Declaration of Independence. This nation was founded upon the idea that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The government has no legitimate power that people did not first grant. A "living Constitution" turns this notion on its head, allowing the federal government to have powers beyond what is constitutionally enumerated, beyond what the people have consented to, according to the rulings of its own courts.
As Joe Sobran has pointed out, the "living Constitution" isn't even consistent in how it "evolves." Its "growth" almost always appears to be in the liberal direction. Rights to privacy that support liberal views of human sexuality consistently expand while explicit Second Amendment rights to bear arms contract. The First Amendment right to free speech is expanded to include topless dancing but contracted to exclude political speech subsidized by soft money contributions. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom is interpreted to prohibit local governments from "establishing religion" by allowing Christmas displays in the town square, but not to regard relatively innocuous public school commencement prayers as free exercise.
Not everything that has been done in the name of the "living Constitution" has been bad. Sometimes state and local governments have exercised constitutionally legitimate powers in the service of unwise and even unjust laws. Other times legislative leaders have been maddeningly slow to respond to social needs and changes. In those cases, it is understandable why people are willing to resort to the courts to change the status quo by tweaking the Constitution a bit, even if they will come to regret the precedent later.
But the concept is irredeemably bad. Law can be changed, but it needs to have fixed meaning in order to serve as something other than the rulers' passing fancy. To treat the Constitution as something other than an independent law in itself is to render it useless as a limitation on government power and blur the separation of powers. A living Constitution may sound good, but it will kill the rule of law upon which our Republic rests.
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/antle/20030722.htm
IS U.S. GETTING SICK OF BUSH CABAL? PERHAPS LIBERIA IS THE LAST STRAW
By: Dorothy Anne Seese
Is it going to take another Mogadishu, this time in Liberia and perhaps far worse, to finally wake up the American public to the fact that the Bush government is not only unconstitutional but incompetent? It may, hopefully it will.
Since the infamous Nine-Eleven, Americans, Afghanis and Iraqis have become occupied peoples under the leadership of the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) of the United States. Conservative (really conservative, really patriotic and really pro-American) writers have been tossing verbal grenades for a minimum of a year now at the Bush War Cabal and Oil Complex. If anyone knows whether Osama bin Laden is dead, they aren't saying it in the press. But wasn't he the reason "we" invaded Afghanistan? If so, then our mission failed because he has not been captured or killed as far as the public knows. If our leaders know, they aren't telling and if they don't know, they're just plain idiots who spent billions to capture or kill a turbaned lunatic who got away (dead or alive).
However, the way for an oil pipeline is fairly well secured to the MIC. If ExxonMobil, Unocal, BP and others wanted Afghanistan, why didn't they hire their own mercenaries to take the land rather than putting US citizens in harm's way? Our military is for the national defense of the United States, and our Congress never declared war against the nation of Afghanistan. It was deployed by the president of the United States under some wishy-washy abrogation of congressional duty and illegal delegation of its authority to the president, the very thing Congress was created to avoid.
Somewhere after bin Laden ceased to be newsworthy, all the world's ills came down on the head of Saddam Hussein and his infamous and non-existent WMD. So Congress again abdicated its duties and reason for being, leaving a president and his warhawk cabal to go in and start a war to please the MIC, particularly Halliburton, Bechtel and the oil cartels. Somewhere along the way, in some manner not published in our general media, DynCorp (the curse of Kosovo) has to be involved. If the US is involved, so is DynCorp, by whatever name and in whatever disguise. If getting Saddam was the purpose of that war, then we failed our mission because he, like bin Laden, is apparently still alive. But if our mission was to secure our oil interests, then it was apparently a success, but one under siege.
So now bin Laden and Hussein are "whereabouts unknown" while US soldiers die daily from the revenge being taken upon them as visible representatives of the United States. Nothing personal, they're just there and when hatred rages this vehemently against an aggressor nation, then any of its citizens, civil or military, are fair game for those who want to make it clear they are not welcome.
Along comes Liberia, years after the US has ignored the slaughters in Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, Sudan, Chad and South Africa of both blacks and whites, and our administration dispatches some US Marines to "guard the embassy." If my recollection is correct, we became embroiled in Vietnam by sending "technical advisors" to the leader of South Vietnam. Then some military. Then our great socialist president, the late Lyndon B. Johnson invented the Gulf of Tonkin attack and got Americans all riled up to fight a war in which our national security interests were not the least involved, but we lost 58,000 American lives. And we put up a wall to commemorate them. Nice tribute. "These lives were lost for American greed and stupidity by its leaders." No, that is not written on the wall, but it should be.
Now we're off to Liberia, tra-la, tra-la. We're going to rescue the world, tra-la, tra-la.
How much more of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Tom Ridge and this whole Bushreich will American citizens tolerate? How many more "acts" will they allow to be passed by a useless Congress that take away our constitutional freedoms? How much longer will the American public be willing to sing the praises of an apparently megalomaniac leader and his bloodthirsty inner circle before we realize we'd be better off with Darth Vader at the helm?
Never in my life did I think I'd see Americans so blind to fact and so willing to follow a totally incompetent president wherever he wants to take this nation and at whatever cost!
When the media reports that Bush has the respect of most nations in this world just translate that word into what it really means ... contempt. Every American life lost overseas now, after two and a half years of the Bush presidency, is a vicarious strike at the person of George W. Bush. If we seemed like a nation with a cheap, sleazy president under the Clinton White House (and we were), are we better off with one that has repeatedly been compared with the Germany of the Third Reich?
Clinton's administration proved that Americans in general would rationalize the murder of the Weavers at Ruby Ridge, the incineration of men, women and children at Waco, the execution of Timothy McVeigh as a token retribution for the Oklahoma City bombing that he could not possibly have done by himself, and the failure of our Senate to convict Clinton for perjury and other high crimes and misdemeanors. In Election 2000, in spite of all that the Clinton administration had done to disgrace American, Al Gore won the popular vote and the Supreme Court put George W. Bush in office.
My email delivers e-pamphlets one after another on what some Americans are doing to try to legally remove Bush and his cabal from the White House. What about the CIA? Should Tenet go also? Of course. Why is a Clinton appointee still in there anyway? And don't ever forget that George Bush the Elder was once head of the CIA. It's time that little KGB clone was disbanded and replaced with people of honor under a leader of honor.
Or has this nation come to the point where people of honor either will not run for office or are removed from the "short lists" before they can get a start? We've been voting the lesser of two evils now for decades, and what we've gotten is more evils.
There's got to be something in the air or the water to which I and some others have a natural immunity. To see our nation drop from a position of moral excellence into the world's trash bin and still go around flag-waving and believing national media should be grounds for disenfranchising the idiots who believe Bush is any different in basic character than Clinton, and possibly even more evil.
Our military is where it is to protect America's richest and most evil business interests under a thin guise of either liberating, peace-keeping or national security, none of which are true. We're where we are around the world to protect American business interests and our soldiers, sailors and marines are where they are as mercenaries rented out to the MIC for business reasons. Period.
All this would not be so distressing if it weren't for the fact that a large segment of the American public will still watch the president lie like a rug and trill like a whippoorwill in front of major media cameras, still wearing a business suit rather than a military uniform studded with crosses, ribbons and medals but they're there in his mind and conduct.
What happened to the old saying "throw the bums out?" Did it disappear with the expiration of Clinton's second term in office? We still need it and always will, it's part of the eternal vigilance that is the price of liberty. Many young Americans don't know what liberty was in this nation, and millions more have forgotten because we have more toys now with which to entertain ourselves.
Conservatives cannot even rely on their name as reflecting the position that small central government, freedom from foreign and domestic government debt, the sovereignty of each state as to its laws, etc., are the core of the old conservative philosophy. Neocon is nothing but a two-faced liberal trying to appease both sides of the voting public with something for everyone. That is populism. It is not conservativism. A neocon has no political philosophy other than the expedience and cost it takes to win, and nothing to offer when they do win.
Californians are concerned about impeaching Gray Davis? Lord knows he hasn't cost the lives and spent the money that the Bush cabal has. He may be an idiot who has thrown the state into fiscal chaos, but he hasn't cost us the lives of our men and women in foreign countries, coming home with a flag draped over what's left of their body parts.
What I want to see is the intense outrage of our citizenry that will oust this administration, pull back our military and get busy rebuilding America and its position of world leadership by example, by honor and dignity, by integrity in office and a vision for the nation that doesn't include either playing God or outlawing Him.
It isn't too much to ask because we had it once. We lost it to evil people. We should be willing to take it back.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
http://www.etherzone.com/2003/sees072203.shtml
Bernanke Says Fed Could Cut Rates Further
Wednesday July 23, 4:43 pm ET
By Glenn Somerville
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday the U.S. central bank would be prepared to cut interest rates all the way to zero if necessary to ward off a fall in inflation that could hurt recovery.
Speaking to a California university audience, Bernanke said if the Fed were to reduce overnight borrowing costs to zero, it would look at so-called nontraditional methods of trying to spur growth, such as buying long-term bonds.
He expressed confidence those methods, which could include stepped-up buying of long-term government bonds in markets, would work if the Fed needed to turn to them. But policymakers still appear focused on using their central tool of controlling short-term interest rates for now.
