London Guardian
September 29, 2008
The idea that the presidential debates are “high-risk TV” in which the candidates can be questioned “on any subject matter” is laughable (90 minutes in TV spotlight that will make or break candidates, September 26). The debates are profoundly undemocratic. The “private” corporation that organises them, the Commission on Presidential Debates, was established by the Republican and Democratic national committees in 1986 and serves their interests.
Before the debates take place, the two-party organisations jointly draft debate “contracts” which define exactly what will happen during the “debate”. This includes screening which topics will be discussed, who can attend the debates, who can ask questions, how long each candidate will have to answer and that there be no candidate-to-candidate questions, no rubuttals and no follow-up questions.
Moreover, the CPD has set criteria that deliberately exclude third-party candidates from taking part. To join the debate, a third-party candidate must be able to demonstrate that they expect to receive 15% of the public vote. This is three times greater than the 5% political parties must achieve to receive major party status and receive public funds.
The polls used to determine expected support are not required to list candidates other than those from the two main parties. This stage management does not lead to a debate but a glorified press conference.
Dr. Maria Ryan
University of Nottingham
Financial crisis? Not to worry. President Bush says he’s on top of things. What could possibly go wrong there?
Herb Stark
Massapequa, New York
Monday, September 29, 2008
From Deregulation to National Guarantor: in a Blink!
[col. writ. 9/20/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
What we are seeing in the midst of America's financial crisis, is a crisis not so much of confidence as it is of ideology, for the crisis has its origins in an economic outlook that has been ascendant for generations.
I speak of the idea of deregulation, championed by former President Ronald Reagan, who became symbolic of the shrink-government movement. His reign marked the coming of age of the so-called conservative movement, built on principles (ostensibly, at least) of reductions in government, expansion of 'free' markets, lower taxes, and strengthened nationalism, usually by military means.
Although this has been primarily a Republican agenda, Democrats, like neo liberal President Bill Clinton, have hewn closely to this formula -- hence his claim to be a "new" kind of liberal.
At the heart of this philosophy has been trust in 'the blind hand of the market', with a distaste for the heavy hand of regulation. As such, both of these relatively recent incarnations of political parties have had a deregulation bent, and depended on the market to set the economic beat of the nation.
This has necessitated the rise of a kind of political deception, explained by scholar and Critical Resistance activist Ruth W. Gilmore as "anti-state actors." In the 2007 book, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (Cambridge, MA: South End Press), Gilmore notes:
Strangely, then, we are faced with the ascendance of anti-state
state actors: people and parties who gain state power by
denouncing state power. Once they have achieved an elected
or appointed position in government they have to make what
they do seem transparently legitimate, and if budgets are any
indication, they spend a lot of money even as they claim they're
"shrinking government." Prison, policing, courts, and the
military enjoy such legitimacy, and nowadays it seems to many
observers as though there was never a time things were
different. {p.43}
Years of governance by these "anti-state state actors" has seen the growth and expansion of government by leaps and bounds. The prison-industrial-complex is now the largest on earth; while the military has been engaged in dubious occupations which closely resembles security services for the oil industries.
And the market is about as 'free' as the U.S. was during slavery. As deregulation crumbles the state emerges as the guarantor of corporate profits, where tax dollars are used to replace sour business deals choking with 'bad paper.'
While unemployment, foreclosures, homelessness, and repression evokes little more than a sneer, let the market feel failing stocks, or let banks stumble, and the deregulators come running to save their betters. Need loans? Need a bailout? Need a buyout? Nothing is too much for the well-to-do.
And your money is necessary to protect them!
This is socialism, with a wicked twist.
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded' was edited by Incite! The Women Against Violence Project
What we are seeing in the midst of America's financial crisis, is a crisis not so much of confidence as it is of ideology, for the crisis has its origins in an economic outlook that has been ascendant for generations.
I speak of the idea of deregulation, championed by former President Ronald Reagan, who became symbolic of the shrink-government movement. His reign marked the coming of age of the so-called conservative movement, built on principles (ostensibly, at least) of reductions in government, expansion of 'free' markets, lower taxes, and strengthened nationalism, usually by military means.
Although this has been primarily a Republican agenda, Democrats, like neo liberal President Bill Clinton, have hewn closely to this formula -- hence his claim to be a "new" kind of liberal.
At the heart of this philosophy has been trust in 'the blind hand of the market', with a distaste for the heavy hand of regulation. As such, both of these relatively recent incarnations of political parties have had a deregulation bent, and depended on the market to set the economic beat of the nation.
This has necessitated the rise of a kind of political deception, explained by scholar and Critical Resistance activist Ruth W. Gilmore as "anti-state actors." In the 2007 book, The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex (Cambridge, MA: South End Press), Gilmore notes:
Strangely, then, we are faced with the ascendance of anti-state
state actors: people and parties who gain state power by
denouncing state power. Once they have achieved an elected
or appointed position in government they have to make what
they do seem transparently legitimate, and if budgets are any
indication, they spend a lot of money even as they claim they're
"shrinking government." Prison, policing, courts, and the
military enjoy such legitimacy, and nowadays it seems to many
observers as though there was never a time things were
different. {p.43}
Years of governance by these "anti-state state actors" has seen the growth and expansion of government by leaps and bounds. The prison-industrial-complex is now the largest on earth; while the military has been engaged in dubious occupations which closely resembles security services for the oil industries.
And the market is about as 'free' as the U.S. was during slavery. As deregulation crumbles the state emerges as the guarantor of corporate profits, where tax dollars are used to replace sour business deals choking with 'bad paper.'
While unemployment, foreclosures, homelessness, and repression evokes little more than a sneer, let the market feel failing stocks, or let banks stumble, and the deregulators come running to save their betters. Need loans? Need a bailout? Need a buyout? Nothing is too much for the well-to-do.
And your money is necessary to protect them!
This is socialism, with a wicked twist.
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: 'The Revolution Will Not Be Funded' was edited by Incite! The Women Against Violence Project
Empire On "E"
[col. writ. 9/24/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
In a matter of months, a new man will take the oath of office for the presidency.
Whether he is the oldest in history, or the first Black one, of one thing we may be certain.
He will be hobbled by a sea of red ink, and therefore bereft of most of the resources to bring his campaign promises to reality.
For as the fires continue to rage throughout the financial markets, they will turn tax returns into smoke.
Don't expect any of them to tell you this, but you can rest assured that all of them know it. And if the office of the Imperial presidency will be strapped for resources, what of average folks?
As an old saying (sorta) goes, 'stuff rolls downhill.'
As businesses tighten up, credit tightens up, and spending tightens up.
This economy (as even the Mad Prince Bush has urged) relies on consumption, or shopping, to function. Anything that weakens this process has a whiplash effect throughout the economy.
Earlier this year, American financier George Soros announced, shortly after the failure of the economic talks at Davos, Switzerland, that the U.S. economy has reached a new stage marking an end of the era. "The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom", Soros explained, adding, "It's basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency."
Soros made these observations in January of 2008.
Things have obviously gotten considerably worse since then. The economy is increasingly coming under state control, and social wealth is being aggregated to protect private capital.
What created this crisis was rampant crony capitalism, and unless that is addressed by deep structural transformation, these problems will only worsen.
That is virtually inevitable.
Just as the White House saddled the next administration with disasters in foreign policy, they have effectively stolen the public purse.
So, ultimately, it won't matter who gets elected, because he'll be too broke to do anything.
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: Landler, Mark, "U.S. Policies Evoke Scorn at Davos: Fed Caved In to the Markets (Or Maybe it Dawdled), Critics Say, " New York Times, Thurs., Jan. 24, 2008, p.C9]
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
Confusing Voter Registration Laws Could Affect Presidential Election
By Nikki Schwab
Thu Sep 25, 12:19 PM ET
Imagine you're a college student and you'll be voting for the first time in November. You hear from some that you're able to register to vote at your university address. You are warned by others that if you do, you could lose a scholarship, or health or car insurance, and you'll have to get a new driver's license, too. You consider voting absentee, only to be told by get-out-the-vote volunteers that your absentee ballot really counts only if the election is close.
Confused yet?
Virginia Tech students certainly were when they were delivered these conflicting messages over the past few weeks. With voter registration drives in full swing on campus, students got word from the local registrar of elections that they could face consequences if they registered to vote in Blacksburg--they could lose residency-based scholarships, or their tax status could change--even though, according to the Supreme Court, students have the right to vote where they go to college.
A schoolwide controversy ensued. The registrar's news releases were called "chilling," and he was accused of subverting democracy. He defended himself, saying he was only trying to combat the lack of information given to students from volunteers registering voters on campus. The State Board of Elections jumped in and revised the guidelines to say that a dorm or college address can be an acceptable residential address for voter registration in Virginia, a pivotal swing state, but the board left these guidelines up to interpretation by local election officials. The student newspaper, the Collegiate Times, and student groups scheduled a campus forum on October 1 to clear up whether students should register to vote at Virginia Tech or at their parents' homes before the October 6 Virginia registration deadline.
The debacle at Virginia Tech highlights a problem that college students have encountered in many states for many election cycles--where it is, exactly, they should register to vote. College students are generally not familiar with the voter registration process, technically have two addresses (school and home), and in some cases are not welcome as voters in their university communities because of historic rifts between the students and their college towns. "One of the reasons in the past that jurisdictions have tried to deny the vote to college students is that they expected that college students might vote differently from the rest of them," says Richard Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "And the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that that's not a good reason."
But while federal courts have ruled that students have a right to vote from campus, state residency laws make things more complicated. It all comes down to how the state, or often a particular municipality, defines residency. Jon Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, says Virginia has a history of county registrars taking a very restrictive view of the law and defining residency very narrowly. "It has the potential to be a problem in a lot of places where the registrar or the state government starts taking a real restrictive view," Greenbaum says.
Of the 50 states, 11, including Virginia, make it more difficult for college students to vote on campus, according to "Democracy and College Student Voting," a 2006 study by the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Salisbury University in Maryland. In some places, P.O. boxes and dormitories are not considered proper addresses. In others, ID laws make it difficult for students to vote because their driver's licenses do not reflect where they are living at school. In many instances, students are left voting provisionally or voting absentee, says Matt Segal, president of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, an organization that looks at voting access barriers for students.
"The big story we're trying to break right now is that all of these young people who intend to show up actually might not be able to, given the laws and restrictions in all these states," says Segal.
It's difficult to measure the impact these laws have on students because most voter data is broken down only by age group and not by who is and who isn't attending a university or college. Despite that, the Salisbury University study found a slight correlation between states that allow young people to choose where they vote and higher voter registration and turnout. "If we just had college student data, I would expect that the relationship would be stronger," explains Michael O'Loughlin, a professor at Salisbury who coauthored the study.
In recent years, several legal battles have highlighted the topic and have come down on the side of the students. At the same time, O'Loughlin says he has seen a national "drift" toward allowing students the option to vote at their campus addresses, though there are regions that resist the trend.
For voting groups like Rock the Vote and SAVE, the key is getting students the right information. SAVE has pushed for legislation, and a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate that would require federally funded colleges and universities to register student voters, similar to the way departments of motor vehicles across the country give citizens the option to register to vote while getting their driver's license.
Rock the Vote has recently introduced a "there's no place like home" campaign to spread the word to students that their campus is their home too. "I think that young people are savvy voters, and they will register and cast a ballot where they consider home and where they think it makes the most sense politically," says Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote.
By Election Day, voting groups hope their messages will have cut through some of the misunderstandings. "You've seen the game 'Telephone'--if one person hears the right instructions, the message slowly slips as it is delivered from person to person," says Segal of SAVE. "It's very easy in such a large body of people to have confusion about the laws and procedures."
And in what could be a very close election, that confusion could cost one of the candidates.
Thu Sep 25, 12:19 PM ET
Imagine you're a college student and you'll be voting for the first time in November. You hear from some that you're able to register to vote at your university address. You are warned by others that if you do, you could lose a scholarship, or health or car insurance, and you'll have to get a new driver's license, too. You consider voting absentee, only to be told by get-out-the-vote volunteers that your absentee ballot really counts only if the election is close.
Confused yet?
Virginia Tech students certainly were when they were delivered these conflicting messages over the past few weeks. With voter registration drives in full swing on campus, students got word from the local registrar of elections that they could face consequences if they registered to vote in Blacksburg--they could lose residency-based scholarships, or their tax status could change--even though, according to the Supreme Court, students have the right to vote where they go to college.
A schoolwide controversy ensued. The registrar's news releases were called "chilling," and he was accused of subverting democracy. He defended himself, saying he was only trying to combat the lack of information given to students from volunteers registering voters on campus. The State Board of Elections jumped in and revised the guidelines to say that a dorm or college address can be an acceptable residential address for voter registration in Virginia, a pivotal swing state, but the board left these guidelines up to interpretation by local election officials. The student newspaper, the Collegiate Times, and student groups scheduled a campus forum on October 1 to clear up whether students should register to vote at Virginia Tech or at their parents' homes before the October 6 Virginia registration deadline.
The debacle at Virginia Tech highlights a problem that college students have encountered in many states for many election cycles--where it is, exactly, they should register to vote. College students are generally not familiar with the voter registration process, technically have two addresses (school and home), and in some cases are not welcome as voters in their university communities because of historic rifts between the students and their college towns. "One of the reasons in the past that jurisdictions have tried to deny the vote to college students is that they expected that college students might vote differently from the rest of them," says Richard Hasen, the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "And the Supreme Court has been pretty clear that that's not a good reason."