"Monetary ease appears to be indicated for a considerable period," Bernanke said. "Keeping the federal funds target at or near its current level may be sufficient.
"Alternatively, as Chairman (Alan) Greenspan testified last week, we could certainly cut the rate from where it is now," he told the Economics Roundtable of the University of California at San Diego.
Bernanke's comments sent the U.S. dollar tumbling in value on concern it meant cheaper credit would make the currency less attractive. Bond prices gained, apparently on the prospect they could be a sought-after purchase at some future point as well as a safer haven for investors now.
MARKETS WATCHFUL, WARY
Though he has been a Fed governor for less than a year, Bernanke's comments on inflation are closely monitored by financial market participants eager for clues on how strongly the central bank counts on relatively robust growth estimates that Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan made public last week.
In his semi-annual testimony to Congress on the economy, the Fed chief said U.S. expansion could accelerate to a range of 3.75 percent to 4.75 percent in 2004, a far cry from the feeble 1.4 percent pace posted in the first quarter this year, the last period for which figures are available.
In a separate appearance on Wednesday, Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Robert McTeer said he was optimistic the economy was on the cusp of faster growth but conceded "hard evidence" of it was hard to come by.
"While I am optimistic that things are about to pick up, I have been optimistic like that for a while now and it's more a hunch and hope, and so forth, than it is any hard evidence so far," McTeer said.
Bernanke told questioners that the Fed was determined to get growth on track and that the central bank has room to keep trimming the federal funds rate, which is charged on overnight loans between banks, from its 45-year low of 1 percent.
"We're not done yet," he said. Fed policymakers reduced the fed funds rate a quarter percentage point on June 25, citing concern about the economic risks from a further fall in inflation, and are next scheduled to meet on Aug. 12.
NOTHING DRASTIC COMING
Bernanke said he personally did not foresee "a drastic change" in the inflation rate and said he considered deflation a "remote" possibility. "Should further declines occur, a more gradual downward drift over a period of one to two years would be the more likely scenario, " he said.
Bernanke said he was well aware that reducing short-term rates more would carry some cost, including reducing interest income for savers like senior citizens and eroding profits in money markets.
But, he emphasized: "We should be willing to cut the funds rate to zero, should that prove necessary to provide the required support to the economy."
He made clear that preventing a further slowing in inflation -- or outright deflation in which widespread price declines set in -- must be a priority for Fed policymakers.
"I hope we can agree that a substantial fall in inflation at this stage has the potential to interfere with the ongoing U.S. recovery," Bernanke said.
He said that while the risk of deflation was "remote," it could do "significant economic harm" if it were set loose. Deflation, which has not been seen in the U.S. economy on a sustained basis since the 1930s, erodes asset values and could destabilize the nation's financial system.
Bernanke said there some influences were countering a trend toward soft prices, including the dollar's falling value against other currencies that raises prices for imported goods as well as the fact that most consumers still anticipate modest increases rather than decreases in prices ahead.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/030723/economy_fed_2.html
Slo: Yeah they're there. I can moderate this board so cluttter and YGMs and so on can be deleted; you can also edit your posts if you like and I can delete the duplicates...this is better than RB already.
And no fucking pop ups!
It's okay to swear on this board I don't think we'll be having any impressionable young minds reading here...
15 months later...Silver anyone?
This stock letter went out on the 18th...just 5 days ago. Today silver went up over 5 bucks thus making me right and wrong all at once...I thought it would hit it's head on 4.80 and come back down...4.80 is long gone...
If I'm remembering correctly the next resistance is all the way up over 7.00...hopefully the powers that be get a handle on this and push the price down again for the near term. They still exert a lot of control but those days are numbered.
I like silver because you can run as much as you want through it...well...almost.
And since I wrote this and since at the moment nobody reads this particular board I GET to break the rules and post this:
Do not forward, do not post, do not anything...just read it. This one is going out to less than 50 people. About 1/4 of the list. Take it or leave it. I don't care. I know some of you have made some serious money off this letter and some of you have lost your asses. The difference between those who have learned when to sell and those who are still learning when to sell...
10 25 36 has paid off handsomely. Putting stops in (hopefully above) where ever you buy should also have been nice. IBM was a very good thing. We have had far more success than failure. Thanks for the tips and support. I am thinking about moving the JFSAG board to IHUB. What say you?
Me being lazy: Josh H give me a call. You too Wruck or I'll come hang out at your restaurant and pour coffee in you dishwater...Alan C how about an Email. Are the Ewalds still living? How about a post? It was good to see Francis and wife at Hapa's too bad it didn't work out with the kids coming up to see me...maybe next year. Randy: can I still send you back those expired tickets for re-issue? Then you will see me in 90 days...it's almost a year now...time flies even if you're not having fun. The rest of you: drop me a line. All you have to do is hit reply for fucks sake. "Hey, Ben, how are you. We're fine except the dog ran away and the kids have SARS..." I think everybody has a baby or two now except me. I almost have a girl-friend again...almost. Distance. "Off island don't count." As the saying goes...anyhow that's the folksy part of the letter since it's been a while.
I missed this last rally for the most part. I did dabble in a few pennies and did quite well. (See below re: JFSAG.) I see the PPT and fed doing things I can't believe...the fed is now actively buying stocks. I see the markets manipulated on a grand scale...it's been said by others far greater than me: the markets always win given time.
Hence this letter: that time is drawing neigh.
You all laughed when I got gold at $272.00: it was luck that I got it almost at the absolute bottom but it wasn't luck that I decided to buy it on the way down. It was luck that right after I started my DD and pulled the trigger the market turned. I thought I was going to be "early" and have plenty of time to get more...now I'm telling you again to get silver.
When it's around 4.50 or lower BUY. TAKE PHYSICAL DELIVERY. DO NOT STORE IN BANKS i.e. safe deposit boxes.
STUDY:
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/oldupdates/2003/0702.htm
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/zihlmann071503.html
I think it will hit it's head on the resistance line around 4.80 or so and come down it's not ready yet IMO but better safe than sorry...right now it's around 4.66 I expect it will go up a bit more and come back again for a while longer...maybe even a few YEARS...such is the unabashed manipulation by the powers that be...but the markets always win. Here's a shocker: every fiat currency in the history of the world has failed. The US dollar is fiat. Plan accordingly. My grandma spent her whole life and the currency didn't fail; if we are lucky so will we...but she left me a little stash of silver coins just in case. Things are worse not better since she's gone on a lot of levels...regarding the nation I mean.
Even if none of the doom and gloom in the two links above comes to pass the market is ripe for a turn around...once I figured out the fed is buying stocks like they do in Japan it follows that the end game is getting closer.
Strategy is get the physical silver, sell into a "boom" buy 5 or 6 of the 7 "pure silver" plays, sell those into a rally. (Book flight for Ibiza, live happily ever after.) This will be bigger than B2B, and about as good as some dotcoms...hopefully we are very early.
"So when? " you say.
"That one's easy. When the bond markets roll over and liquidity flows to commodities, instead of stocks."
"So when is that?" you retort.
"When foreign investors stop buying yank bonds, or when joblessness pushes the spread between the wholesale cost of credit and the retail mortgage rate to the point where the liquidity provided by the GSE's wanes sufficiently to"
"So when?" Your glare intensifies.
"Well it's happening as we speak."
"So buy gold and silver now?"
"Yes, I reply but don't be surprised if it languishes for another year or so."
"But you just said"
"Well, you see, the Fed will buy mortgage backed securities to keep the liquidity flowing, and of course the foreign bond holders or unlikely to panic en masse because the Fed has clearly indicated that their chief unconventional weapon is to buy up the yield curve and have successfully induced the central bankers of the world to follow along."
By now you agree with the moniker obscene prophet. There is nothing prophetic in what I see. Only obscenity.
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/cook/cook071503.html
Do your own DD and get back to me. If for nothing else so I can say ITOLUSO again. BTW, GOLD isn't anywhere near over, and we've made a nice bit off that haven't we? It's just that IMO silver will out do gold on a percentage gain basis...why take a 3 bagger when you can get a 10 bagger? If in doubt do both. But as the one guy says wieght toward silver. I do not recommend futures just yet.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AEM+SIL+PAAS+HL+SSRI+CDE&d=t
I like CDE and will be visiting them in August..I'll be spending a week or so in North Idaho and then a week in LA and that's about all I'll be able to stand before I have to come home...while in LA I plan to drive south to visit Erik at MDCE.
Any other companies you'd like me to visit let me know. Make money during this bull now with every intention of getting into bullion.
There have been quite a few high risk winners on the JFSAG board thanks mostly to Ed, and a few from myself...the biggest one lately was HLSH which you could have been in under .25 if you had been paying attention to AIBULL.
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/viewclub.cgi?board=CLB00770
I AM NOT KIDDING GET SILVER. Any contrarian out there can see this is the time. Fortunes have been made being the contrary investor; buying what's out of favor BEFORE it goes back into favor and history tells us that gold and silver will always have that thing called "intrinsic value."
Here is a good link, read it daily: http://allamericangold.com/
Still looking at China, my apologies for not getting the China letter out ever...will be going back soon...
BHR aka THG
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.....!"-- Hosea 4:6
See also:
http://www.marketwise.com/MW_WiseG/BBF_Archive/20030716.htm
http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03/king071303.html
BHR publisher of Ben's Stock Letter is not a registered Investment Adviser or a Broker/Dealer, but he used to be. He grew weary of trying to educate people about taxes and the virtues of term insurance and now trades solely on his own account. Readers are advised this letter is free and so is the advice contained herein and therefore should be considered worthless. Readers are further advised that the report is issued solely for information purposes and is not constructed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy. If you buy or sell you did it, not BHR. The opinions and analysis included herein are based from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness. Readers are urged to consult with their own securities licensed independent financial advisors with respect to any investment. If this advisor sells life insurance other than term you are already being ripped-off and this letter is the least of your worries. All information contained in this report should be independently verified with the companies mentioned. In other words do your own DD. For Ben's entertainment ONLY.
JFSAG.
VOTE FRAUD: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
Dismiss the rest if you must but read the very top about vote fraud. Get disturbed, do something.
Is THIS my beautiful house? Is that my beautiful car? Where is my beautiful wife?
Well.........how did I get here?
Well, RB has gone too far with it's censorship it seems.
Trying to get people to move house is hard though, RB is a habit for somepeople.
Also check this out:
http://www.google.com/search?q=stock+message+boards&sa=Go
Look who comes up first...
And IHub isn't easy to find unless you know about it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=IHub&btnG=Google+Search
I thought this site was dead...
Poked around and found some good stuff...
Back on my links list...
Good work Matt...
Context for Determining Liability for Federal Income Tax
Federal income taxes imposed by Subtitles A, B & C of the Internal Revenue Code are indirect or excise taxes levied against sources or activities that in one fashion or another produce or rely on a Federal privilege or benefit. The authority for these taxes, the Sixteenth Amendment notwithstanding, is Article I § 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
A credible authority that affirms this conclusion is the Congressional Research Service publication titled Frequently Asked Questions Concerning the Federal Income Tax (Library of Congress #97-59 A, Dec. 6, 1996). The answer to the first question the CRS framed specifies that income taxes are subject to the uniformity mandate prescribed by Article I § 8.1, not to the apportionment rule that governs direct taxes:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (Article I, Section 9, Clause 4)
In the final paragraph of the first answer, the CRS makes the following statement:
All taxes which are not direct are indirect and subject to the rule of uniformity. The rule of uniformity requires that an indirect tax not discriminate geographically. For example, it would violate the rule of uniformity to enact a special income tax rate for residents of the State of Texas; however, it does not violate the rule to have a special income tax rate for individuals who make over $50,000 per year. (page 2)
In subsequent answers the CSR cites the holding in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429, rehearing 158 U.S. 601 (1893), in which the Supreme Court of the United States distinguished returns from labor and capital as property subject to the Article I § 9.4 apportionment rule where enterprise that produces profits and gains of an indirect nature are subject to the uniformity rule prescribed by Article I § 8.1. Enterprise that relies on or results in a privilege or benefit falls within the excise or indirect tax category. The privilege or benefit, not the income, is the object of income tax.
This conclusion is reinforced by the report of F. Morse Hubbard, formerly of the legislative drafting research fund of Columbia University and former legislative draftsman in the Treasury Department, the report published in the March 27, 1943 edition of the Congressional Record – House, at pages 2579 et seq.
The heading for the first part of the Hubbard report is titled, “The Income Tax is an Excise Tax, and Income is Merely the Basis for Determining its Amount”. An exert from the Hubbard report on page 2580 frames the nature of Federal income taxes:
The sixteenth amendment authorizes the taxation of income “from whatever source derived” – thus taxing in investment income – “without apportionment among the several States.” The Supreme Court has held that the sixteenth amendment did not extend the taxing power of the United States to new or excepted subjects but merely removed the necessity which might otherwise exist for an apportionment among the States of taxes laid on income whether it be received from one source or another. So the amendment made it possible to bring investment income within the scope of the general income-tax law, but did not change the character of the tax. It is still fundamentally an excise or duty with respect to the privilege of carrying on the activity or owning any property which produces income.
The income tax is, therefore, not a tax on income as such. It is an excise tax with respect to certain activities and privileges which is measured by reference to the income which they produce. The income is not the subject of the tax; it is the basis for determining the amount of tax.
In Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co. 240 U.S. 103 (1916), the U.S. Supreme Court said “[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…”
In Pen Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 32 T.C. 653 at 5659 (1959), the U.S. Tax Court made an even more definitive statement:
In dealing with the scope of the taxing power, the question has sometimes been framed in terms of whether something can be taxed as income under the Sixteenth Amendment. This is an inaccurate formulation of the question and has led to much loose thinking on the subject. The source of the taxing power is not the Sixteenth Amendment; it is Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. It is important that these provisions be clearly understood; what is required is an understanding of fundamental principles. The familiar statement that “at this time we need education in the obvious more than investigation into the obscure” (Holmes, Collective Legal Papers, pp. 292-293), although made in a different context, is peculiarly applicable here.
Where the Congressional Research Service, a former Treasury Department official, the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Tax Court agree, it is reasonable to conclude that Federal income taxes are indirect or excise taxes primarily on privileges and benefits attending or derived from any given enterprise. This conclusion provides the basis for considering income taxes imposed by Subtitles A, B & C of the Internal Revenue Code.
In this context, the normal tax imposed by Chapter 1 and other species of income tax imposed by Subtitle A & B provisions are taxable according to the source from which the item of income is derived. A nonresident alien, foreign corporation or foreign partnership is subject to a uniform flat tax of 30% on items of income derived from sources within the United States while citizens and residents of the United States, along with domestic corporations, trusts, and other juristic entities, are subject to Subtitle A & B income taxes on items of income derived from foreign sources, insular possessions of the United States, and maritime enterprise subject to treaties Government of the United States is party to.
Nonresident aliens and foreign corporations do not have the constitutionally secured right to conduct business in the United States. Whatever income-producing enterprise they undertake within the United States is a privilege. Likewise, citizens and residents of the United States are entitled to engage in income-producing enterprise in foreign jurisdictions and under auspices of commercial treaties as a benefit derived from government negotiation, representation and/or consent. A comprehensive list of taxable “sources” for citizens, residents and domestic corporations of the United States is published at 26 CFR § 1.861-8(f)(1)(vi). The “item” of income, whether a wage, interest or any of other item listed at 26 U.S.C. § 61, is subject to Subtitle A & B income taxes only as the income is received under auspices of a benefit or privilege that is not substantive in nature.
This application is confirmed by the definition of “withholding agent” at 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(16) and the fact that withholding agents are required to withhold at the source on income paid to nonresident aliens, foreign corporations and foreign partnerships (26 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1442, 1443 & 1461). They are not required to withhold at the source on citizens and residents of the United States (See particularly 26 CFR § 1.1441-5 in 1998 and earlier editions).
While all taxes in Subtitles A, B & C are categorized as income taxes, there is a distinction between those imposed by Subtitles A & B and those imposed by Subtitle C. The object of all Subtitle C taxes is wages, and for purposes of clarity, Subtitle C taxes are classified different than Subtitle A & B taxes. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the matter in Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U.S. 77 (1977):
The income tax is imposed on taxable income, 26 U.S.C. § 1. Generally, this is gross income minus allowable deductions, 26 U.S.C. § 63(a). Section 61(a) defines as gross income "all income from whatever source derived" including, under § 61(a)(1), "[c]ompensation for services." The withholding tax, in some contrast, is confined to wages, § 3402(a), and § 3401(a) defines as "wages," all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash.
Taxes imposed by Chapters 21 through 24 in Subtitle C are classified as employment taxes (26 CFR § 601.401). They, too, are subject to the uniformity rule so are therefore excise taxes, but social welfare taxes, particularly those imposed by Chapter 21, are unique in that they are not generally applicable in States of the Union. Definitions of “State”, “United States” and “citizen” at 26 CFR § 31.3121(e)-1 limit application to the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States. The Social Security tax was imposed in Alaska and Hawaii prior to admission to the Union, but not since.
In 1935 when Congress first enacted a social welfare tax, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the act as the Constitution does not authorize taxing one person for the benefit of another or otherwise implementing a national social welfare program. The following statement in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railroad Co., 295 U.S. 330, 55 S. Ct. 758 (1935) is as true today as when it was written:
The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attendance, nursing, clothing, food, housing, and education of children, and a hundred other matters might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. Can it fairly be said that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to the prescription of any or all of these things? It is not apparent that they are really and essentially related solely to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such? We think the answer is plain. These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power.
The subsequent Social Security Act of 1935 was promulgated under auspices of Congress’ plenary power within territory belonging to the United States. While legislatures in States of the Union have contracted to participate in the Social Security program, the agreements extend only to officers and employees of state governments and political subdivisions of the states, not to general populations of the several States.