But while federal courts have ruled that students have a right to vote from campus, state residency laws make things more complicated. It all comes down to how the state, or often a particular municipality, defines residency. Jon Greenbaum, director of the Voting Rights Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, says Virginia has a history of county registrars taking a very restrictive view of the law and defining residency very narrowly. "It has the potential to be a problem in a lot of places where the registrar or the state government starts taking a real restrictive view," Greenbaum says.
Of the 50 states, 11, including Virginia, make it more difficult for college students to vote on campus, according to "Democracy and College Student Voting," a 2006 study by the Institute for Public Affairs and Civic Engagement at Salisbury University in Maryland. In some places, P.O. boxes and dormitories are not considered proper addresses. In others, ID laws make it difficult for students to vote because their driver's licenses do not reflect where they are living at school. In many instances, students are left voting provisionally or voting absentee, says Matt Segal, president of the Student Association for Voter Empowerment, an organization that looks at voting access barriers for students.
"The big story we're trying to break right now is that all of these young people who intend to show up actually might not be able to, given the laws and restrictions in all these states," says Segal.
It's difficult to measure the impact these laws have on students because most voter data is broken down only by age group and not by who is and who isn't attending a university or college. Despite that, the Salisbury University study found a slight correlation between states that allow young people to choose where they vote and higher voter registration and turnout. "If we just had college student data, I would expect that the relationship would be stronger," explains Michael O'Loughlin, a professor at Salisbury who coauthored the study.
In recent years, several legal battles have highlighted the topic and have come down on the side of the students. At the same time, O'Loughlin says he has seen a national "drift" toward allowing students the option to vote at their campus addresses, though there are regions that resist the trend.
For voting groups like Rock the Vote and SAVE, the key is getting students the right information. SAVE has pushed for legislation, and a bill has been introduced in the House and Senate that would require federally funded colleges and universities to register student voters, similar to the way departments of motor vehicles across the country give citizens the option to register to vote while getting their driver's license.
Rock the Vote has recently introduced a "there's no place like home" campaign to spread the word to students that their campus is their home too. "I think that young people are savvy voters, and they will register and cast a ballot where they consider home and where they think it makes the most sense politically," says Heather Smith, executive director of Rock the Vote.
By Election Day, voting groups hope their messages will have cut through some of the misunderstandings. "You've seen the game 'Telephone'--if one person hears the right instructions, the message slowly slips as it is delivered from person to person," says Segal of SAVE. "It's very easy in such a large body of people to have confusion about the laws and procedures."
And in what could be a very close election, that confusion could cost one of the candidates.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
$23 Billion “Lost” in Iraq
By Jane Corbin
BBC News
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
War profiteering
While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.
To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.
The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.
Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.
"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."
In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.
Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.
Missing billions
The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.
He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.
Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.
Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.
He said: "I believe these people are criminals.
"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."
Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.
He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.
There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.
He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.
Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stmPublished:
2008/06/10 17:25:48 GMT© BBC MMVIII
BBC News
A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq.
The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding.
A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations.
The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies.
War profiteering
While Presdient George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted.
To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq.
The president's Democratic opponents are keeping up the pressure over war profiteering in Iraq.
Henry Waxman, who chairs the House committee on oversight and government reform, said: "The money that's gone into waste, fraud and abuse under these contracts is just so outrageous, it's egregious.
"It may well turn out to be the largest war profiteering in history."
In the run-up to the invasion, one of the most senior officials in charge of procurement in the Pentagon objected to a contract potentially worth $7bn that was given to Halliburton, a Texan company which used to be run by Dick Cheney before he became vice-president.
Unusually only Halliburton got to bid - and won.
Missing billions
The search for the missing billions also led the programme to a house in Acton in west London where Hazem Shalaan lived until he was appointed to the new Iraqi government as minister of defence in 2004.
He and his associates siphoned an estimated $1.2bn out of the ministry. They bought old military equipment from Poland but claimed for top-class weapons.
Meanwhile they diverted money into their own accounts.
Judge Radhi al-Radhi of Iraq's Commission for Public Integrity investigated.
He said: "I believe these people are criminals.
"They failed to rebuild the Ministry of Defence, and as a result the violence and the bloodshed went on and on - the murder of Iraqis and foreigners continues and they bear responsibility."
Mr Shalaan was sentenced to two jail terms but he fled the country.
He said he was innocent and that it was all a plot against him by pro-Iranian MPs in the government.
There is an Interpol arrest warrant out for him but he is on the run - using a private jet to move around the globe.
He stills owns commercial properties in the Marble Arch area of London.
Panorama: Daylight Robbery will be on BBC One at 9pm on Tuesday 10 June 2008.
Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr//2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stmPublished:
2008/06/10 17:25:48 GMT© BBC MMVIII
Bernanke: Not Only Should Taxpayers Buy the Toxic Waste, They Should Pay Premium Prices for It
Cryptogon
September 24, 2008
In a sane world, these monsters would be torn limb from limb and shredded into maggot food—a role in which they could actually do some good.
Drill holes around the base of a bucket. Place some banker parts in the bucket with a bit of straw and hang it a couple of feet above your chickens. After a few days (during warm weather), the maggots will spill out onto the ground. The chickens will gather below the bucket, waiting for the protein packed morsels to fall from above.
Of course, I’m not actually suggesting that people should kill bankers and turn them into maggot food.
The stench would be overpowering. And that’s before the maggots could do their handy work.
Via: AP:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the government should pay more than “fire-sale” prices for the toxic assets it would acquire under a proposed $700 billion bailout plan. That could mean both higher initial costs for taxpayers and reduced returns when the assets are later resold.
Bernanke’s comment was the first indication of how he and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are thinking about formulating the rescue plan’s medicine in a way that doesn’t kill the patients. Requiring banks and other financial institutions to sell troubled loans and other assets anywhere close to recent sales prices of only a few cents on the dollar could wipe out the net worth of many and lead to a new wave of bank failures.
The Fed chairman said he favors buying the assets based on their “hold-to-maturity” value, which would require an estimate to be made of what each security will eventually be worth as payments come in over the years.
“If the Treasury bids for and then buys assets at a price close to the hold-to-maturity price, there will be substantial benefits,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee. “First, banks will have a basis for valuing those assets and will not have to use fire-sale prices. Their capital will not be unreasonably marked down.”
September 24, 2008
In a sane world, these monsters would be torn limb from limb and shredded into maggot food—a role in which they could actually do some good.
Drill holes around the base of a bucket. Place some banker parts in the bucket with a bit of straw and hang it a couple of feet above your chickens. After a few days (during warm weather), the maggots will spill out onto the ground. The chickens will gather below the bucket, waiting for the protein packed morsels to fall from above.
Of course, I’m not actually suggesting that people should kill bankers and turn them into maggot food.
The stench would be overpowering. And that’s before the maggots could do their handy work.
Via: AP:
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress Tuesday the government should pay more than “fire-sale” prices for the toxic assets it would acquire under a proposed $700 billion bailout plan. That could mean both higher initial costs for taxpayers and reduced returns when the assets are later resold.
Bernanke’s comment was the first indication of how he and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson are thinking about formulating the rescue plan’s medicine in a way that doesn’t kill the patients. Requiring banks and other financial institutions to sell troubled loans and other assets anywhere close to recent sales prices of only a few cents on the dollar could wipe out the net worth of many and lead to a new wave of bank failures.
The Fed chairman said he favors buying the assets based on their “hold-to-maturity” value, which would require an estimate to be made of what each security will eventually be worth as payments come in over the years.
“If the Treasury bids for and then buys assets at a price close to the hold-to-maturity price, there will be substantial benefits,” Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee. “First, banks will have a basis for valuing those assets and will not have to use fire-sale prices. Their capital will not be unreasonably marked down.”
Why is a U.S. Army brigade being assigned to the “Homeland”?
Glenn Greenwald
Salon
September 24, 2008
Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" — "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:
They’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
"It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it."
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").
For more than 100 years — since the end of the Civil War — deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored — until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."
After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will — and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader’s demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" — and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .
The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .
Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record:
"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms ‘Insurrection Act,’ ‘martial law’ and ‘Congress,’ came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor — including Republicans — joined in Leahy’s objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager — as always — to grant the President this radical new power.
The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn’t take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President’s police force, is so disturbing.
Bovard:
"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States — under the command of the President — for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President’s sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?
UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President’s powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.
UPDATE II: There’s no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it’s unlikely in the extreme that they’d be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.
Salon
September 24, 2008
Several bloggers today have pointed to this obviously disturbing article from Army Times, which announces that "beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the [1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division] will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North" — "the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities." The article details:
They’ll learn new skills, use some of the ones they acquired in the war zone and more than likely will not be shot at while doing any of it.
They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack. . . .
The 1st BCT’s soldiers also will learn how to use "the first ever nonlethal package that the Army has fielded," 1st BCT commander Col. Roger Cloutier said, referring to crowd and traffic control equipment and nonlethal weapons designed to subdue unruly or dangerous individuals without killing them.
"It’s a new modular package of nonlethal capabilities that they’re fielding. They’ve been using pieces of it in Iraq, but this is the first time that these modules were consolidated and this package fielded, and because of this mission we’re undertaking we were the first to get it."
The package includes equipment to stand up a hasty road block; spike strips for slowing, stopping or controlling traffic; shields and batons; and, beanbag bullets.
"I was the first guy in the brigade to get Tasered," said Cloutier, describing the experience as "your worst muscle cramp ever — times 10 throughout your whole body". . . .
The brigade will not change its name, but the force will be known for the next year as a CBRNE Consequence Management Response Force, or CCMRF (pronounced "sea-smurf").
For more than 100 years — since the end of the Civil War — deployment of the U.S. military inside the U.S. has been prohibited under The Posse Comitatus Act (the only exceptions being that the National Guard and Coast Guard are exempted, and use of the military on an emergency ad hoc basis is permitted, such as what happened after Hurricane Katrina). Though there have been some erosions of this prohibition over the last several decades (most perniciously to allow the use of the military to work with law enforcement agencies in the "War on Drugs"), the bright line ban on using the U.S. military as a standing law enforcement force inside the U.S. has been more or less honored — until now. And as the Army Times notes, once this particular brigade completes its one-year assignment, "expectations are that another, as yet unnamed, active-duty brigade will take over and that the mission will be a permanent one."
After Hurricane Katrina, the Bush administration began openly agitating for what would be, in essence, a complete elimination of the key prohibitions of the Posse Comitatus Act in order to allow the President to deploy U.S. military forces inside the U.S. basically at will — and, as usual, they were successful as a result of rapid bipartisan compliance with the Leader’s demand (the same kind of compliance that is about to foist a bailout package on the nation). This April, 2007 article by James Bovard in The American Conservative detailed the now-familiar mechanics that led to the destruction of this particular long-standing democratic safeguard:
The Defense Authorization Act of 2006, passed on Sept. 30, empowers President George W. Bush to impose martial law in the event of a terrorist "incident," if he or other federal officials perceive a shortfall of "public order," or even in response to antiwar protests that get unruly as a result of government provocations. . . .
It only took a few paragraphs in a $500 billion, 591-page bill to raze one of the most important limits on federal power. Congress passed the Insurrection Act in 1807 to severely restrict the president’s ability to deploy the military within the United States. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 tightened these restrictions, imposing a two-year prison sentence on anyone who used the military within the U.S. without the express permission of Congress. But there is a loophole: Posse Comitatus is waived if the president invokes the Insurrection Act.
Section 1076 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 changed the name of the key provision in the statute book from "Insurrection Act" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act." The Insurrection Act of 1807 stated that the president could deploy troops within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." The new law expands the list to include “natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition" — and such "condition" is not defined or limited. . . .
The story of how Section 1076 became law vivifies how expanding government power is almost always the correct answer in Washington. Some people have claimed the provision was slipped into the bill in the middle of the night. In reality, the administration clearly signaled its intent and almost no one in the media or Congress tried to stop it . . . .
Section 1076 was supported by both conservatives and liberals. Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the ranking Democratic member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, co-wrote the provision along with committee chairman Sen. John Warner (R-Va.). Sen. Ted Kennedy openly endorsed it, and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), then-chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was an avid proponent. . . .
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, warned on Sept. 19 that "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law," but his alarm got no response. Ten days later, he commented in the Congressional Record:
"Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy." Leahy further condemned the process, declaring that it "was just slipped in the defense bill as a rider with little study. Other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals."
As is typical, very few members of the media even mentioned any of this, let alone discussed it (and I failed to give this the attention it deserved at the time), but Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein wrote an excellent article at the time detailing the process and noted that "despite such a radical turn, the new law garnered little dissent, or even attention, on the Hill." Stein also noted that while "the blogosphere, of course, was all over it . . . a search of The Washington Post and New York Times archives, using the terms ‘Insurrection Act,’ ‘martial law’ and ‘Congress,’ came up empty."
Bovard and Stein both noted that every Governor — including Republicans — joined in Leahy’s objections, as they perceived it as a threat from the Federal Government to what has long been the role of the National Guard. But those concerns were easily brushed aside by the bipartisan majorities in Congress, eager — as always — to grant the President this radical new power.
The decision this month to permanently deploy a U.S. Army brigade inside the U.S. for purely domestic law enforcement purposes is the fruit of the Congressional elimination of the long-standing prohibitions in Posse Comitatus (although there are credible signs that even before Congress acted, the Bush administration secretly decided it possessed the inherent power to violate the Act). It shouldn’t take any efforts to explain why the permanent deployment of the U.S. military inside American cities, acting as the President’s police force, is so disturbing.