The government personnel tax imposed by Chapter 24, also classified as an employment tax, is reasonably straight forward. The “employee” subject to the tax is defined as a government employee at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c), and the “employer” employs the government employee, per § 3401(d). The definitive link in the legislative evolution is the Public Salary Tax Act of 1939. Government employment entails privileges and benefits including availability of credit hypothecated on (underwritten by) credit of the United States, employment and unemployment assurances of various sorts, etc.
It is significant that the United States Tax Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Subtitle C employment taxes (26 CFR § 601.102(b)(2)(i)) and the Internal Revenue Service is charged with responsibility for maintaining various Department of the Treasury systems of records and serving as an information source, but does not have administrative enforcement authority in States of the Union. IRS has statutory authority for administration of Chapters 1, 2 & 21 taxes in insular possessions of the United States (26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(12)(B)) and Social Security tax in the Northern Mariana Islands (Treasury Order 150-18).
Where administration of the Chapter 24 government personnel tax is concerned, the Department of Treasury has been helpful in resolving confusion. One of the invaluable resources posted on the Department of the Treasury web site is the Treasury Financial Manual, produced by the Financial Management Service. Volume I, Part 3, Chapter 4000 prescribes the process by which Federal employee taxes are to be collected by the employer agency then the agency must transfer withholdings to IRS:
Section 4010 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
This chapter prescribes procedures for (1) withholding and depositing Federal income, social security, and medicare taxes on wages paid to civilian and military employees; (2) for filing tax returns with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and (3) for filing income tax statements with the Social Security Administration (SSA).
For information beyond the scope of this chapter, refer to IRS Publication 15, Circular E, Employer's Tax Guide, or an IRS office. Circular E describes employer tax responsibilities; explains withholding, depositing, and reporting requirements; and paying taxes. It explains the forms your employees must use and those you must send to the IRS and SSA.
Withheld Federal taxes will be transferred to the IRS using the FEDTAX application of the Government-On-line Accounting Link System (GOALS). Any Federal agency that has not been established on FEDTAX should contact GOALS Marketing, Financial Management Service (FMS), on FTS 874-8788 or 202-874-8788.
Withholding of qualified State, county and local taxes, in accordance with 31 CFR § 215, is then prescribed in Volume I, Part 3, Chapter 5000, reproduced here in part:
Section 5010 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY
This chapter provides instructions for withholding State, city, or county income taxes when an agreement has been reached between a State, city, or county and the Secretary of the Treasury. Agreements between the Secretary of the Treasury and States, cities, or counties prescribe how Federal agencies withhold State, city, or county income or employment taxes from the compensation of Federal employees and Armed Forces members. (See 31 CFR 215 at Appendix 1).
A list of States that have entered into agreements, and designated State tax offices to receive inquiries, is included as Appendix 2. A list of cities and counties that have entered into agreements, the type of tax to be withheld for each city or county, and the designated city or county tax offices to receive inquiries is included as Appendix 3. A list of States, cities, and counties with other-than-standard agreements is at Appendix 4.
The Treasury Financial Management Service must notify an agency head when the agency is required to withhold government personnel tax (26 U.S.C. § 3403) and must issue the Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization certificate. (See Internal Revenue Manual § 3.0.258.4 (11/21/97), January 1999 edition on CD)
It is significant that government personnel other than those responsible for withholding at the source are not required to keep books and records (26 CFR § 31.6001-1(d)) and must file returns with the Internal Revenue Service for refunds only in unique circumstance (26 CFR § 601.401). Normally the employee is supposed to secure refunds directly from the employer (See 26 CFR §§ 31.6001 through the end of Part 31). However, in the event a government employee owes additional Chapter 24 government personnel tax and any other employment tax withheld at the source, the designated agency officer is responsible for administrative collection efforts. If administrative collection is unsuccessful, the General Accounting Office is charged with responsibility for verifying the obligation, then if necessary, the Attorney General may initiate civil litigation for collection. (5 U.S.C. §§ 5512 et seq.)
To summarize, all Federal taxes categorized as income taxes are indirect or excise taxes where the income is not the object, but merely provide the measure of the tax. The object is the benefit or privilege attending or derived from the income source or activity.
Income taxes imposed by Subtitles A, B & C of the Internal Revenue Code are divided into two classifications: Normal tax and other taxes imposed by provisions of Subtitles A & B are classified as income taxes where social welfare and government personnel taxes imposed by provisions of Subtitle C are classified as employment taxes.
Where taxes imposed by Subtitles A & B are concerned, nonresident aliens, foreign corporations and foreign partnerships are subject to a 30% flat tax on items of income derived from sources within the United States while citizens, residents and domestic corporations of the United States are subject to graduated tax on items of income derived from foreign sources, insular possessions and maritime enterprise regulated by treaty. In all cases the source from which income is derived would not necessarily be available without some form of privilege or benefit granted or secured by Government of the United States.
Employment taxes imposed by provisions of Subtitle C include social welfare and government personnel taxes, both of which are withheld from wages at the source. Social Security tax imposed by Chapter 21 is applicable only in territory belonging to the United States where Congress has plenary power while government personnel tax imposed by Chapter 24 is limited to those designated as employees at 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c).
The Internal Revenue Service has statutory authority for administration of income taxes imposed by Chapters 1, 2 & 21 in insular possessions of the United States, and under delegation of authority from the Secretary of the Treasury administers the Northern Mariana Islands Social Security tax.
The Treasury Financial Management Service is required to notify and certify government agencies responsible for withholding employment taxes then designated agency officers and the General Accounting Office have administrative enforcement authority to the point of litigation for collection.
In the event any of the Subtitle A, B & C graduated income taxes are erroneously imposed on enterprise secured as a substantive right, the application fraudulently and unconstitutionally converts the tax to a direct tax that is subject to the apportionment rule.
DAILY WRAP-UP
************************************
Nasdaq and small cap stocks headed lower in heavy trading Thursday as
cautious investors tried to glean what the Federal Reserve's interest-rate
cut means for the U.S. economy and stocks.
After gaining strongly in the previous session, small cap indexes ended
lower in Thursday's trading. The leading Russell 2000 Index dropped 7.19,
or 1.5%, to 477.20, while the Wilshire Small Cap 1750 lost 14.86 points, or
2%, to 744.55. The S&P 600 subtracted 3.36 points, or 1.5%, to 215.80.
A day after the Fed dropped a virtual bomb on Wall Street by lowering the
federal-funds rate, the interest rate banks pay one another for overnight
loans, investors struggled with what the 50-basis-points cut will mean for
corporate earnings.
The lack of any clear direction along with knowledge that any capital
expenditures inspired by the rate cut are still months away kept investors
in a selling mood. The surprise nature of the rate cut, which caught
analysts off guard, spooked investors who thought the Fed may be seeing
tough times ahead for the U.S. economy something months of economic data
have been pointing to.
"The Christmas selling season was the worst in 10 years, auto companies
have had cascading declines in demand and layoffs have already begun," said
Michael Holland, chairman of Holland & Co. "That's what the markets have
been reflecting, and what the Fed is responding to."
In a note to investors, esteemed Goldman Sachs & Co. investment strategist
Abbey Joseph Cohen reiterated her end-of-2001 price target for the broad
S&P 500 at 1650. "Our valuation work indicates that the S&P 500 is roughly
20% undervalued based on the 1347 closing price on Jan. 3," Cohen wrote.
"The case for rising stock prices has strengthened," she said. "Equities,
overall, are undervalued. Federal Reserve decision-makers have shown that
they are 'on the job,' further reducing the risks of economic decline."
Despite Cohen's bullish words, markets headed lower after briefly crossing
win/lose lines earlier in the session. Tech issues ended lower, as the
Nasdaq Composite Index fell 49.73, or 1.9%, to 2566.96, after closing
Wednesday up 14%, its largest percentage and point increase in Nasdaq's
29-year history.
Chip stocks headed lower after jumping nearly 18% in the previous session.
In choppy trading, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index of large cap issues
subtracted 16.43, or 2.5%, to 653.80, while the broader S&P 500 increased
its losses, dropping 14.22 points, or 1.1%, to 1333.34.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average reversed earlier gains, which saw the blue
chip index cross the 11,000 level for the first time in four months, and
ended lower at 10,912.41, off 33.34, or 0.3%.
Within economic news, the Census Bureau reported earlier this morning that
factory orders rose a greater-than-expected 1.7% in November, above
October's downwardly revised 4% decline. Despite the
larger-than-anticipated increase, analysts noted that the increase didn't
undo October's decline.
Also this morning, the Labor Department reported weekly
initial-unemployment claims rose 16,000 to 375,000 in the week ending Dec.
30 from the previous week's upwardly revised 359,000. Analysts had expected
the figure to ring in at 350,000.
Among small cap stocks, Resonate Inc. (NASDAQ: RSNT) fell 66.7% after the
software maker said it expects to report fourth-quarter revenue 25% below
analyst expectations. In afternoon trading, shares stood at 3 3/4, off 7 1/2.
Vitria Technology Inc. (NASDAQ: VITR) fell 50.4% in Thursday trading after
the e-commerce-software company said it expects to report a fourth-quarter
loss of 1 cent to 3 cents a share. The company was expected to earn 1 cent,
according to Zacks Investment Research. Shares traded at 3 31/32, off 4 1/32.