Bovard:
"Martial law" is a euphemism for military dictatorship. When foreign democracies are overthrown and a junta establishes martial law, Americans usually recognize that a fundamental change has occurred. . . . Section 1076 is Enabling Act-type legislation—something that purports to preserve law-and-order while formally empowering the president to rule by decree.
The historic importance of the Posse Comitatus prohibition was also well-analyzed here.
As the recent militarization of St. Paul during the GOP Convention made abundantly clear, our actual police forces are already quite militarized. Still, what possible rationale is there for permanently deploying the U.S. Army inside the United States — under the command of the President — for any purpose, let alone things such as "crowd control," other traditional law enforcement functions, and a seemingly unlimited array of other uses at the President’s sole discretion? And where are all of the stalwart right-wing "small government conservatives" who spent the 1990s so vocally opposing every aspect of the growing federal police force? And would it be possible to get some explanation from the Government about what the rationale is for this unprecedented domestic military deployment (at least unprecedented since the Civil War), and why it is being undertaken now?
UPDATE: As this commenter notes, the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act somewhat limited the scope of the powers granted by the 2007 Act detailed above (mostly to address constitutional concerns by limiting the President’s powers to deploy the military to suppress disorder that threatens constitutional rights), but President Bush, when signing that 2008 Act into law, issued a signing statement which, though vague, seems to declare that he does not recognize those new limitations.
UPDATE II: There’s no need to start manufacturing all sorts of scare scenarios about Bush canceling elections or the imminent declaration of martial law or anything of that sort. None of that is going to happen with a single brigade and it’s unlikely in the extreme that they’d be announcing these deployments if they had activated any such plans. The point is that the deployment is a very dangerous precedent, quite possibly illegal, and a radical abandonment of an important democratic safeguard. As always with first steps of this sort, the danger lies in how the power can be abused in the future.
DHS Expands From Laptop to Paper Searches at Borders
Electronic Frontier Foundation
September 24, 2008
Recently obtained documents show that last year the Department of Homeland Security quietly reversed a two-decades-old policy that restricted customs agents from reading and copying the personal papers carried by travelers, including U.S. citizens. The documents were made public today by the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain policies governing the searches and questioning of travelers at the nation’s borders.
The documents show that in 2007, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) loosened restrictions on the examination of travelers’ documents and papers that had existed since 1986. While CBP agents could previously read travelers’ documents only if they had “reasonable suspicion” that the documents would reveal violations of agency rules, in 2007 officers were given the power to “review and analyze” papers without any individualized suspicion. Furthermore, whereas CBP agents could previously copy materials only where they had “probable cause” to believe a law had been violated, in 2007 they were empowered to copy travelers’ papers without suspicion of wrongdoing and keep them for a “reasonable period of time” to conduct a border search. The new rules applied to physical documents as well as files on laptop computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.
In July 2008, the Department of Homeland Security made public a new policy on examining travelers’ papers and electronic devices that finalized many of the changes first implemented in 2007. The agency did not disclose, however, how much the new policy deviated from rules that had been in place since 1986. The FOIA documents from ALC’s and EFF’s suit included the original policy, which had been adopted after a group of U.S. citizens challenged the practices of the 1980s as violating First Amendment rights.
“For more than 20 years, the government implicitly recognized that reading and copying the letters, diaries, and personal papers of travelers without reason would chill Americans’ rights to free speech and free expression,” said Shirin Sinnar, ALC staff attorney. “But now customs officials can probe into the thoughts and lives of ordinary travelers without any suspicion at all.”
In February 2008, ALC and EFF sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to disclose its policies on searching and questioning travelers at U.S. borders. ALC, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization, received more than two dozen complaints since last year from U.S. travelers, mostly of Muslim, South Asian, or Middle Eastern origin, who said they were grilled about their families, religious practices, volunteer activities, political beliefs, or associations when returning to the United States from travels abroad. In addition, these individuals said that CBP agents examined their books, handwritten notes, personal photos, laptop computer files, and cell phone directories, and sometimes made copies of this information.
The documents from the FOIA request show that CBP’s wide latitude to collect this data attracted significant attention from other law enforcement agencies that sought to access it.
“Your laptop computer likely contains a massive amount of private information such as personal emails, financial data or confidential business records,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann.
“The Department of Homeland Security has given its agents increasingly broad authority to search, copy, and store that information. Congress needs to step in now to stop these invasive practices and protect travelers’ privacy.”
The newly released documents, which total 661 pages, also reveal that:
* In 2004, CBP adopted a directive on responding to “potential terrorists” seeking to enter the United States. The directive, which was revised in 2006, called for intensive questioning and document review of individuals who were flagged as “known or suspected” terrorists.
* CBP appears to have no policy constraining agents from questioning travelers on their religious practices or political views, in spite of the fact that many travelers have complained about being grilled on such First Amendment-protected activities.
* According to the Tucson, Arizona, field office of CBP, a database developed within that office to gather and disseminate intelligence on possible terrorists was to serve as a model for a national database.
ALC and EFF plan to challenge the government’s withholding of portions of many of these documents in federal district court this fall.
For the complete set of FOIA documents and more detailed analysis: http://www.eff.org/cases/foia-litigation-border-searches.
September 24, 2008
Recently obtained documents show that last year the Department of Homeland Security quietly reversed a two-decades-old policy that restricted customs agents from reading and copying the personal papers carried by travelers, including U.S. citizens. The documents were made public today by the Asian Law Caucus (ALC) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which sued the government under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to obtain policies governing the searches and questioning of travelers at the nation’s borders.
The documents show that in 2007, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) loosened restrictions on the examination of travelers’ documents and papers that had existed since 1986. While CBP agents could previously read travelers’ documents only if they had “reasonable suspicion” that the documents would reveal violations of agency rules, in 2007 officers were given the power to “review and analyze” papers without any individualized suspicion. Furthermore, whereas CBP agents could previously copy materials only where they had “probable cause” to believe a law had been violated, in 2007 they were empowered to copy travelers’ papers without suspicion of wrongdoing and keep them for a “reasonable period of time” to conduct a border search. The new rules applied to physical documents as well as files on laptop computers, cell phones, and other electronic devices.
In July 2008, the Department of Homeland Security made public a new policy on examining travelers’ papers and electronic devices that finalized many of the changes first implemented in 2007. The agency did not disclose, however, how much the new policy deviated from rules that had been in place since 1986. The FOIA documents from ALC’s and EFF’s suit included the original policy, which had been adopted after a group of U.S. citizens challenged the practices of the 1980s as violating First Amendment rights.
“For more than 20 years, the government implicitly recognized that reading and copying the letters, diaries, and personal papers of travelers without reason would chill Americans’ rights to free speech and free expression,” said Shirin Sinnar, ALC staff attorney. “But now customs officials can probe into the thoughts and lives of ordinary travelers without any suspicion at all.”
In February 2008, ALC and EFF sued the Department of Homeland Security for failing to disclose its policies on searching and questioning travelers at U.S. borders. ALC, a San Francisco-based civil rights organization, received more than two dozen complaints since last year from U.S. travelers, mostly of Muslim, South Asian, or Middle Eastern origin, who said they were grilled about their families, religious practices, volunteer activities, political beliefs, or associations when returning to the United States from travels abroad. In addition, these individuals said that CBP agents examined their books, handwritten notes, personal photos, laptop computer files, and cell phone directories, and sometimes made copies of this information.
The documents from the FOIA request show that CBP’s wide latitude to collect this data attracted significant attention from other law enforcement agencies that sought to access it.
“Your laptop computer likely contains a massive amount of private information such as personal emails, financial data or confidential business records,” said EFF Staff Attorney Marcia Hofmann.
“The Department of Homeland Security has given its agents increasingly broad authority to search, copy, and store that information. Congress needs to step in now to stop these invasive practices and protect travelers’ privacy.”
The newly released documents, which total 661 pages, also reveal that:
* In 2004, CBP adopted a directive on responding to “potential terrorists” seeking to enter the United States. The directive, which was revised in 2006, called for intensive questioning and document review of individuals who were flagged as “known or suspected” terrorists.
* CBP appears to have no policy constraining agents from questioning travelers on their religious practices or political views, in spite of the fact that many travelers have complained about being grilled on such First Amendment-protected activities.
* According to the Tucson, Arizona, field office of CBP, a database developed within that office to gather and disseminate intelligence on possible terrorists was to serve as a model for a national database.
ALC and EFF plan to challenge the government’s withholding of portions of many of these documents in federal district court this fall.
For the complete set of FOIA documents and more detailed analysis: http://www.eff.org/cases/foia-litigation-border-searches.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Canadian Troops To Patrol US Cities As Food Riots Feared
February 24, 2008
Canadian Troops To Patrol US Cities As Food Riots Feared
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the United States has, for the first time in its history, granted rights to a Foreign Army to have ‘full power’ over the life and death of American Citizens in their own country.
Though not being reported to the American people by their propaganda media organs, the United States Northern Command Military Leader, US Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, and his Canadian counterpart, Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais [both pictured top left] announced this new Military Pact this past week, and as we can read:
"U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”
It is interesting to note, too, that the Canadian peoples, like their American neighbors to the south, were not told of these plans for their Military Forces, and as we can read as reported by Canada’s Canwest News Service, and who say:
"Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas."
Russian Colonel Gen Vladimir Bulgakov, Commander of Russia’s Far East Military District, points out in these reports that it is ‘no wonder’ that neither the US or Canadian War Leaders want the masses of their citizens to know about these ‘unprecedented’ events as ‘soldiers by their inherent training are for use in war, not peace’.
These reports further note that though Canada currently possesses 125,000 active Military and 36,500 Reserve Troops, the majority of which have been ‘combat hardened’ in the US Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only Canadian Troops available for any, so called, ‘civil emergency’ in the United States, are soldiers from its Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), and which Russian Military Commanders rate as being one of the top Special Forces Units among all of the World’s Army’s.
The more likely use of these Canadian Troops on American Soil, these reports go on to say, would be for the patrolling of US Cities during times of civil war, internal unrest, or, most fearfully, the assisting of US Police in the rounding up of masses of US Citizens for arrest and interment.
This assessment of the truest intentions of the United States War Leaders granting power over their own citizens to Canadian Special Forces Troops, appears to be supported by information coming from US Troops returning from Iraq, and as we can read as reported by the Prison Planet News Service in their report titled "U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens", and which says:
"U.S. troops are being trained to conduct round-ups, confiscate guns and shoot American citizens, including their own friends and family members, as part of a long-standing program to prepare for the declaration of martial law, according to a soldier who recently returned from Iraq.
We received an e mail from "Scott", a member of a pipefitters union that runs an apprenticeship program called Helmets To Hard Hats, which according to its website, "Is a national program that connects National Guard, Reserve and transitioning active-duty military members with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry."
Scott writes that his company hired a soldier who had recently returned from Iraq, who told him that U.S. troops were being quizzed on whether or not they would be prepared to shoot their own friends and family members during a national state of emergency in America."
An estimated timeline in these reports states that the American people could begin seeing Canadian Soldiers in their cities as early as this summer, as many experts are predicting that the massive food shortages being reported all around the World will begin causing food riots in many American cities.
To how bad the Global Food Crisis is becoming we can read as reported by Australia’s Adelaide Now News Service, and which says:
"A WORSENING global food shortage is a problem far more urgent than climate change, top Australian scientists have warned. The Australian Science Media Centre briefing heard why prices for some staple foods had risen by as much as 60 per cent in the past year, and how dramatic price rises are expected to sweep across all staples in the near future."
There remains no evidence to suggest, either, that the American people themselves are aware of the brutal future being planned for them. Even more sadly, perhaps, is the evidence suggesting that they don’t even want to know.
[link to www.whatdoesitmean.com]
Canadian Troops To Patrol US Cities As Food Riots Feared
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
Russian Military Analysts are reporting in the Kremlin today that the United States has, for the first time in its history, granted rights to a Foreign Army to have ‘full power’ over the life and death of American Citizens in their own country.
Though not being reported to the American people by their propaganda media organs, the United States Northern Command Military Leader, US Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, and his Canadian counterpart, Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais [both pictured top left] announced this new Military Pact this past week, and as we can read:
"U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.
“This document is a unique, bilateral military plan to align our respective national military plans to respond quickly to the other nation's requests for military support of civil authorities,” Renuart said. “Unity of effort during bilateral support for civil support operations such as floods, forest fires, hurricanes, earthquakes and effects of a terrorist attack, in order to save lives, prevent human suffering and mitigate damage to property, is of the highest importance, and we need to be able to have forces that are flexible and adaptive to support rapid decision-making in a collaborative environment.”
It is interesting to note, too, that the Canadian peoples, like their American neighbors to the south, were not told of these plans for their Military Forces, and as we can read as reported by Canada’s Canwest News Service, and who say:
"Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other's borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal. Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas."
Russian Colonel Gen Vladimir Bulgakov, Commander of Russia’s Far East Military District, points out in these reports that it is ‘no wonder’ that neither the US or Canadian War Leaders want the masses of their citizens to know about these ‘unprecedented’ events as ‘soldiers by their inherent training are for use in war, not peace’.
These reports further note that though Canada currently possesses 125,000 active Military and 36,500 Reserve Troops, the majority of which have been ‘combat hardened’ in the US Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the only Canadian Troops available for any, so called, ‘civil emergency’ in the United States, are soldiers from its Special Operations Forces Command (CANSOFCOM), and which Russian Military Commanders rate as being one of the top Special Forces Units among all of the World’s Army’s.
The more likely use of these Canadian Troops on American Soil, these reports go on to say, would be for the patrolling of US Cities during times of civil war, internal unrest, or, most fearfully, the assisting of US Police in the rounding up of masses of US Citizens for arrest and interment.
This assessment of the truest intentions of the United States War Leaders granting power over their own citizens to Canadian Special Forces Troops, appears to be supported by information coming from US Troops returning from Iraq, and as we can read as reported by the Prison Planet News Service in their report titled "U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens", and which says:
"U.S. troops are being trained to conduct round-ups, confiscate guns and shoot American citizens, including their own friends and family members, as part of a long-standing program to prepare for the declaration of martial law, according to a soldier who recently returned from Iraq.
We received an e mail from "Scott", a member of a pipefitters union that runs an apprenticeship program called Helmets To Hard Hats, which according to its website, "Is a national program that connects National Guard, Reserve and transitioning active-duty military members with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry."
Scott writes that his company hired a soldier who had recently returned from Iraq, who told him that U.S. troops were being quizzed on whether or not they would be prepared to shoot their own friends and family members during a national state of emergency in America."
An estimated timeline in these reports states that the American people could begin seeing Canadian Soldiers in their cities as early as this summer, as many experts are predicting that the massive food shortages being reported all around the World will begin causing food riots in many American cities.
To how bad the Global Food Crisis is becoming we can read as reported by Australia’s Adelaide Now News Service, and which says:
"A WORSENING global food shortage is a problem far more urgent than climate change, top Australian scientists have warned. The Australian Science Media Centre briefing heard why prices for some staple foods had risen by as much as 60 per cent in the past year, and how dramatic price rises are expected to sweep across all staples in the near future."
There remains no evidence to suggest, either, that the American people themselves are aware of the brutal future being planned for them. Even more sadly, perhaps, is the evidence suggesting that they don’t even want to know.
[link to www.whatdoesitmean.com]
Election Issues? What Issues?
Wrath Of Allah News
Aquil Aziz
Sitting back and seeing what is happening today, the outlook is just plain abysmal. The schools are broken, food and gas prices have gone through the roof and people are losing their homes right and left to foreclosure, even though the federal government is bailing out the collapsing banks. Currently there's a $700 billion bailout package pending in Congress.
Let's not even forget about the so called war on terror and the erosion of our rights. We haven't heard anything about the prisoners often called "detainees" down in that hell hole torture chamber called Guantanamo (Gitmo). The president admits to having torture meetings on torture in the white house and nothing is done. So much for justice and the rule of law.
Congress has abdicated in their obligation to the people as the president broke one law after the other. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached a long time ago, but the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi made sure that something like that never happens. However, you can be called a terrorist or enemy combatant and taken into custody by the government indefinately.
We're bombarded with government propaganda day in and day out. Celebrities being arrested for acting a fool is news that dominates on the major networks. Recently, the FCC ruled that TMZ, a celebrity gossip program and CBN's the 700 Club is bona fide newscasts.
What more can be said? It's a sad state of affairs in the United States.
After all that has happened over the last eight years, who cares? The American economy is going to collapse. Just look at what's happening to the dollar. Very very soon the dollar is going to be so worthless that we're going to see $100 bills lying on the ground. This writer does not see the American economy lasting more than a year. Hyper inflation is on the way along with a bankrupt U.S. government.
Since Congress allowed all this madness to take place and allowing this president and his administration to remain untouched from the rule of law; it's time to build a gallows or a guillotine right in front of the U.S. Capitol and bring all the members who supported this madness and corruption out and execute them. Then move on to the war criminals in the white house and pentagon. And in the grand finale, all the media propaganda puppets who cheerleaded this ride to destruction should be executed as well. I actually had a dream that this did happen.
Aquil Aziz
Sitting back and seeing what is happening today, the outlook is just plain abysmal. The schools are broken, food and gas prices have gone through the roof and people are losing their homes right and left to foreclosure, even though the federal government is bailing out the collapsing banks. Currently there's a $700 billion bailout package pending in Congress.
Let's not even forget about the so called war on terror and the erosion of our rights. We haven't heard anything about the prisoners often called "detainees" down in that hell hole torture chamber called Guantanamo (Gitmo). The president admits to having torture meetings on torture in the white house and nothing is done. So much for justice and the rule of law.
Congress has abdicated in their obligation to the people as the president broke one law after the other. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached a long time ago, but the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi made sure that something like that never happens. However, you can be called a terrorist or enemy combatant and taken into custody by the government indefinately.
We're bombarded with government propaganda day in and day out. Celebrities being arrested for acting a fool is news that dominates on the major networks. Recently, the FCC ruled that TMZ, a celebrity gossip program and CBN's the 700 Club is bona fide newscasts.
What more can be said? It's a sad state of affairs in the United States.
After all that has happened over the last eight years, who cares? The American economy is going to collapse. Just look at what's happening to the dollar. Very very soon the dollar is going to be so worthless that we're going to see $100 bills lying on the ground. This writer does not see the American economy lasting more than a year. Hyper inflation is on the way along with a bankrupt U.S. government.
Since Congress allowed all this madness to take place and allowing this president and his administration to remain untouched from the rule of law; it's time to build a gallows or a guillotine right in front of the U.S. Capitol and bring all the members who supported this madness and corruption out and execute them. Then move on to the war criminals in the white house and pentagon. And in the grand finale, all the media propaganda puppets who cheerleaded this ride to destruction should be executed as well. I actually had a dream that this did happen.
Democracy or Police State?
Tom Burghardt
Antifascist Calling
September 22, 2008
On Wednesday, Antifascist Calling reported on moves by the Department of Justice to seek blanket immunity for AT&T under provisions of the disgraceful FISA Amendments Act (FAA).
If approved by Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding magistrate hearing the landmark Hepting v. AT&T lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco, the giant telecommunications corporation and Bush crime family partner would walk away scott free.
The suit, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers caught up in the state’s illegal internet and telephone driftnet surveillance, is challenging unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens and legal residents.
The shocking extent of the "public-private partnership" in political repression was first revealed in depth when former AT&T technician Mark Klein filed an affidavit in support of EFF’s contention that AT&T had systematically violated their customers’ right to privacy.
As Antifascist Calling has previously reported on many occasions, the telecommunications giant had constructed a secret room (SG3 Secure Room, room number 641A) for the exclusive use of the National Security Agency’s spying operations at AT&T’s Folsom St. office.
On Saturday, EFF reported that the government "started the formal process for retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies sued by EFF and others for their involvement in the warrantless surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans." That hearing is set for December 2, 2008 in San Francisco.
The state filed a secret "certification" by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with the court along with a public submission of its claim of limitless executive power "during a time of war."
However in a bold, preemptive move on Thursday, EFF filed a new lawsuit against the government. That suit, Jewel v. NSA, targets the National Security Agency, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s sinister chief of staff, David Addington, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Filed "on behalf of AT&T customers," the civil rights organization has opened a new front against the government and their corporate partners. EFF declared:
The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it.
Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. ("EFF Sues NSA, President Bush and Vice President Cheney to Stop Illegal Surveillance," Electronic Frontier Foundation, Press Release, September 18, 2008)
As in Hepting v. AT&T, the identical evidence of gross malfeasance on the part of well-heeled corporate lawbreakers who acted in concert with unaccountable secret state agencies, is central to Jewel v. NSA.
These covert intelligence operations arose as the result of secret Department of Justice memorandums written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to an unsigned and undated memo released by by the OLC, the Justice Department claims that President Bush has an "inherent right" to carry out "communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Indeed, as the extent of these illegal programs have revealed, the "enemy" is none other than the American people themselves!
A January 19, 2006 Justice Department White Paper, Legal Authority Supporting the Activities of the NSA Described by President Bush, states:
The NSA’s activities are supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States.
Under color of the dubious theory of the "unitary executive," propounded by ultra-rightist outfits such as the Federalist Society, Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights are flagrantly–and illegally–violated on a daily basis by the Bush administration. Such specious assertions represent nothing less than an open declaration of war on our rights and the framework for a limitless presidential dictatorship.
Senior EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston commenting on the intent of Jewel v. NSA averred,
"In addition to suing AT&T, we’ve now opened a second front in the battle to stop the NSA’s illegal surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those who authorized or participated in the spying program. For years, the NSA has been engaged in a massive and massively illegal fishing expedition through AT&T’s domestic networks and databases of customer records. Our goal in this new case against the government, as in our case against AT&T, is to dismantle this dragnet surveillance program as soon as possible."
By targeting the individuals responsible for these illegal programs, EFF intends to bring these felons to justice by holding them accountable for the destruction of our constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment states in plain and simple language:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But in a perverse interpretation of the constitutional separation of powers, Bushist minions such as torture-enabler John C. Yoo, formerly an attorney with the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel and currently a tenured professor at the University of California’s Boalt Hall Law School, stated publicly that the President, in his role as "Commander-in-Chief," has the authority to bypass, indeed subvert, laws passed by Congress.
Under this novel interpretation of the Constitution, the President has the right under the theory of the "unitary executive" to grab unlimited executive power to conduct foreign and domestic policy as he sees fit.
As limited as the Watergate-era Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was, it represented an attempt by Congress after Nixon’s resignation to curtail unchecked Executive branch surveillance of domestic dissidents under color of "national security." Indeed, Nixon’s blatant and illegal surveillance of his political opponents was included in Article 2 of the impeachment articles against him.
In the view of miscreants such as Cheney, Addington and Yoo, congressional limitations on the president’s power are "unconstitutional" maneuvers meant to strip the Chief Executive of his rightful power to act as he–and the corporatists setting policy–see fit. Under their reading, the Executive, particularly in his role as "Commander-in-Chief," must interpret laws on an equal footing with the courts, if he is to perform his "wartime" function. However, no such provision exists in the U.S. Constitution and in fact, the "unitary executive" is a fantasy.
Since 1803, U.S. constitutional tradition has recognized that the courts wield what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall called "judicial supremacy," that is, the court is the final arbiter of what is and what is not the law. Bushist ideologues stand this principle on its head and transform a society based on law into a "managed democracy" predicated on the whims of corporations and the men who wield executive power in their "unitary" interests.
If such flagrant violations of democratic and republican norms go unchecked–either by the coequal branches of government or salutary direct action by the people themselves, the rights of citizens to determine the fundamental nature of society is replaced by a Führerprinzip, that is to say, a "leader principle" rooted in an antidemocratic hierarchy of warlords that resemble the military structures of the Nazi Party. In other words, a high-tech, panoptic police state.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States Government has launched systematic assaults against the constitutional rights of American citizens and legal residents. As the illegal aggression against the people of Iraq has revealed in all its ghastly horror, the "war on terror" is a war of terror against anyone who would challenge U.S. imperialism’s claim to be undisputed "masters of the universe."
From warrantless wiretapping to torture, from preemptive wars of aggression and conquest to the plunder of the environment on behalf of corporate "friends," and from indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" to secretive plans for martial law, the Bush administration and their congressional enablers in both capitalist political parties demonstrate on a daily basis that the greatest threat to the American people comes, not from foreign terrorists or Islamic jihadists, but from neofascist fundamentalists here at home.
Antifascist Calling
September 22, 2008
On Wednesday, Antifascist Calling reported on moves by the Department of Justice to seek blanket immunity for AT&T under provisions of the disgraceful FISA Amendments Act (FAA).
If approved by Judge Vaughn Walker, the presiding magistrate hearing the landmark Hepting v. AT&T lawsuit in federal district court in San Francisco, the giant telecommunications corporation and Bush crime family partner would walk away scott free.
The suit, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) on behalf of AT&T customers caught up in the state’s illegal internet and telephone driftnet surveillance, is challenging unconstitutional spying on U.S. citizens and legal residents.
The shocking extent of the "public-private partnership" in political repression was first revealed in depth when former AT&T technician Mark Klein filed an affidavit in support of EFF’s contention that AT&T had systematically violated their customers’ right to privacy.
As Antifascist Calling has previously reported on many occasions, the telecommunications giant had constructed a secret room (SG3 Secure Room, room number 641A) for the exclusive use of the National Security Agency’s spying operations at AT&T’s Folsom St. office.
On Saturday, EFF reported that the government "started the formal process for retroactive immunity for the telecommunications companies sued by EFF and others for their involvement in the warrantless surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans." That hearing is set for December 2, 2008 in San Francisco.
The state filed a secret "certification" by U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey with the court along with a public submission of its claim of limitless executive power "during a time of war."
However in a bold, preemptive move on Thursday, EFF filed a new lawsuit against the government. That suit, Jewel v. NSA, targets the National Security Agency, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s sinister chief of staff, David Addington, and former U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
Filed "on behalf of AT&T customers," the civil rights organization has opened a new front against the government and their corporate partners. EFF declared:
The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it.
Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. ("EFF Sues NSA, President Bush and Vice President Cheney to Stop Illegal Surveillance," Electronic Frontier Foundation, Press Release, September 18, 2008)
As in Hepting v. AT&T, the identical evidence of gross malfeasance on the part of well-heeled corporate lawbreakers who acted in concert with unaccountable secret state agencies, is central to Jewel v. NSA.
These covert intelligence operations arose as the result of secret Department of Justice memorandums written by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). According to an unsigned and undated memo released by by the OLC, the Justice Department claims that President Bush has an "inherent right" to carry out "communications intelligence targeted at the enemy." Indeed, as the extent of these illegal programs have revealed, the "enemy" is none other than the American people themselves!