Transkaryotic Therapies (NASDAQ: TKTX) said U.S. regulators want additional
data about Replagal, the company's drug to treat Fabry disease, before it
sees U.S. Drug Administration approval. The pharmaceutical company's shares
lost 9.1%, or 3 5/16, to 33 1/4 in Thursday trading.
Redbook Instinet Research reported its Redbook same-store sales index rose
0.2% in December compared with a 3.5% gain in November. The research firm
said December's performance was the softest in the indexes 7-year history
and the softest for any recorded month, adding that the "weakness was
broad-based and remarkably consistent."
In commodities news, February natural gas futures doubled early day gains,
adding 78 cents, or 9.5%, to $8.96, but still off the highs for the
session. In trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange, February crude oil
futures moved upward by 14 cents, or 0.5%, to $28.14. February gold
rejoined earlier losses and was lower by 90 cents, or 0.3%, to $268.40,
after dropping 70 cents in the previous session.
In Canadian markets, the Toronto Stock Exchange TSE 300 Index dropped 32.1
points, or 0.4%, to 8905.70, surrendering early day gains. The Canadian
Venture Exchange headed higher again for the fourth straight day, adding
20.9, or 0.7%, to 2947.50, after gaining 19 points in the previous session.
In currency markets, the Canadian dollar retreated 0.1% to US$0.6673 from
US$0.6677, while in late New York trading the euro retested six-month highs
and advanced to US$0.9486.
NVEI
Okay, one more time.
If you couldn't get it under three then you shoulda got it under 4. And for sure under 5.
Get NVEI. 100 even if you are a skeptic. You know what happened to that tribe right?
52mps across regular copper...some say up to 12,000 feet waiting on confirmation of 9,000. Waiting on NADQ but since it dipped under 4 that wait may be longer...
However, rumors are now circulating about a buy out...
NVEI is a screaming buy.
A no brainer gainer even if you started buying at 10 just average down.
Dear Oklahoma Legislators:
On Saturday, Jan. 6th, there will be a kick-off for initiative
legislation being introduced to the Oklahoma Legislature by three
Oklahoma constitutional advocacy groups:
1. The "Oklahoma Protest", which is a resolution for the current session
of the Oklahoma Legislature to notify Congress that the 1910 Oklahoma
Legislature did not properly ratify the Sixteenth Amendment, and
2. Judicial accountability legislation patterned on the proposed
J.A.I.L. for Judges national legislation.
The meeting will get under way at 2 p.m. at "Freedom Hall" in Marland,
Oklahoma (old Marland school building), located at 612 N. Antelope. The
auditorium will comfortable seat 300. The meeting is open to the public;
there is no admission fee. Members of the Oklahoma Legislature are
particularly encouraged to attend.
Keynote speakers will include Alabama attorney Larry Becraft, who will
present evidence that the 1910 Oklahoma Legislature did not ratify the
Sixteenth Amendment, and Richard Cornforth of Oklahoma City, principal
author of the proposed judicial reform legislation.
Depending on his recovery from surgery, Bill Benson of Illinois may also
attend and speak. In 1984, Benson secured over 17,000 pages of documents
from archives of the 48 States of the Union at the time Congress
proposed the Sixteenth Amendment. According to Benson, no more than
three or four state legislatures approved the amendment as Congress
proposed it. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken the
position that ratification of constitutional amendments is a political
question so for the last fifteen years has refused to consider clear
evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never properly ratified.
Becraft, Devvy Kidd of California and others established the Wallace
Institute in order to provide a funding vehicle to bring this and other
important issues into proper forums where they can be legislatively or
judicially determined on their merits. In November when Becraft
contacted leadership of constitutional advocacy groups in Tulsa,
Oklahoma City and North Central Oklahoma, the three groups, joining
forces under auspices of Oklahoma Constitutional Advocates, agreed to
sponsor the proposed resolution.
The Wallace Institute has contracted statewide radio coverage in order
to reach people throughout Oklahoma, then there will be a rally at the
Oklahoma Capitol on January 19th.
The Sixteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified by 38 states, with 36
needed to implement the amendment. The objective is to enlist
legislatures of at least three states to notify Congress that their
respective legislatures did not in fact ratify the Sixteenth Amendment
as it was proposed in 1909 and as it appears in current editions of the
Constitution. Oklahoma was selected as the initiative state because our
archives are so clear on the matter.
While the 1910 session of the Oklahoma House of Representatives
evidently thought an income tax amendment was a good idea, the version
Congress proposed wasn't acceptable so the House endorsed an amended
version that conflicted with the original. Subsequent to the House
passing it's proposed version, the Senate drafted its own version,
passed on that, then sent the Senate version to Congress. The Senate
version was not returned to the House for approval.
Kentucky will probably be the second state where the resolution is
proposed. In Kentucky, the House of Representatives approved the
proposed amendment, but the Senate voted it down. In spite of the clear
rejection, Kentucky was counted among the 38 states that allegedly
ratified the Sixteenth Amendment.
California, Illinois and Missouri are among candidate states for the
third initiative. While defects in their legislative processes aren't as
conspicuously flawed as in Oklahoma and Kentucky, their respective
legislatures clearly did not approve what now appears as the Sixteenth
Amendment.
Proposed judicial accountability legislation is nearly as important.
According to Cornfoth, the current judicial accountability forum has
effected removal of only four judges in the 33 years of its existence.
Because the forum is controlled by the law profession and is a more or
less secretive forum, it is all but impossible to secure recourse
against judges who cater to government and institutional powers or
otherwise evidence corruption. In a state where the entire Supreme Court
has twice been removed, over 200 county commissioners have been
prosecuted for kick-back schemes, and a former governor was prosecuted
for corruption, the probability of there being only four corrupt judges
in 33 years is slim to none. Those who have attempted to secure remedies
for judicial abuse are convinced that it is high time for the Oklahoma
Legislature to implement an accountability forum which isn't controlled
by attorneys and the judiciary.
The proposed legislation would establish an independent grand jury
comprised of non-attorneys to consider complaints against judicial
officers. The permanent special grand jury would be vested with the full
range of investigative powers and would provide a first step in the
litigation, removal and/or prosecution process. The Oklahoma City group,
headed by Cornforth, Mark Mayes, Pat Patton and others, is currently
soliciting sponsors in the Oklahoma Legislature.
Dan Meador
(580) 268-3422
P.O. Box 547
Marland, Oklahoma 74644
AVBC I haven't tasted the product yet either...we'll see...gave back the gains...out at +36%
IFTP is still bouncing around...back into the .20's
VRTL...Snadit, is it a "good" stock or not? If it is then there is a reason the MM's are taking it back up...and couldn't take it much lower...it spent two days at 1.31...were they going to go bankrupt? Well now they are up well over 100% in less than 3 trading days...MMM. Up 29% today...anybody gonna sell half...that is if you got in under 1.50?
TWIC...cut it on a down tick last time so it now appears to be up two days in a row one 41%, one 25% but all they did was end the day on a ask...bid and ask are same...I bet I'm sorry i didn't pick up a 100K shares for $3K...watch...
VDOT that PR is now officially tardy...no news and yet it rises...on what volume again..?
DNAP I got a tip about the OTC...and some other news do some DD on that one...as a long term play I think that one has all kinds of potential...as a short term play the OTC plus some good news could get you a 5 bagger this month...maybe...it's still pink so remember this is ultra high rish invest only what you can afford to lose money...
Thanks for the ANTS heads up we've made money with them before...will again...or is wireless dead too? (Tee Hee)
Looks like Yahoo is headed for the teens...shorters you are WAAAAY late. Talked to a guy at New Years who covered at 30...from 133!!! Bad karma dude...maybe more on that later...he had a fantastic year...tried to sell me on the merits of shorting...and there are some...
ICGE and CMGI just keep going lower...I didn't think CMGI would go under 5...
Note how just about no OTC put out news today...I have two long watch lists of OTC's and not one new PR under either of them...one has 35 stocks on it the other 27...maybe if one had it would stick out and get noticed...
Over on the B2B front ACRU took it on the nose while AILP was up 57% CLIC another 25% day and ELCO up 70%...lots of red on that list...but what was green was really green...
Biotech is the new wave. Also heating up XML...
DAILY WRAP-UP
************************************
Recession fears, analyst downgrades and continued worries over earnings
gripped Nasdaq and small cap stocks Monday, tossing those stocks to the mat
as investors greeted the new year with the word "sell!"
In the first day trading following the New Year's holiday, small cap
indexes suffered substantial losses. The Russell 2000 Index, a small cap
bellwether, gave up 21.04 points, or 4.4%, to 462.49, while the S&P 600
tumbled 9.60, or 4.4%, to 209.99. The Wilshire Small Cap 1750 dropped
36.86, or 4.9%, to 715.33.
But it was the tech laden Nasdaq Composite Index and its more than 7% slide
in Tuesday's trading that had investors gasping and wondering if 2001 would
indeed be any different from 2000.
The Nasdaq Composite Index was swamped by triple-digit losses, plummeting
178.66 points to 2291.86, following the close of its worst year ever
Friday. Investor giddiness over the new year quickly faded into caution
surrounding continued earnings woes, a slowing economy and lack of an
interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve.