A January 19, 2006 Justice Department White Paper, Legal Authority Supporting the Activities of the NSA Described by President Bush, states:
The NSA’s activities are supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs to conduct warrantless surveillance of enemy forces for intelligence purposes to detect and disrupt armed attacks on the United States.
Under color of the dubious theory of the "unitary executive," propounded by ultra-rightist outfits such as the Federalist Society, Americans’ Fourth Amendment rights are flagrantly–and illegally–violated on a daily basis by the Bush administration. Such specious assertions represent nothing less than an open declaration of war on our rights and the framework for a limitless presidential dictatorship.
Senior EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston commenting on the intent of Jewel v. NSA averred,
"In addition to suing AT&T, we’ve now opened a second front in the battle to stop the NSA’s illegal surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and hold personally responsible those who authorized or participated in the spying program. For years, the NSA has been engaged in a massive and massively illegal fishing expedition through AT&T’s domestic networks and databases of customer records. Our goal in this new case against the government, as in our case against AT&T, is to dismantle this dragnet surveillance program as soon as possible."
By targeting the individuals responsible for these illegal programs, EFF intends to bring these felons to justice by holding them accountable for the destruction of our constitutional rights. The Fourth Amendment states in plain and simple language:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But in a perverse interpretation of the constitutional separation of powers, Bushist minions such as torture-enabler John C. Yoo, formerly an attorney with the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel and currently a tenured professor at the University of California’s Boalt Hall Law School, stated publicly that the President, in his role as "Commander-in-Chief," has the authority to bypass, indeed subvert, laws passed by Congress.
Under this novel interpretation of the Constitution, the President has the right under the theory of the "unitary executive" to grab unlimited executive power to conduct foreign and domestic policy as he sees fit.
As limited as the Watergate-era Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was, it represented an attempt by Congress after Nixon’s resignation to curtail unchecked Executive branch surveillance of domestic dissidents under color of "national security." Indeed, Nixon’s blatant and illegal surveillance of his political opponents was included in Article 2 of the impeachment articles against him.
In the view of miscreants such as Cheney, Addington and Yoo, congressional limitations on the president’s power are "unconstitutional" maneuvers meant to strip the Chief Executive of his rightful power to act as he–and the corporatists setting policy–see fit. Under their reading, the Executive, particularly in his role as "Commander-in-Chief," must interpret laws on an equal footing with the courts, if he is to perform his "wartime" function. However, no such provision exists in the U.S. Constitution and in fact, the "unitary executive" is a fantasy.
Since 1803, U.S. constitutional tradition has recognized that the courts wield what Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall called "judicial supremacy," that is, the court is the final arbiter of what is and what is not the law. Bushist ideologues stand this principle on its head and transform a society based on law into a "managed democracy" predicated on the whims of corporations and the men who wield executive power in their "unitary" interests.
If such flagrant violations of democratic and republican norms go unchecked–either by the coequal branches of government or salutary direct action by the people themselves, the rights of citizens to determine the fundamental nature of society is replaced by a Führerprinzip, that is to say, a "leader principle" rooted in an antidemocratic hierarchy of warlords that resemble the military structures of the Nazi Party. In other words, a high-tech, panoptic police state.
Since September 11, 2001, the United States Government has launched systematic assaults against the constitutional rights of American citizens and legal residents. As the illegal aggression against the people of Iraq has revealed in all its ghastly horror, the "war on terror" is a war of terror against anyone who would challenge U.S. imperialism’s claim to be undisputed "masters of the universe."
From warrantless wiretapping to torture, from preemptive wars of aggression and conquest to the plunder of the environment on behalf of corporate "friends," and from indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" to secretive plans for martial law, the Bush administration and their congressional enablers in both capitalist political parties demonstrate on a daily basis that the greatest threat to the American people comes, not from foreign terrorists or Islamic jihadists, but from neofascist fundamentalists here at home.
Obama and 'the Bubba Vote'
[col. writ. 9/9/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
By now, if pundits were to be believed, Sen. Barack Obama was supposed to be coasting to an easy November win, buoyed by dramatic moments at the democratic Convention, and cruising on a comfortable lead in the polls.
But if ever there was an election season that proved that pundits couldn't catch the ball, this is it.
For the polls are neck-and-neck dead heats between the campaigns of Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.). If there was a post-convention bounce, it went to McCain for his surprise pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. spot.
She has energized a campaign that was seen as moribund just a few weeks ago.
There is another factor that we cannot ignore; what former GOP house majority leader, Dick Armey (R - Tex) calls 'the Bubba vote.
In Armey's words, "The Bubba vote is there, and it's very real, and it is everywhere," Armey went on to explain what he meant by 'the Bubba vote'; "There's an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man." There it is.
If this Bubba vote has kept Obama from bouncing after a successful convention, McCain's Palin pick has compounded this problem.
For it demonstrates that all the hue and cry over 'experience' was but a smokescreen for something else. It shows us that all the clamor over 'qualifications; was naught but pretext.
For after all is said and done, for millions of Americans, Barack Obama's blackness has made him automatically ineligible for election.
That's not issues; that's not views, that's not politics; that's race. Period.
And, truth be told, that's America, at its core.
After the Democratic conventions, many Black publications gushed over the history of the nomination. And while it's true it's never happened before, it's also true that a nomination is nothing more than a means to an end.
If he loses the election, the nomination goes into the Geraldine Ferraro closet, and it will be generations before this historic opportunity returns.
And, if 'the Bubba vote' gets its way, he may well lose.
It reminds us of what's called 'the Bradley effect,' after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. Bradley was leading in polls by double digits the night of the election.
By morning, he'd lost.
When Douglas Wilder ran for Governor, he led by 10 points in the polls. His victory was just over 1% of the vote.
So, the polls are neck-and-neck. Indeed, some show McCain leading.
What's that tell ya, but that 'the Bradley effect' (or should we call it 'the Bubba effect'?) is still at work?
--(c) '08 maj
[Sources: Wolf, Richard and Martha T. Moore, " Armey predicts Obama will hit blockade of 'Bubba', " USA Today, Thurs,. Sept. 4, 2008; Henry, Charles P., "Obama '08 - Articulate and Clean," Black Scholar. (Spr, '08). p. 5.)
By now, if pundits were to be believed, Sen. Barack Obama was supposed to be coasting to an easy November win, buoyed by dramatic moments at the democratic Convention, and cruising on a comfortable lead in the polls.
But if ever there was an election season that proved that pundits couldn't catch the ball, this is it.
For the polls are neck-and-neck dead heats between the campaigns of Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain (R- Ariz.). If there was a post-convention bounce, it went to McCain for his surprise pick of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for the V.P. spot.
She has energized a campaign that was seen as moribund just a few weeks ago.
There is another factor that we cannot ignore; what former GOP house majority leader, Dick Armey (R - Tex) calls 'the Bubba vote.
In Armey's words, "The Bubba vote is there, and it's very real, and it is everywhere," Armey went on to explain what he meant by 'the Bubba vote'; "There's an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man." There it is.
If this Bubba vote has kept Obama from bouncing after a successful convention, McCain's Palin pick has compounded this problem.
For it demonstrates that all the hue and cry over 'experience' was but a smokescreen for something else. It shows us that all the clamor over 'qualifications; was naught but pretext.
For after all is said and done, for millions of Americans, Barack Obama's blackness has made him automatically ineligible for election.
That's not issues; that's not views, that's not politics; that's race. Period.
And, truth be told, that's America, at its core.
After the Democratic conventions, many Black publications gushed over the history of the nomination. And while it's true it's never happened before, it's also true that a nomination is nothing more than a means to an end.
If he loses the election, the nomination goes into the Geraldine Ferraro closet, and it will be generations before this historic opportunity returns.
And, if 'the Bubba vote' gets its way, he may well lose.
It reminds us of what's called 'the Bradley effect,' after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley ran for Governor of California. Bradley was leading in polls by double digits the night of the election.
By morning, he'd lost.
When Douglas Wilder ran for Governor, he led by 10 points in the polls. His victory was just over 1% of the vote.
So, the polls are neck-and-neck. Indeed, some show McCain leading.
What's that tell ya, but that 'the Bradley effect' (or should we call it 'the Bubba effect'?) is still at work?
--(c) '08 maj
[Sources: Wolf, Richard and Martha T. Moore, " Armey predicts Obama will hit blockade of 'Bubba', " USA Today, Thurs,. Sept. 4, 2008; Henry, Charles P., "Obama '08 - Articulate and Clean," Black Scholar. (Spr, '08). p. 5.)
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
The Party's Over
Pat Buchanan
Fri Sep 19, 3:00 AM ET
The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.
The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The "Omnipower" and "Indispensable Nation" we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.
Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.
This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ("Greed Is Good!") capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.
A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.
Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess — that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?
"Government must save us!" cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government — the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?
For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.
Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.
We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.
The party's over
Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.
But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into "global companies" and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.
As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.
At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.
Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.
John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or "bomb, bomb, bomb," with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.
Who are we kidding?
What we are witnessing today is how empires end.
The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.
What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.
Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.
Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.
An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.
What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Fri Sep 19, 3:00 AM ET
The Crash of 2008, which is now wiping out trillions of dollars of our people's wealth, is, like the Crash of 1929, likely to mark the end of one era and the onset of another.
The new era will see a more sober and much diminished America. The "Omnipower" and "Indispensable Nation" we heard about in all the hubris and braggadocio following our Cold War victory is history.
Seizing on the crisis, the left says we are witnessing the failure of market economics, a failure of conservatism.
This is nonsense. What we are witnessing is the collapse of Gordon Gecko ("Greed Is Good!") capitalism. What we are witnessing is what happens to a prodigal nation that ignores history, and forgets and abandons the philosophy and principles that made it great.
A true conservative cherishes prudence and believes in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and a self-reliant republic. He believes in saving for retirement and a rainy day, in deferred gratification, in not buying on credit what you cannot afford, in living within your means.
Is that really what got Wall Street and us into this mess — that we followed too religiously the gospel of Robert Taft and Russell Kirk?
"Government must save us!" cries the left, as ever. Yet, who got us into this mess if not the government — the Fed with its easy money, Bush with his profligate spending, and Congress and the SEC by liberating Wall Street and failing to step in and stop the drunken orgy?
For years, we Americans have spent more than we earned. We save nothing. Credit card debt, consumer debt, auto debt, mortgage debt, corporate debt — all are at record levels. And with pensions and savings being wiped out, much of that debt will never be repaid.
Our standard of living is inevitably going to fall. For foreigners will not forever buy our bonds or lend us more money if they rightly fear that they will be paid back, if at all, in cheaper dollars.
We are going to have to learn to live again without our means.
The party's over
Up through World War II, we followed the Hamiltonian idea that America must remain economically independent of the world in order to remain politically independent.
But this generation decided that was yesterday's bromide and we must march bravely forward into a Global Economy, where we all depend on one another. American companies morphed into "global companies" and moved plants and factories to Mexico, Asia, China and India, and we began buying more cheaply from abroad what we used to make at home: shoes, clothes, bikes, cars, radios, TVs, planes, computers.
As the trade deficits began inexorably to rise to 6 percent of GDP, we began vast borrowing from abroad to continue buying from abroad.
At home, propelled by tax cuts, war in Iraq and an explosion in social spending, surpluses vanished and deficits reappeared and began to rise. The dollar began to sink, and gold began to soar.
Yet, still, the promises of the politicians come. Barack Obama will give us national health insurance and tax cuts for all but that 2 percent of the nation that already carries 50 percent of the federal income tax load.
John McCain is going to cut taxes, expand the military, move NATO into Georgia and Ukraine, confront Russia and force Iran to stop enriching uranium or "bomb, bomb, bomb," with Joe Lieberman as wartime consigliere.
Who are we kidding?
What we are witnessing today is how empires end.
The Last Superpower is unable to defend its borders, protect its currency, win its wars or balance its budget. Medicare and Social Security are headed for the cliff with unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars.
What we are witnessing today is nothing less than a Katrina-like failure of government, of our political class, and of democracy itself, casting a cloud over the viability and longevity of the system.
Notice who is managing the crisis. Not our elected leaders. Nancy Pelosi says she had nothing to do with it. Congress is paralyzed and heading home. President Bush is nowhere to be seen.
Hank Paulson of Goldman Sachs and Ben Bernanke of the Fed chose to bail out Bear Sterns but let Lehman go under. They decided to nationalize Fannie and Freddie at a cost to taxpayers of hundreds of billions, putting the U.S. government behind $5 trillion in mortgages. They decided to buy AIG with $85 billion rather than see the insurance giant sink beneath the waves.
An unelected financial elite is now entrusted with the assignment of getting us out of a disaster into which an unelected financial elite plunged the nation. We are just spectators.
What the Greatest Generation handed down to us — the richest, most powerful, most self-sufficient republic in history, with the highest standard of living any nation had ever achieved — the baby boomers, oblivious and self-indulgent to the end, have frittered away.
To find out more about Patrick Buchanan, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
12th bank failure of the year announced
Regulators close down Ameribank Inc., a West Virginia-based-bank with total assets of $115 million.
By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: September 19, 2008: 8:48 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ameribank Inc. was shut down on Friday by the Office of the Thrift Supervision, making it the 12th bank this year to go under.
The Northfork, West Virginia bank had total assets of $115 million and total deposits of $102 million, according to a statement on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Web site.
The FDIC was named receiver and announced that it entered into purchase and assumption agreements with Pioneer Community Bank, Inc., Iaeger, West Virginia, and the Citizens Savings Bank, Martins Ferry, Ohio, to take over all of Ameribank's deposits.
Ameribank has five branches located in West Virginia and three branches located in Ohio. Branches in West Virginia will reopen on Monday and Ohio branches will reopen on Saturday.
All customer accounts were automatically transferred to the two new banks and the full amount of their deposits will automatically be insured, the FDIC said.
Customers of the banks can still access their money over the weekend by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards, according to the statement by the FDIC.
A year of bank failures
This year 12 banks have been forced to close their doors. In July IndyMac was closed down marking the largest collapse of an FDIC-insured institution since 1984. The Pasadena, Calif.-based bank failed because it backed risky home loans. With the special Alt-A home loan that IndyMac offered, a home buyer had to show little evidence of income and assets.
When IndyMac was shut down, it had assets of $32 billion and deposits of $19 billion. While the FDIC protected most of IndyMac customer's assets, some customers lost some of their deposits.
The FDIC insures the assets held by the 8,451 institutions with a total of $13.4 trillion.
By Catherine Clifford, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: September 19, 2008: 8:48 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Ameribank Inc. was shut down on Friday by the Office of the Thrift Supervision, making it the 12th bank this year to go under.
The Northfork, West Virginia bank had total assets of $115 million and total deposits of $102 million, according to a statement on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Web site.
The FDIC was named receiver and announced that it entered into purchase and assumption agreements with Pioneer Community Bank, Inc., Iaeger, West Virginia, and the Citizens Savings Bank, Martins Ferry, Ohio, to take over all of Ameribank's deposits.
Ameribank has five branches located in West Virginia and three branches located in Ohio. Branches in West Virginia will reopen on Monday and Ohio branches will reopen on Saturday.
All customer accounts were automatically transferred to the two new banks and the full amount of their deposits will automatically be insured, the FDIC said.
Customers of the banks can still access their money over the weekend by writing checks or using ATM or debit cards, according to the statement by the FDIC.
A year of bank failures
This year 12 banks have been forced to close their doors. In July IndyMac was closed down marking the largest collapse of an FDIC-insured institution since 1984. The Pasadena, Calif.-based bank failed because it backed risky home loans. With the special Alt-A home loan that IndyMac offered, a home buyer had to show little evidence of income and assets.
When IndyMac was shut down, it had assets of $32 billion and deposits of $19 billion. While the FDIC protected most of IndyMac customer's assets, some customers lost some of their deposits.
The FDIC insures the assets held by the 8,451 institutions with a total of $13.4 trillion.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Aspartame Study: 67% of Female Rats Developed Visible Tumors
PDF: Aspartame Study Female Rats Developed Visible Tumors
Victoria Inness-Brown, M.A.
Aspartame Experiment
September 15, 2008
“In my opinion, we are the rats of the pharmaceutical and chemical companies that liberally spread their synthetic chemicals worldwide, with no one fully understanding the long-term adverse effects—especially the complex interactions from injecting and intermixing thousands of toxic chemicals in the plant and animal kingdoms sustaining our planet.”—Victoria Inness-Brown
As a citizen scientist concerned about family members addicted to diet soda, I performed a 2-1/2 year scientific study on the effects of the artificial sweetener aspartame by putting aspartame (in the form of packets of NutraSweet™) in the drinking water of 60 rats, while keeping 48 as controls. Of my 30 females on aspartame, 20 of them—or 67%—developed tumors the size of golf balls or greater. Of my 30 males on aspartame, seven—or 23%—developed visible tumors. Five control females—or 21%—developed visible tumors generally smaller in size. No tumors were observed in my control males.
The percentage of females-to-males with tumors was approximately 3:1, which coincides with the complaints about aspartame registered with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)before it stopped accepting them, where females registered 77% of all complaints.
My rats on aspartame also developed other apparent health issues, such as paralysis, difficulty walking, spasmodic torticollis (also called dystonia, where the neck is twisted and the head continually tilted to one side), infected and bleeding eyes, skin lesions, thinning and yellowing fur, and obesity—which is sad, because people often use aspartame to lose weight.
1 H.J. Roberts, MD, Aspartame Disease, an Ignored Epidemic (West Palm Beach, FL: Sunshine Sentinel Press, Inc., 2001): 88. In reference to L. Tollefson, R.J. Barnard, and W.H. Glinsmann, “Monitoring of adverse reactions to aspartame reported to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration,” in Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, edited by R.J. Wurtman and E. Ritter-Walker, Washington DC (May 1987): 347-372.
Female on aspartame who often used her huge tumor as a pillow Male on aspartame whose hind legs became paralyzed while consuming aspartame.
Three of the rats in my control group developed thinning fur and one developed skin problems.
The US Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for the human consumption of 50 mg of aspartame per kg of body weight per day, which is equivalent to a 150-lb person drinking about 20 12-oz. cans of diet soda. My male rats received about 34 mg/kg of aspartame per day, which is equivalent to a 150-lb. (68-kg) human male drinking about 13 12-oz. cans or 2.25 two-liter bottles of diet soda a day. My females received about 45 mg/kg per day, which is equivalent to a 120-lb. (55-kg) human female drinking about 14 12-oz. cans or 2.4 two-liter bottles of diet soda a day.
FDA laws state that the ADI for any food additive should be one hundred times less than thelowest amount found to cause adverse health effects.
2 If my results are considered valid, then the ADI for aspartame should be the equivalent of less than 1/8 can of diet soda per day. However, if the tumor rate observed in my study is considered valid, then aspartame should be removed from the marketplace altogether.
According to the pro-aspartame authors of The Clinical Evaluation of a Food Additive: Assessment of Aspartame , “If the additive is found to cause cancer in either animals or humans at any dose, it is banned from use as a food additive, as a result of the Delaney Anticancer Clause of 1958.”
3 For more details and to view slide-show movies of my results, go to aspartameexperiment.com
For complete details, get My Aspartame Experiment: Report from a Private Citizen, available from my website as a downloadable e-book.
Note: After reading my report, my family member who had been consuming the most aspartame-laced diet soda said “ Your report is very convincing. Since reading it, I’ve cut way down on diet sodas with aspartame.”
Note : My heavily referenced new e-book, My Aspartame Experiment: Report from a Private Citizen, with compelling personal testimonies from aspartame victims, becoming an integral part of an astonishing story underscored by quotes from independent scientific studies and other sources reporting serious adverse effects from aspartame. Salted within the story are “Pollyanna-like” quotes from aspartame industry “talking points” that are also distributed by the numerous national and global regulatory agencies meant to protect the 200,000,000 consumers worldwide who daily ingest aspartame in over 6000 foods, drinks, pharmaceutical drugs and vitamins.
This powerful combination of strategically placed quotes and photos dramatically illustrates the stark contrasts between the studies sponsored by the aspartame industry that consistently claim aspartame is safe, versus those done by independent researchers consistently reporting serious adverse effects from the sweetener. The report also highlights the deep conflicts of interests of the scientists and doctors who did the highly-applauded pro-aspartame Magnuson 2007 Report, and debunks a multitude of other aspartame industry studies by exposing the flaws in their experimental designs.
Note:
My website aspartameexperiment.com is not to be confused with a site of a similar name posted on February 11, 2008 without my permission, and claiming that I was the author. That site was created by someone who scanned images from and rewrote an early, incomplete,
2 Dr. Christian Tschanz, Dr. Harriett H. Butchko, Dr. W. Wayne Stargel, and Dr. Frank N. Kotsonis, The Clinical Evaluation of a Food Additive: Assessment of Aspartame (New York, NY: CRC Press LLC, 1996), 24. 3 Ibid.
Incorrect, and tattered printout of my report that was a work in progress I had not released to the public. (I didn’t finish analyzing my data for another six months and had guessed at some of the information, such as the start date and duration of my experiment.) In addition, valid data in that version of my report was misinterpreted.
For example, the unauthorized site claims that my results were from consuming an equivalent in humans of a single can of diet soda per day, while the actual values are 13 and 14 cans daily for human males and females respectively. The unauthorized site was translated into several languages and linked to over 1,000 websites.
If you own one of those sites, please correct the information on your site and replace the unauthorized link with aspartameexperiment.com.
Victoria Inness-Brown, M.A.
Aspartame Experiment
September 15, 2008
“In my opinion, we are the rats of the pharmaceutical and chemical companies that liberally spread their synthetic chemicals worldwide, with no one fully understanding the long-term adverse effects—especially the complex interactions from injecting and intermixing thousands of toxic chemicals in the plant and animal kingdoms sustaining our planet.”—Victoria Inness-Brown
As a citizen scientist concerned about family members addicted to diet soda, I performed a 2-1/2 year scientific study on the effects of the artificial sweetener aspartame by putting aspartame (in the form of packets of NutraSweet™) in the drinking water of 60 rats, while keeping 48 as controls. Of my 30 females on aspartame, 20 of them—or 67%—developed tumors the size of golf balls or greater. Of my 30 males on aspartame, seven—or 23%—developed visible tumors. Five control females—or 21%—developed visible tumors generally smaller in size. No tumors were observed in my control males.
The percentage of females-to-males with tumors was approximately 3:1, which coincides with the complaints about aspartame registered with the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA)before it stopped accepting them, where females registered 77% of all complaints.
My rats on aspartame also developed other apparent health issues, such as paralysis, difficulty walking, spasmodic torticollis (also called dystonia, where the neck is twisted and the head continually tilted to one side), infected and bleeding eyes, skin lesions, thinning and yellowing fur, and obesity—which is sad, because people often use aspartame to lose weight.
1 H.J. Roberts, MD, Aspartame Disease, an Ignored Epidemic (West Palm Beach, FL: Sunshine Sentinel Press, Inc., 2001): 88. In reference to L. Tollefson, R.J. Barnard, and W.H. Glinsmann, “Monitoring of adverse reactions to aspartame reported to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration,” in Proceedings of the First International Meeting on Dietary Phenylalanine and Brain Function, edited by R.J. Wurtman and E. Ritter-Walker, Washington DC (May 1987): 347-372.
Female on aspartame who often used her huge tumor as a pillow Male on aspartame whose hind legs became paralyzed while consuming aspartame.
Three of the rats in my control group developed thinning fur and one developed skin problems.
The US Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows for the human consumption of 50 mg of aspartame per kg of body weight per day, which is equivalent to a 150-lb person drinking about 20 12-oz. cans of diet soda. My male rats received about 34 mg/kg of aspartame per day, which is equivalent to a 150-lb. (68-kg) human male drinking about 13 12-oz. cans or 2.25 two-liter bottles of diet soda a day. My females received about 45 mg/kg per day, which is equivalent to a 120-lb. (55-kg) human female drinking about 14 12-oz. cans or 2.4 two-liter bottles of diet soda a day.
FDA laws state that the ADI for any food additive should be one hundred times less than thelowest amount found to cause adverse health effects.
2 If my results are considered valid, then the ADI for aspartame should be the equivalent of less than 1/8 can of diet soda per day. However, if the tumor rate observed in my study is considered valid, then aspartame should be removed from the marketplace altogether.
According to the pro-aspartame authors of The Clinical Evaluation of a Food Additive: Assessment of Aspartame , “If the additive is found to cause cancer in either animals or humans at any dose, it is banned from use as a food additive, as a result of the Delaney Anticancer Clause of 1958.”
3 For more details and to view slide-show movies of my results, go to aspartameexperiment.com
For complete details, get My Aspartame Experiment: Report from a Private Citizen, available from my website as a downloadable e-book.
Note: After reading my report, my family member who had been consuming the most aspartame-laced diet soda said “ Your report is very convincing. Since reading it, I’ve cut way down on diet sodas with aspartame.”
Note : My heavily referenced new e-book, My Aspartame Experiment: Report from a Private Citizen, with compelling personal testimonies from aspartame victims, becoming an integral part of an astonishing story underscored by quotes from independent scientific studies and other sources reporting serious adverse effects from aspartame. Salted within the story are “Pollyanna-like” quotes from aspartame industry “talking points” that are also distributed by the numerous national and global regulatory agencies meant to protect the 200,000,000 consumers worldwide who daily ingest aspartame in over 6000 foods, drinks, pharmaceutical drugs and vitamins.
This powerful combination of strategically placed quotes and photos dramatically illustrates the stark contrasts between the studies sponsored by the aspartame industry that consistently claim aspartame is safe, versus those done by independent researchers consistently reporting serious adverse effects from the sweetener. The report also highlights the deep conflicts of interests of the scientists and doctors who did the highly-applauded pro-aspartame Magnuson 2007 Report, and debunks a multitude of other aspartame industry studies by exposing the flaws in their experimental designs.
Note:
My website aspartameexperiment.com is not to be confused with a site of a similar name posted on February 11, 2008 without my permission, and claiming that I was the author. That site was created by someone who scanned images from and rewrote an early, incomplete,
2 Dr. Christian Tschanz, Dr. Harriett H. Butchko, Dr. W. Wayne Stargel, and Dr. Frank N. Kotsonis, The Clinical Evaluation of a Food Additive: Assessment of Aspartame (New York, NY: CRC Press LLC, 1996), 24. 3 Ibid.
Incorrect, and tattered printout of my report that was a work in progress I had not released to the public. (I didn’t finish analyzing my data for another six months and had guessed at some of the information, such as the start date and duration of my experiment.) In addition, valid data in that version of my report was misinterpreted.
For example, the unauthorized site claims that my results were from consuming an equivalent in humans of a single can of diet soda per day, while the actual values are 13 and 14 cans daily for human males and females respectively. The unauthorized site was translated into several languages and linked to over 1,000 websites.
If you own one of those sites, please correct the information on your site and replace the unauthorized link with aspartameexperiment.com.