There is nothing new in this market, noted Brian Fabbri, chief economist at
Paribas Capital Markets. "People continue to adjust downward their economic
outlook and their forecast for profits. Consequently, the markets are doing
the rational thing they are looking at worse economic conditions than
thought."
The latest bits of data that showed further slowing in the economy surfaced
this morning from the National Association of Purchasing Managers, whose
December NAPM Index showed a far-greater-than-expected decline to 43.7% in
factory usage. Analysts had expected a mere 1.3% drop to 41.7% from the
previously reported 47.7%.
Compounding the bad economic data were a host of analyst downgrades,
including several small cap software issues. Netegrity Inc. (NASDAQ: NETE)
and Cacheflow Inc. (NASDAQ: CFLO) along with larger Quest Software Inc.
(NASDAQ: QSFT) pushed other stocks within the sector lower, after a
Robertson Stephens analyst downgraded each stock to 'buy' from 'strong
buy.' For the session, Netegrity sank 25% to 40 11/16, while CacheFlow
dropped in excess of 17% to 14 1/16.
Shares of Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (NASDAQ: TMWD) were blown away
after the email software maker was downgraded to 'neutral' from 'strong
buy' by Dain Rauscher Wessels. Tumbleweed shares lost nearly half of their
value, tumbling 7 3/32, or 41.6% to 10.
"Some of these companies that solve not only immediate needs but whose
budget requirements aren't that great are more in a position to weather the
storm," said Kevin Wagner, analyst at Adams Harkness & Hill, pointing to
tech issues such as SonicWall Inc. (NASDAQ: SNWL) and Watchguard
Technlogies Inc. (NASDAQ: WGRD).
Still, that didn't stop SonicWall from falling 29% to 11 1/2, while
WatchGuard followed suit, losing 10 1/2 to 21 1/8. While software issues
took it on the chin, computer-chip stocks weathered the storm and escaped
with a small loss. For the session, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index of
large cap issues fell just 6.27 points, or 1.1%, to 570.34.
Given the failing economic data and subsequent market turmoil, there had
been increasing speculation that the Fed could move to lower rates before
the next regular meeting of its Federal Open Market Committee on Jan.
30-31. In the past, when the Fed has moved between its meetings, it has
most often done so on a Friday when the employment numbers were especially
weak.
"Chances for a 50-basis-points cut are rising," said Paribas' Fabbri, who
added he didn't expect the Fed to act in cutting rates before its Federal
Open Market Committee meeting at the end of January.
"Right now we have an economy that is still fully employed, going quickly
down hill but, nevertheless, [the Fed] doesn't need to respond as if there
was a shock here," Fabbri said.
Analysts continue to point to such an interest-rate cut as a surefire way
to put a flame under Wall Street. The lack of such a cut was blamed for
much of December's losses, as investors stayed on the sidelines, awaiting
some impetus to reveal itself in the new year.
Within other small cap stocks, it wasn't all gloom. Shares of Neff Corp.
(NYSE: NFF) soared after it received an offer from United Rentals Inc.
(NYSE: URI) to buy a majority stake in the construction-equipment rental
company for $314 million in stock and assumed debt. Neff shares gained
13/16, or 65%, to 2 1/16.
Tegal Corp. (NASDAQ: TGAL), a maker of systems and equipment used by
computer chipmakers said Applied Materials Inc. (NASDAQ: AMAT) will license
on a non-exclusive basis two of Tegal's U.S. patents for an undisclosed
amount. Shares of Tegal gained 3/16, or 11.5%, to 1 13/16.
Berlitz International Inc. (NYSE: BTZ), owner of language schools, said a
group including Chairman Soichiro Fukutake offered to buy the rest of the
company it doesn't already own for about $27.5 million.
The offer came as Berlitz planned to cut 90 jobs worldwide in the first
three months of the year to save as much as $20 million annually, with a
charge of about $17 million for the job cuts. Shares gained 4 7/16, or 55%,
to 12 1/2.
Within the other major stock averages Tuesday, the broad S&P 500 also
headed lower, dropping 37.01 points, or 2.8%, to 1283.27, while the Dow
Jones Industrial Average succumbed to market momentum and dropped over 140
points, or 1.3%, to 10,646.15.
In New York Mercantile Exchange trading, February natural gas continued to
slump as milder weather prevailed following a weekend of colder weather and
winter storms. Natural gas futures dropped $1.41, or 14.4%, to $8.36, after
gaining 45 cents in the previous session.
February crude oil futures gained strength in Tuesday's trading, adding 41
cents, or 1.5%, to $27.21, while February gold lost $3.60, or 1.3%, to
$270, after losing 10 cents Friday.
In Canadian markets, the Toronto Stock Exchange TSE 300 Index faltered
further in afternoon trading, surrendering 322.2 points, or 3.6%, to
8611.50, while the Canadian Venture Exchange surged, adding 13.2, or 0.46%,
to 2907.40, after gaining a hefty 82 points Friday.
In currency markets, the Canadian dollar advanced 0.6% to US$0.6703 from
US$0.6664, while in late New York trading the euro marched higher to US$0.9506.
Other economic data to watch this week includes construction spending due
tomorrow, factory orders Thursday, and hourly earnings and the nation's
employment levels, which debut Friday. The employment statistics will be
the most intensely watched items on Wall Street, largely as an indication
as to when the Federal Reserve might move to lower interest rates.
In 2000, small cap investors' fortunes fared better than those represented
by large cap indexes. For example, for the year, the Russell fell 4.2%,
while the Wilshire Small Cap lost 5.1%. Those compare with a 6.1% loss for
the Dow industrials and a 10.1% drop in the S&P 500.
More surprisingly, the S&P Small Cap 600 actually ended the year higher,
gaining 13% in 2000.
Santa Claus Rally?
If you don't know by now that December and January are
typically the most bullish months for the stock market,
you might miss the next Santa Claus rally. Already the
stock market seems to be perking up--as it usually does
in the two trading days before Christmas and the four
trading days surrounding the New Year's holiday.
Whether these bullish signs will develop into a real
rally is anyone's guess. Most pundits, at this point,
would say no. Too many earnings warnings, too many
signs of an economic slowdown, too much hesitancy
from the Fed.
Yet, keep in mind that widespread negativity can be
a bullish sign.
To wit: The number of average investors who are
shorting stocks these days--making bets that stocks
will keep falling and hoping to profit from the fall
--is significantly higher than the number of professional
traders who are shorting stocks. And, although the
10-week moving average of this "public/specialists
shorts ratio" is below the five-year average of this
measure, it only trails the longer-term ratio by about
3%. Is this significant? It could be. The last time
the ratio reached the 3% level--in October 1999 and
September 1998--the market took off.
The public/specialists shorts ratio is known as a
"contrary indicator" because it suggests that the
future will contrast markedly from the present--
at least from what the average investor is doing
presently. This indicator certainly isn't perfect.
But we bring it to you today in keeping with the
spirit of the season. Happy holidays, and happy
investing!
Ditto from THG.
Stocks I like again:
FONX is back down to earth it's a buy under .35
VDOT under .75
NVEI if you can get it on dips under 4 get it on dips under 4...anything close to 4 is good...buying now for JAN...
PNLK looks like it may be a great buy should jump in JAN...
Bear in mind these are all OTC's so these are ultra high risk as many found out the hard way...OTC means super high risk...but the rewards are just as great...VDOT ran from .60 to 1.80...in 7 days not so long ago...
PAP has got to be a buy at 5/8
ICGE...under 5...
VRTL at two and a quarter tempting...
TWIC....
ELON breaks under 20 it's a buy...
MOT is a screaming buy under 20...
So is TSM...
VDOT back in buy me range...
Watch LMGR drop down again...and this time don't miss it...
DAILY WRAP-UP
************************************
Nasdaq and small cap stocks ended Monday's trading day lower as investors
digested a fresh batch of earnings warnings and awaited a U.S. Supreme
Court decision in the presidential election.
Small cap indexes ended lower, with the leading Russell 2000 Index dropping
9.46 points, or 1.94%, to 477.77, while the Wilshire 1750 sank 20.21, or
2.5%, to 778.29. The S&P Small Cap 600 Index slipped 2.86, or 1.32%, to 213.79.
"Everybody's waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to hand down the ruling, so
the market's on hold, until that happens," said Peter Coolidge, head trader
at Brean Murray & Co.
Investors basically saw the reversal of Monday, Coolidge said. "The Dow
showed some leadership, and the Nasdaq gave up most of yesterday's gains,
starting back where we were at the beginning of the week," he said.
A number of earnings warnings from high-profile companies such as Eastman
Kodak Co. (NYSE: KO), Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (NYSE: AMD) and
DoubleClick Inc. (NASDAQ: DCLK) sent jitters down investors' spines this
morning.
Shares of all three were up in midday trading, along with the Dow Jones
Industrial Average, which gained 42.47, or 0.40%, to 10,768.27. But the
broader S&P 500 sank 9.02, or 0.65%, to 1371.18.
Eastman Kodak and Advanced Micro followed the same path Intel Corp.