More Socialism for the Bankers: Fed to “Loan” AIG $85 Billion
Fed rescues AIG with $85 billion loan for 80% stake
By Edmund L. Andrews
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
WASHINGTON: Acting to avert a possible financial crisis worldwide, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board reversed course Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the U.S. government an ownership stake in the troubled insurance giant American International Group.
The decision, announced by the Fed only two weeks after the Treasury Department took over the quasi-government mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank's history.
With time running out after AIG failed to get a bank loan to avoid bankruptcy, Treasury Secterary Henry Paulson Jr. and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke convened a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Capitol Hill at about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday to explain the rescue plan.
They emerged just after 7:30 p.m. with Paulson and Bernanke looking grim but top lawmakers generally expressing support for the plan. But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by AIG and other institutions does business with.
What frightened Fed and Treasury officials was not simply the prospect of another giant corporate bankruptcy, but AIG's role as an enormous provider of financial insurance, which effectively requires it cover losses suffered by other institutions in the instance of defaults of securities that they have purchased. That means AIG is potentially on the hook for securities that were once considered safe.
If AIG had collapsed — and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims — institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of billions of dollars in debt securities, which in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt.
"It would have been a chain reaction," said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University. "The spillover effects could have been incredible."
Financial markets, which on Monday had plunged over worries about AIG's possible collapse, reacted with relief to the news of the bailout. In anticipation of a deal, stocks about 1 percent in the United States on Tuesday and were up about 2 percent in early trading in Asian markets Wednesday.
Still, the move will likely start an intense political debate during the presidential election campaign over who is to blame for the financial crisis that prompted the rescue.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Paulson and Bernanke had not requested any new legislative authority for the bailout at the meeting Tuesday.
"The secretary and the chairman of the Fed, two Bush appointees, came down here and said, 'We're from the government, we're here to help them,' " Frank said. "I mean this is one more affirmation that the lack of regulation has caused serious problems. That the private market screwed itself up and they need the government to come help them unscrew it."
The decision was a remarkable turnabout by the Bush administration and Paulson, who had flatly refused over the weekend to risk taxpayer money to prevent the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. Earlier this year, the government bailed out another investment bank, Bear Stearns, by engineering a sale to JPMorgan Chase that left taxpayers on the hook for up to $29 billion of bad investments by Bear Stearns. The government hoped at the time that this unusual step would both calm markets and lead to a recovery by the financial system. But critics warned at the time that it would only encourage others to seek bailouts, and the eventual costs to the government would be staggering.
The decision to rescue AIG came on the same day that the Fed decided to leave its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 2 percent, turning aside hopes by many on Wall Street that the Fed would try to shore up confidence by cutting rates once again.
Fed and Treasury officials initially had turned a cold shoulder to AIG, when company executives pleaded on Sunday night for the Fed to provide a $40 billion bridge loan to stave off a crippling downgrade of its credit ratings as a result of tens of billions of dollars of losses related to insurance investments that have turned sour.
But government officials reluctantly backed away from their tough-minded approach after a failed attempt to line up private financing with help from JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which told U.S. government officials that they simply could not raise the money given both the general angst in credit markets and the specific fears of problems with AIG.
Another reason that AIG posed systemic risk is that it might have been forced to liquidate real estate and other assets at fire sale prices — a move that could drive property prices lowers and force countless other companies to mark down the value of their own holdings.
The complexity of AIG's business, and the fact that it does business with thousands of companies around the globe, make its survival critical at a time when there is stress throughout the financial system worldwide.
"It's the interconnectedness and the fear of the unknown, meaning the impact of a failure," said Roger Altman, a former Treasury official under President Bill Clinton. "But size is a factor, you can't ignore that. The prospect of world's largest insurer failing, together with the interconnectedness and the uncertainty about the collateral damage – that's why it's scaring people so much."
AIG is a sprawling empire built by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg who acquired hundreds of businesses all over the world until he was ousted amid an accounting scandal in 2005. Many of AIG's subsidiaries wrote insurance of various types. Others made home loans and leased aircraft. The diverse array of companies were more valuable under a single corporate parent like AIG, because business cycles offset other, giving AIG a relatively smooth stream of revenue and income.
After Greenberg's departure, AIG restated its books over a five-year period and instituted conservative new accounting policies. But before the company could really rebuild itself, it became embroiled in the mortgage crisis. Some of its insurance companies ended up with mortgage-backed securities on their books, for example. But AIG's downfall involved a new kind of insurance its financial products unit offered investors in complex debt securities.
Its stock tumbled faster this year as first the debt securities lost value, and then the derivatives-based insurance contracts came under a cloud.
The Fed's extraordinary rescue of AIG underscores how much fear remains about the destructive potential of the complex financial instruments, like credit default swaps, that brought AIG to its knees. The market for such instruments has exploded in recent years, but it is almost entirely unregulated. When AIG began to teeter in the last few days, it became clear that if it defaulted on its commitments under the swaps, it could set off a devastating chain reaction through the financial system.
"We are witnessing a rather unique event in the history of the United States," said Suresh Sundaresan, the Chase Manhattan Bank professor of economics and finance at Columbia University, in New York. He thought the near brush with catastrophe would bring about an acceleration of efforts within the Treasury and the Fed to put safety controls on the use of credit default swaps.
Most of AIG's subsidiaries are considered healthy and stable, and there is little question about who regulates them. AIG's crisis grew primarily out of its financial products unit, which dealt in complex debt securities and credit default swaps.
The swaps are not securities and are not regulated by the SEC And while they perform the same function as an insurance policy they are not insurance in the conventional sense, so insurance regulators do not monitor them either.
AIG's complex debt securities had already lost billions of dollars in value in the months before the crisis began, because their value depends on home values. But in the last two days, the swaps AIG's financial products unit had sold began eating up billions of dollars of AIG's cash and liquid assets. That ultimately paralyzed AIG because it could not find a way to keep up with the fast-growing need to provide cash under the terms of its swap contracts.
By Edmund L. Andrews
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
WASHINGTON: Acting to avert a possible financial crisis worldwide, the U.S. Federal Reserve Board reversed course Tuesday and agreed to an $85 billion bailout that would give the U.S. government an ownership stake in the troubled insurance giant American International Group.
The decision, announced by the Fed only two weeks after the Treasury Department took over the quasi-government mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is the most radical intervention in private business in the central bank's history.
With time running out after AIG failed to get a bank loan to avoid bankruptcy, Treasury Secterary Henry Paulson Jr. and the Fed chairman, Ben Bernanke convened a meeting with House and Senate leaders on Capitol Hill at about 6:30 p.m. Tuesday to explain the rescue plan.
They emerged just after 7:30 p.m. with Paulson and Bernanke looking grim but top lawmakers generally expressing support for the plan. But the bailout is likely to prove controversial, because it effectively puts taxpayer money at risk while protecting bad investments made by AIG and other institutions does business with.
What frightened Fed and Treasury officials was not simply the prospect of another giant corporate bankruptcy, but AIG's role as an enormous provider of financial insurance, which effectively requires it cover losses suffered by other institutions in the instance of defaults of securities that they have purchased. That means AIG is potentially on the hook for securities that were once considered safe.
If AIG had collapsed — and been unable to pay all of its insurance claims — institutional investors around the world would have been instantly forced to reappraise the value of billions of dollars in debt securities, which in turn would have reduced their own capital and the value of their own debt.
"It would have been a chain reaction," said Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University. "The spillover effects could have been incredible."
Financial markets, which on Monday had plunged over worries about AIG's possible collapse, reacted with relief to the news of the bailout. In anticipation of a deal, stocks about 1 percent in the United States on Tuesday and were up about 2 percent in early trading in Asian markets Wednesday.
Still, the move will likely start an intense political debate during the presidential election campaign over who is to blame for the financial crisis that prompted the rescue.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said Paulson and Bernanke had not requested any new legislative authority for the bailout at the meeting Tuesday.
"The secretary and the chairman of the Fed, two Bush appointees, came down here and said, 'We're from the government, we're here to help them,' " Frank said. "I mean this is one more affirmation that the lack of regulation has caused serious problems. That the private market screwed itself up and they need the government to come help them unscrew it."
The decision was a remarkable turnabout by the Bush administration and Paulson, who had flatly refused over the weekend to risk taxpayer money to prevent the collapse of Lehman Brothers or the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America. Earlier this year, the government bailed out another investment bank, Bear Stearns, by engineering a sale to JPMorgan Chase that left taxpayers on the hook for up to $29 billion of bad investments by Bear Stearns. The government hoped at the time that this unusual step would both calm markets and lead to a recovery by the financial system. But critics warned at the time that it would only encourage others to seek bailouts, and the eventual costs to the government would be staggering.
The decision to rescue AIG came on the same day that the Fed decided to leave its benchmark interest rate unchanged at 2 percent, turning aside hopes by many on Wall Street that the Fed would try to shore up confidence by cutting rates once again.
Fed and Treasury officials initially had turned a cold shoulder to AIG, when company executives pleaded on Sunday night for the Fed to provide a $40 billion bridge loan to stave off a crippling downgrade of its credit ratings as a result of tens of billions of dollars of losses related to insurance investments that have turned sour.
But government officials reluctantly backed away from their tough-minded approach after a failed attempt to line up private financing with help from JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs, which told U.S. government officials that they simply could not raise the money given both the general angst in credit markets and the specific fears of problems with AIG.
Another reason that AIG posed systemic risk is that it might have been forced to liquidate real estate and other assets at fire sale prices — a move that could drive property prices lowers and force countless other companies to mark down the value of their own holdings.
The complexity of AIG's business, and the fact that it does business with thousands of companies around the globe, make its survival critical at a time when there is stress throughout the financial system worldwide.
"It's the interconnectedness and the fear of the unknown, meaning the impact of a failure," said Roger Altman, a former Treasury official under President Bill Clinton. "But size is a factor, you can't ignore that. The prospect of world's largest insurer failing, together with the interconnectedness and the uncertainty about the collateral damage – that's why it's scaring people so much."
AIG is a sprawling empire built by Maurice "Hank" Greenberg who acquired hundreds of businesses all over the world until he was ousted amid an accounting scandal in 2005. Many of AIG's subsidiaries wrote insurance of various types. Others made home loans and leased aircraft. The diverse array of companies were more valuable under a single corporate parent like AIG, because business cycles offset other, giving AIG a relatively smooth stream of revenue and income.
After Greenberg's departure, AIG restated its books over a five-year period and instituted conservative new accounting policies. But before the company could really rebuild itself, it became embroiled in the mortgage crisis. Some of its insurance companies ended up with mortgage-backed securities on their books, for example. But AIG's downfall involved a new kind of insurance its financial products unit offered investors in complex debt securities.
Its stock tumbled faster this year as first the debt securities lost value, and then the derivatives-based insurance contracts came under a cloud.
The Fed's extraordinary rescue of AIG underscores how much fear remains about the destructive potential of the complex financial instruments, like credit default swaps, that brought AIG to its knees. The market for such instruments has exploded in recent years, but it is almost entirely unregulated. When AIG began to teeter in the last few days, it became clear that if it defaulted on its commitments under the swaps, it could set off a devastating chain reaction through the financial system.
"We are witnessing a rather unique event in the history of the United States," said Suresh Sundaresan, the Chase Manhattan Bank professor of economics and finance at Columbia University, in New York. He thought the near brush with catastrophe would bring about an acceleration of efforts within the Treasury and the Fed to put safety controls on the use of credit default swaps.
Most of AIG's subsidiaries are considered healthy and stable, and there is little question about who regulates them. AIG's crisis grew primarily out of its financial products unit, which dealt in complex debt securities and credit default swaps.
The swaps are not securities and are not regulated by the SEC And while they perform the same function as an insurance policy they are not insurance in the conventional sense, so insurance regulators do not monitor them either.
AIG's complex debt securities had already lost billions of dollars in value in the months before the crisis began, because their value depends on home values. But in the last two days, the swaps AIG's financial products unit had sold began eating up billions of dollars of AIG's cash and liquid assets. That ultimately paralyzed AIG because it could not find a way to keep up with the fast-growing need to provide cash under the terms of its swap contracts.
Nobel Prize Winning Economist: Crisis As Bad As Great Depression Or Worse
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Sept 17, 2008
Two time Nobel-prize winner and former chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the current financial crisis will continue for at least another eighteen months and in many ways represents a worse situation than the one faced by Americans during the great depression of the 1930s.
“You can paper things over for a while but eventually you have to face reality.” Stiglitz told the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show yesterday.
“This is clearly the most serious problem since the great depression and in some ways worse in terms of the financial institutions.” Stiglitz commented, referring to the fact that lenders are unwilling to take risks to finance each other because they no longer have complete access to their own undertakings let alone those of other institutions.
“The reason, in part, is that while some of the same problems that occurred during the great depression and have occurred since, such as excessive leverage, pyramid schemes, bubbles, have happened before, the so called innovation of Wall Street, the financial innovations, that were supposed to manage risk, created a kind of non transparency that is now so great that no one knows exactly the magnitude of the risk they face.”
“It is particularly bad because our financial institutions are based on trust, you put the money in the bank and you trust that you can get your money out, so trust is absolutely essential for the functioning of our financial markets and the functioning of our economy.” he continued.
“The problem is that much of the news on what is going on in the financial markets comes from those who are making money out of the financial markets. So if you were one of the people involved with Lehman Brothers or AIG, you’re going to be talking up the economy. The head of Lehman Brothers was quoted last April as saying we have turned the corner, the economy is on the uptick. And the same thing goes for the president and the secretary of treasury.”