(NASDAQ: INTC) took last week, warning investors about lower earnings only
to see its stock price rise. Both companies warned fourth-quarter earnings
would be lower than expected due to slackening demand for their products.
"This is the discounting process," said Larry Wachtel, market analyst for
Prudential Securities Inc.
"When you start to get the bad earnings news, and the stocks start to go up
instead of down, what it is saying is 'we recognize we've taken you down 11
times, so by the time you tell me about these bad earnings statements, I'm
ready to take you up not down.' That's the most encouraging factor in the
market today."
Despite gains in blue chip stocks, technology stocks were generally lower,
with the tech-laden Nasdaq Composite Index off 83.33, or 2.76%, to 2931.77.
While earnings jitters and election concerns added to the tech fall down,
Wachtel said more of it had to do with the recent run-up in tech prices.
"The Nasdaq is lower because it went up 16% since the beginning of the
month," he said.
Within computer chip stocks, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped
to 640.21, down 42.56 or 6.23%.
Pegasus Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: PEGS), a software maker for the hotel
industry, revised downward its fourth-quarter and 2001 earnings-per-share
and revenue estimates. It expects fourth quarter EPS of 7 to 9 cents a
share and 2001 EPS of 60 to 65 cents a share. Shares closed at 7 5/16, down
4 13/16, or 39.7%.
In economic news, there were no releases scheduled for today. Starting
tomorrow, however, the data flows thick and fast, with retail sales and
import prices due Wednesday, the Producer Price Index expected Thursday and
the Consumer Price Index scheduled on Friday with a few other reports
scattered along the way.
Analysts mostly agree that a post-election rally waits in the wings,
although at least one analyst hopes it isn't a "straight-shot rally," which
could re-ignite investor fears and the Federal Reserve's cautious language.
In New York Mercantile Exchange trading, natural gas futures closed down
$1.27at $8.15 after hitting an all-time high Monday of $8.63. January crude
oil futures ended 18 cents higher at $29.68, while February gold added 10
cents to $273.20.
In Canadian trading, the Toronto Stock Exchange TSE 300 Index erased all of
Monday's gains and then some, dropping 238.90 or 2.49% to 9343. The
Canadian Venture Exchange finished the session lower, too, dropping 13.1 or
0.45% to 2912.80.
In currency markets, the Canadian dollar fell 0.32% to $0.6547, while the
euro edged higher to US$0.87920.
MARKET REPORT
************************************
The hint of interest rate relief, and an imminent end to president-elect
mayhem were all investors needed Tuesday to send North American exchanges
north in a big way.
The Nasdaq Composite Index saw its largest single-day increase Tuesday,
after Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan suggested an interest-rate
cut might be in the offing.
Greenspan's remarks, along with a foreseeable resolution to the U.S.
presidential election, boosted stocks and overshadowed earnings woes that
surfaced with several tech issues.
Small indexes gained strongly, with the benchmark Russell 2000 Index adding
20.78, or 4.6%, to 471.17, while the S&P 600 gained 8.39 points, or 4.2%,
to 208.29. The Wilshire 1750 added 42.38, or 5.9%, to 759.25.
"I would say we have probably seen the bottom,'' said Ryan Crane, who helps
manage $125 billion at AIM Advisors Inc. in Houston, including the AIM
Small Cap Growth Fund. Speaking Tuesday on smallcapcenter's 5-200 Show,
Crane said "we're in there buying."
The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index jumped 274.05, or 10.5%, to 2889.80,
while semiconductor stocks gained strongly also, with the Philadelphia
Semiconductor Index leaping 55.93, or 10.1%, to 607.41.
"The market started off with a rally on bad news for Vice President Al
Gore," said John Davidson chief market analyst for Orbitex Group of Funds.
While the market is comfortable with Texas Gov. George W. Bush, "it is more
grateful to an end to the election uncertainty than it is for Bush
himself," Davidson noted.
But it was comments from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan shortly
after the opening bell that really put the market in motion, sending the
Nasdaq up over 10% for the session.
"Basically, what [Greenspan] is saying is confirming what everybody is
thinking, that we're going to see something soon as far as a change in the
bias," said Scott Fullman, options strategist at Swiss American Securities
Inc.
"Once that bias changes, it opens up the way for them to ease monetary
policy at the following meeting" in January, Fullman noted.
Greenspan, in addressing a banking conference in Manhattan, said the
central bank is ready to cut interest rates should the economy teeter
toward recession. He cited the recent decline in stock prices and volatile
energy prices that may cause a slowdown in economic activity as reasons for
possible Fed action.
It is "certainly positive news for the market," said Timothy Ghriskey,
senior portfolio manager at Dreyfus Corp. "Greenspan laid off the inflation
worry, which is positive."
In making his statement, Greenspan acknowledged that not only is the
economy slowing, but there is growing consensus that the Fed could ease
interest rates at its January Federal Open Market Committee meeting,
Ghriskey added.
Tech issues headed higher as shares of 3Com Corp. (NASDAQ: COMS) sunk 25%
but failed to ripple through other tech stocks. The networking company said
earlier Tuesday that slower-than-expected sales to telecommunications
customers would have an affect on fiscal-second-quarter results.
Xylinx Inc. (NASDAQ: XLNX) also stepped forward, saying soft bookings from
several large North American customers made for a soft November. The
company altered its 12% sequential revenue growth guidance for the fourth
quarter to 5% to 7%. Still, shares of the specialty chip maker gained 1
7/8, or 4.5%, to 43 9/16.
Within small cap stocks, Grubb & Ellis Co. (NYSE: GBE), a commercial real
estate broker, said it has taken itself off the sales block and plans to
buy back as much as 35% of outstanding shares, after failing to find a
buyer. It also said it expects second-quarter earnings of 20 cents a share,
below the 34-cent average analyst estimate. In afternoon trading Grubb &
Ellis added a point, or 21.6%, to 5 5/8.
Green Mountain Coffee Inc. (NASDAQ: GMCR), a specialty coffee seller, whose
shares have risen more than fivefold this year, said it plans to split its
common stock 2 for 1. Shares rose 3 1/4, or 7.1%, to 49 in Tuesday trading.
Georgia-based Century South Banks Inc. (NASDAQ: CSBI) agreed to be bought
by BB&T Corp. (NYSE: BBT) for $428.2 million in stock. Each Century South
share will be exchanged for each 0.93 BB&T share. Shares of Century South
gained 25.7%, or 6 1/4, to 30 9/16.
Blue chip stocks soared again Tuesday as the Dow Jones Industrial Average
put on 338.62, or 3.2%, to 10,898.72, after vaulting 187 points Monday. The
broader S&P 500 picked up 51.29, or 3.9%, to 1376.26.
In economic news, the government said factory orders fell 3.3% in October,
nearly a full-percentage point greater than analyst expectations of a 2.5%
decline and Septembers revised 1.1% gain.
The drop in factory orders is one more indication the U.S. economy is
slowing. The report came a day after a Conference Board report showed the
nation's leading economic indicators fell 0.2% in October.
Separately, the National Association of Purchasing Managers said its
services index gained 0.5% in November to 58.5%, up from 58% in September
and greater than Wall Street estimates of 57%. The NAPM report on the
non-manufacturing sector measures responses from purchasing managers in
such industries finance, insurance and real estate.
In the continuing presidential-election struggle, the Florida Supreme Court
agreed to hear an appeal by Vice President Al Gore to a ruling Monday that
denied his request for a recount in several Florida counties.
Arguments are set for Thursday morning before that state's high court,
which is expected not only to rule on the appeal but to clarify its
decision last month, extending the state's certification deadline, as
required by a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday.
In Canadian trading, the Toronto Stock Exchange jumped 334.30, or 3.7%, to
9279 in Tuesday's trading, mirroring gains in American markets. The
Canadian Venture Exchange, however, slipped 8.85, or 0.3%, to 2898.04.
In currency markets, the Canadian dollar gained 0.1% to $US0.6478 from
US$0.6475, while in late New York trading the euro slipped to US$0.8798
after two days of strong gains.
In commodities news, crude oil futures slipped further following Monday's
80-cent drop. January crude oil futures dropped $1.69, or 5.4%, to $29.53,
while January natural gas slid 5 cents , or 0.7%, to $7.38, after climbing
again to the all-time new intraday high of $7.95 on Monday. February gold
lost 50 cents, or 0.2%, to $273.30.
Review + B2B list.
I've been saying in no uncertain terms that these last few days were the time to be buying and we have been rewarded already...Next year should bring the bull back IF the fed lowers rates...especially twice...looks like they move to nuetral after all:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/001205/cp.html
Nasdaq Racks Up Biggest-Ever Gain
Stocks shot higher on Tuesday, launching the Nasdaq market up more than 10 percent -- its biggest one-day gain ever -- on speculation the Federal Reserve may soon cut interest rates and the drawn-out battle for the White House is nearing an end.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/001205/co.html
Like I said when everybody else is selling you are buying...
Futures were up so much last night I was sure there would be a rally today but even me the optimist got blown away...
IF you have/had been buying (befor today) take some profits on all the 36%+. Will they keep going? Maybe, but darn it you don't go broke taking profits!!!!!!!
Further there are other stocks you can roll those profits into...the OTC did not rocket today...it always comes after the NASDQ...so if you are nimble you can get two rides up instead of one...
Bluetooth and MDCE as predicted...(surmised from conversation with CEO)
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001205/ca_media_c.html
I was batting 1000 but now I'm down to about .475...wrong about VDOT right about ISCO
Wrong about NVEI (so far) and right about TWIC...called the run up and bailed after rolls in the high .30's wrong about AQCI so far...and TXMC...just add more on those two...but the ones that are suffering like NVEI are the ones to be buying...like CMGI and DELL under 15 and 20...you buy when nobody wants them not after a day like today...
I like FONX down here...in fact the first buys I made were in the 40's...currently out but it's looking tasty...
LMGR started buying to high but averaging down under a buck and you obviously would be making a killing now...
BEBE is up 100%...too late for big gains but watch it again next year...it was 10 bucks...guess who shops there...was impressed with the stuff they had and the sales staff at Alamoana so I asked if they were public...been watching them for a year or so...did not invest but it was a good experiment on paper...
How bout that TALL...
My B2B watch list was full of 20% gainers:
http://quote.yahoo.com/q?s=ACRU+AILP+ARBA+ASWX+BVSN+BWEB+CLIC+CMGI+CMRC+CNQR+CPTH+EGAN+ELCO+ENGA+EPNY+ICGE+INOW+ISLD+ITRA+JCDA+KANA+KEYN+NEON+ORCL+PCOR+PNLK.OB+PPRO+ROWE+SFE+TIBX+VDOT.OB+VERT+VITR+VRTL+VRTS+VSRC+&d=v1
Infact 20% wasn't stellar...EGAN CLIC and BVSN and TIBX
I like tech inside tech I like B2B, software, highspeed connection, wireless, chips, and bluetooth...the smarthouse will come so far I like MDCE for smarthouse and bluetooth...they may expand into much more than just a hometheatre company...this is a LTP like 2 or 3 years...
VDOT has several of those bases covered...
MARKET REPORT
************************************
Try as they might Nasdaq and small caps stocks couldn't maintain positive
ground in Monday trading, pulled down by continuing earnings woes and a
slowing U.S. economy.
It was a day of high drama that saw the U.S. Supreme Court issue a ruling
vacating a Florida Supreme Court order allowing hand counts of presidential
votes in the election controversy in the Sunshine State. The high court set
aside the Florida ruling and sent the case back "for further proceedings."
Within small cap indexes, the benchmark Russell 2000 Index fell 6.45
points, or 1.41%, to 450.39, while the S&P 600 dropped 1.25, or 0.62%, to
199.90. The Wilshire 1750 surrendered 11.69 points, or 1.6%, to 716.95.
The Nasdaq Composite Index ended lower in a choppy day of trading. The
tech-heavy index lost 29.54, or 1.12%, to 2615.75 after heading into
positive territory in afternoon trading. Chip stocks fared better, as the
Philadelphia Semiconductor Index gained 13.13, or 2.44%, to 551.48, but
ended off Monday's highs.
"The market is still pretty much hostage to the election outcome," said
Charles White, portfolio manager at Avatar Associates. But "the big driver
is going to be the employment report at the end of the week," he noted.
Analysts for weeks have been pointing to a rise in the unemployment rate to
inspire the Federal Reserve to relax its grip on monetary policy.
"This would be a defining moment for the Fed to at least come off their
tightening bias," White said, who further said he expects to see a rise in
the unemployment rate. "Tougher times in the labor market and smaller
increases in wages . . . would feed into the Fed and its timetable for
moving back to a neutral bias and perhaps even easing credit conditions."
Other analysts have suggested the Fed's inaction has pushed the U.S.
economy perilously close to a recessionary cliff for failing to alter its
anti-inflation stance and maintaining restrictive credit policies and high
interest rates.
"The Fed has been disappointing in its lack of movement," noted Michael
Holland, chairman of Holland & Co. "There's no question all the data
indicate a dramatic diminution in the economy's growth. The bond and stock
markets have been factoring those in over the last couple of months," he added.
Blue chip stocks, which headed lower after the opening bell, rebounded on
fresh economic data and continued to head higher after the Supreme Court
decision. The Dow Jones Industrial Average vaulted 187.41 points, or 1.81%,
to 10,560.95, after ending Friday down 41 points. The broader S&P 500
picked up 9.74, or 0.74%, to 1324.97, after ending Friday's session nearly
flat.
Within small cap stocks, Louisiana-Pacific Corp. (NYSE: LPX) said after
market close Friday it plans to shut two of its lumber mills and
permanently close two industrial plants. The buildings material supplier's
shares gained 5/16, or 4.2%, to 7 13/16 in Monday trading.
Universal Access Inc. (NASDAQ: UAXS) said it entered into an alliance with
Williams Communications Group Inc. (NYSE: WCG) to improve Internet and
other telecommunications services to the companies' clients. Universal
Access, a network and database-services provider, saw its share price drop
25/32, or 7.4%, to 9 25/32.
United Therapeutics Corp. (NASDAQ: UTHR) plummeted 29 11/16, or 62.3%, to
17 15/16 in Monday trading. Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown analyst Kevin Tang
downgraded the developer of pharmaceuticals to treat vascular diseases,
from "strong buy" to "market perform."
In economic news, reports that showed the nation's leading economic
indicators dropped 0.2% and new-home sales fell nearly 3% in October sent
Nasdaq and small cap stocks lower in Monday morning trading.
The Conference Board, a non-profit business group, said the nation's
economic indicators fell 0.2% in October, slightly greater than analyst
expectations of a 0.1% decline and September's flat reading. The index of
10 economic indicators is used to predict economic activity six to nine
months in the future.
Separately, the Census Bureau said new-home sales fell 2.6% to 928,000 from
September's revised 953,000. Analyst had expected the rate to drop to
909,000, indicating consumers appetite for new homes remains robust.
A report in Monday's <I>Wall Street Journal</I> saying the Federal Reserve
is likely to soften its anti-inflationary stance boosted Nasdaq stocks in
the early going on Wall Street. The newspaper reported the Fed's softening
could pave the way for a rate-cut early next year, a move many analysts are
anticipating.
Redbook Instinet Research reported its E-tail stock index fell 12.8% in the
week ending Friday, compared to a 2.3% gain the previous week. The research
firm noted the S&P 500 fell 2% during the same period. The E-tail index's
52-week performance was a negative 79.0%, compared to a fall of 6.7% for
the S&P500.
The biggest winner over the week was the newly merged Delia's Corp.
(NASDAQ: DLIAD), up 67%, mainly reflecting a 68% surge on Monday alone, on
which the company had no comment. Major losers included Egghead.com Inc.
(NASDAQ: EGGS), down 35%, Webvan Inc. (NASDAQ: WBVN), down 32%, and
Drugstore.com Inc. (NASDAQ: DSCM), down 31%, according to Redbook.
Investors this week have another host of economic data to sift through,
which most analysts believe will point to a slowing U.S. economy.
Republican Vice Presidential candidate Richard Cheney said on Meet the
Press on Sunday he believes the economy may already have entered a
pre-recessionary period.
In Canadian trading, the Toronto Stock Exchange ended Monday marginally
higher after a choppy day of trading, adding just 3.53 points to 8944.70.
The Canadian Venture Exchange dropped 31.44, or 1.1%, to 2906.89.
In currency markets, the Canadian dollar gained 0.1% to US$0.6475 from
US$0.6470, while in late New York trading the euro was higher at US$0.8892,
after gaining strongly Friday.
In commodities news, crude oil futures slipped after surging higher in
early trading. January crude oil futures dropped 80 cents, or 2.5%, to
$31.22, while January natural gas surged 76 cents, or 11.4%, to $7.43,
after setting an all-time new high of $7.95. February gold gained $1.90, or
0.7%, to $273.80.
NVEI always go with your gut...lol
Buys are coming in nicely:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001201/ca_new_vis.html
Do ya think they got it? Would they be planning on marketing if they didn't? Well, not really marketing but getting the most bang for their buck and therefore the most bang for your buck in share price...
Don't miss the op to get it down here if you can...
AQCI had news...
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001201/aquatic_ce.html
Good ol VDOT had news...
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001201/il_virtual.html
Hell even TIGI had news...
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/001201/fl_teleser.html
Sold it for 2.71 split adj avrg...looking at buying them back for under a buck depending on more DD...hows that for a roll?
Why the hell couldn't I have done it with VDOT?
And of course you all saw ISCO...thousand shares of each of these stocks held for 13 years might make you a millionaire too...just like that EMC guy...
OBV was positive today for VDOT
http://investor.stockpoint.com/quote.asp?SYMBOL=VDOT&MODE=CHART&RepeatChart=1&sym3=&sym4=&sym5=&sym2=&size=800x600&dRange=d1&PlotType=line&ind1=boll&ind6=macd&ind7=volume&avg1=&avg2=&Exchange=US&x=29&y=12
More buying than selling but they closed it on a sell...this makes it look like there was more selling hides buying if they closed it on an uptick it wouldn't look as scary...
Some stuff is brewing and should be done next week expect a pr or two...
North Star...