“The fact is that they are involved in salesmanship.”
Describing the current situation as a “top down crisis”, Stiglitz also cited the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq war as a key factor in the economic downturn, saying it has increased the budget deficit and consumed resources that would otherwise promote growth.
“This is the first war in American history that has been totally financed on the credit card… For the last five years as the war has gone on we have been a debt economy. It is the first war since the revolutionary war that we have had to turn to foreigners to finance, 40% of our national debt is now being financed by foreigners… Even as we went into the war we had a big deficit, and yet the president called for tax cuts for upper middle class Americans.” he said.
“And there is another level of trust, those in other countries have to have trust that the American economy is working well, they have to trust that when the president says everything is going well, it is. This administration has really burned that trust, the president said there is no problem, there’s just a few too many houses been built. Well if that is the level of analysis the Untied States is giving about the nature of its economic problems, no wonder everybody around the world is losing confidence. “
Stiglitz is no stranger to positioning himself in opposition to the establishment on the economic front. In October 2001 he caused controversy when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies.
“It is clear that the Bush administration is not responding to these problems, partly because the problems are of their own making.” Stiglitz asserted.
Over the next twelve months, Stiglitz predicts that house prices will continue to fall, more mortgages will go into foreclosure and more financial firms will be put into crisis.
“I am particularly worried about what I call the ‘real economy’. Basically when the financial system starts getting weak, it is not in a position to provide credit, to provide loans, to provide mortgages and that means in turn that housing prices are going to fall further, businesses are going to contract, unemployment is going to grow and it is a downward vicious cycle… I don’t want to be obsessively pessimistic but you have to be in fantasy land to say that everything is fine, and even to say that we have turned the corner. We’re still in the downward phase of this economic cycle. We should not anticipate emerging from this for a year and a half or longer.”
In a long term prediction 22 months ago, Stiglitz told listeners of the Alex Jones show that he believed a global economic crash would occur within 2 years. With major financial institutions now folding every week, others touting mergers just to stay afloat and stocks continually plummeting on a daily basis it seems that prediction is coming to pass.
Stiglitz stressed that in order to emerge from the crisis, the economy needs a stimulus, that really works, consisting of increased aid for local government, stronger unemployment insurance and more investment in infrastructure.
“I would take advantage of this particular time in order to stimulate our economy in ways that provide the basis of our longer term economic growth. If our economy is growing then we will be better able to manage some of this financial turmoil.” he concluded.
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Sept 17, 2008
Two time Nobel-prize winner and former chief economist of the World Bank, Joseph Stiglitz has warned that the current financial crisis will continue for at least another eighteen months and in many ways represents a worse situation than the one faced by Americans during the great depression of the 1930s.
“You can paper things over for a while but eventually you have to face reality.” Stiglitz told the nationally syndicated Alex Jones show yesterday.
“This is clearly the most serious problem since the great depression and in some ways worse in terms of the financial institutions.” Stiglitz commented, referring to the fact that lenders are unwilling to take risks to finance each other because they no longer have complete access to their own undertakings let alone those of other institutions.
“The reason, in part, is that while some of the same problems that occurred during the great depression and have occurred since, such as excessive leverage, pyramid schemes, bubbles, have happened before, the so called innovation of Wall Street, the financial innovations, that were supposed to manage risk, created a kind of non transparency that is now so great that no one knows exactly the magnitude of the risk they face.”
“It is particularly bad because our financial institutions are based on trust, you put the money in the bank and you trust that you can get your money out, so trust is absolutely essential for the functioning of our financial markets and the functioning of our economy.” he continued.
“The problem is that much of the news on what is going on in the financial markets comes from those who are making money out of the financial markets. So if you were one of the people involved with Lehman Brothers or AIG, you’re going to be talking up the economy. The head of Lehman Brothers was quoted last April as saying we have turned the corner, the economy is on the uptick. And the same thing goes for the president and the secretary of treasury.”
“The fact is that they are involved in salesmanship.”
Describing the current situation as a “top down crisis”, Stiglitz also cited the $3 trillion cost of the Iraq war as a key factor in the economic downturn, saying it has increased the budget deficit and consumed resources that would otherwise promote growth.
“This is the first war in American history that has been totally financed on the credit card… For the last five years as the war has gone on we have been a debt economy. It is the first war since the revolutionary war that we have had to turn to foreigners to finance, 40% of our national debt is now being financed by foreigners… Even as we went into the war we had a big deficit, and yet the president called for tax cuts for upper middle class Americans.” he said.
“And there is another level of trust, those in other countries have to have trust that the American economy is working well, they have to trust that when the president says everything is going well, it is. This administration has really burned that trust, the president said there is no problem, there’s just a few too many houses been built. Well if that is the level of analysis the Untied States is giving about the nature of its economic problems, no wonder everybody around the world is losing confidence. “
Stiglitz is no stranger to positioning himself in opposition to the establishment on the economic front. In October 2001 he caused controversy when he exposed rampant corruption within the IMF and blew the whistle on their nefarious methods of inducing countries to fall under their debt before stripping them of sovereignty and hollowing out their economies.
“It is clear that the Bush administration is not responding to these problems, partly because the problems are of their own making.” Stiglitz asserted.
Over the next twelve months, Stiglitz predicts that house prices will continue to fall, more mortgages will go into foreclosure and more financial firms will be put into crisis.
“I am particularly worried about what I call the ‘real economy’. Basically when the financial system starts getting weak, it is not in a position to provide credit, to provide loans, to provide mortgages and that means in turn that housing prices are going to fall further, businesses are going to contract, unemployment is going to grow and it is a downward vicious cycle… I don’t want to be obsessively pessimistic but you have to be in fantasy land to say that everything is fine, and even to say that we have turned the corner. We’re still in the downward phase of this economic cycle. We should not anticipate emerging from this for a year and a half or longer.”
In a long term prediction 22 months ago, Stiglitz told listeners of the Alex Jones show that he believed a global economic crash would occur within 2 years. With major financial institutions now folding every week, others touting mergers just to stay afloat and stocks continually plummeting on a daily basis it seems that prediction is coming to pass.
Stiglitz stressed that in order to emerge from the crisis, the economy needs a stimulus, that really works, consisting of increased aid for local government, stronger unemployment insurance and more investment in infrastructure.
“I would take advantage of this particular time in order to stimulate our economy in ways that provide the basis of our longer term economic growth. If our economy is growing then we will be better able to manage some of this financial turmoil.” he concluded.
US Economy: Rudderless and Reeling From Direct Hits
Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House
September 16, 2008
We were promised a “New Economy” of high-tech tradable services to take the place of the offshore manufacturing economy. Wondering what had become of the “New Economy,” Duke University’s Offshoring Research Network searched for it and located it offshore. Yes, the activities of the “New Economy” are also outsourced offshore.
Call centers, IT operations, back-office operations, and manufacturing have long been moved offshore. Now high-value-added proprietary activities such as research and development, engineering, product development, and analytical services are being sent offshore. All that’s left is finance, and it is crumbling before our eyes.
Independent broker-dealers are disappearing: Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers.
These venerable institutions were too thinly capitalized for the risks that they took. Merrill Lynch is now part of the Bank of America, and Lehman Brothers is history.
Ill-advised financial deregulation led to financial concentration and not to more efficient markets.
Independent local banks, which focused on financing local businesses, and Saving and Loan Associations, which knew the local housing market, have been replaced with large institutions that package unanalyzed risks and sell them worldwide.
Regulation over-reached. The pendulum swung. Deregulation became an ideology and a facilitator of greed.
Deregulating electric power gave us Enron.
Deregulating the airlines destroyed famous American brand names such as Pan Am, shrank the number of companies, and caused a decline in service. When airlines were regulated, they could afford standby equipment, and cancelled flights were rare. Today, the bottom line prohibits standby equipment, and mechanical problems result in cancelled flights. When economists calculated the benefits of deregulation, they left out many of its costs.
There are no longer any blue chip companies, which means that investing for retirement has become a crapshoot. People realize this; thus, the privatization of Social Security has no support.
If we look realistically at the US economy, we see that what is not moved offshore is being bailed out. Last year, the US Department of Energy was authorized to make $25 billion in loans to auto manufacturing firms and suppliers of automotive parts. Last week the Secretary of the Treasury took $5 trillion dollars in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac home mortgages under its wing.
The Congressional Budget Office says this action by the Treasury means “that the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be directly incorporated into the federal budget.”
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/ Their revenues would be treated as federal revenues, and their expenditures as federal expenditures. If the former were greater than the latter, there would be no reason for the takeover.
The open question is: what do these new liabilities do to the Treasury’s own credit standing?
For now, this question is submerged. The traditional practice of fleeing to the US dollar and US Treasury bonds during periods of financial stress and uncertainty has boosted the dollar and kept interest rates low. But sooner or later the large US budget deficit, worsened by recession and bailouts, and the large trade deficit, which requires constant recycling of dollars held by foreigners into US financial and real assets, will result in renewed effort on the part of foreigners to lighten their dollar holdings.
When this time arrives, US interest rates will have to rise in order for the government to be able to continue to rely on foreigners to recycle the dollars acquired in trade to finance the US government’s annual budget deficit.
The current financial problems have pushed into the background the larger problems of the US budget and trade deficits. Goods and services for American markets that US corporations outsource offshore return as imports, which widen the US trade deficit. Moving production offshore reduces US GDP and employment and increases foreign GDP and employment. Moving production offshore reduces the export capacity of the US economy while raising the import bill.
Therefore, how is the trade deficit to be closed? One way is through the dollar’s loss in exchange value, which would reduce American consumers’ real incomes and leave them too poor to purchase the offshore goods and services.
How is the budget deficit to be closed when jobs are disappearing and GDP (tax base) is being relocated offshore?
Not by higher taxes. Higher taxes are problematic for a recessionary economy in which unemployment, properly measured, is already in double digits ( www.shadowstats.com ).
Some people have speculated that the budget deficit will be closed by dismantling entitlement programs such as Medicare. However, considering the cost of medical insurance, this would be catastrophic for tens of millions of older Americans.
The more likely avenue will be a raid on private pensions. The Clinton administration’s appointee, Alicia Munnell, as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy argued that private pensions should face a capital levy to make up for the fact that their accumulation was tax free. I expect that the federal government, faced with its own bankruptcy, will resurrect this argument, as it will be preferable to printing money like a banana republic or Weimar Germany.
In the 21st century, the US economy has been kept going by debt expansion, not by real income growth. Economists have hyped US productivity growth, but there is no sign that increased productivity has raised family incomes, an indication that there is a problem with the productivity statistics. With consumers overloaded with debt and the value of their most important asset–housing–falling, the American consumer will not be leading a recovery.
A country that had intelligent leaders would recognize its dire straits, stop its gratuitous wars, and slash its massive military budget, which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined. But a country whose foreign policy goal is world hegemony will continue on the path to destruction until the rest of the world ceases to finance its existence.
Most Americans, including the presidential candidates and the media, are unaware that the US government today, now at this minute, is unable to finance its day to operations and must rely on foreigners to purchase its bonds. The government pays the interest to foreigners by selling more bonds, and when the bonds come due, the government redeems the bonds by selling new bonds. The day the foreigners do not buy is the day the American people and their government are brought to reality.
This is not the financial position of a superpower.
Will what happened to Lehman Brothers today be America’s fate tomorrow?
Information Clearing House
September 16, 2008
We were promised a “New Economy” of high-tech tradable services to take the place of the offshore manufacturing economy. Wondering what had become of the “New Economy,” Duke University’s Offshoring Research Network searched for it and located it offshore. Yes, the activities of the “New Economy” are also outsourced offshore.
Call centers, IT operations, back-office operations, and manufacturing have long been moved offshore. Now high-value-added proprietary activities such as research and development, engineering, product development, and analytical services are being sent offshore. All that’s left is finance, and it is crumbling before our eyes.
Independent broker-dealers are disappearing: Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers.
These venerable institutions were too thinly capitalized for the risks that they took. Merrill Lynch is now part of the Bank of America, and Lehman Brothers is history.
Ill-advised financial deregulation led to financial concentration and not to more efficient markets.
Independent local banks, which focused on financing local businesses, and Saving and Loan Associations, which knew the local housing market, have been replaced with large institutions that package unanalyzed risks and sell them worldwide.
Regulation over-reached. The pendulum swung. Deregulation became an ideology and a facilitator of greed.
Deregulating electric power gave us Enron.
Deregulating the airlines destroyed famous American brand names such as Pan Am, shrank the number of companies, and caused a decline in service. When airlines were regulated, they could afford standby equipment, and cancelled flights were rare. Today, the bottom line prohibits standby equipment, and mechanical problems result in cancelled flights. When economists calculated the benefits of deregulation, they left out many of its costs.
There are no longer any blue chip companies, which means that investing for retirement has become a crapshoot. People realize this; thus, the privatization of Social Security has no support.
If we look realistically at the US economy, we see that what is not moved offshore is being bailed out. Last year, the US Department of Energy was authorized to make $25 billion in loans to auto manufacturing firms and suppliers of automotive parts. Last week the Secretary of the Treasury took $5 trillion dollars in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac home mortgages under its wing.
The Congressional Budget Office says this action by the Treasury means “that the operations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be directly incorporated into the federal budget.”
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/ Their revenues would be treated as federal revenues, and their expenditures as federal expenditures. If the former were greater than the latter, there would be no reason for the takeover.
The open question is: what do these new liabilities do to the Treasury’s own credit standing?
For now, this question is submerged. The traditional practice of fleeing to the US dollar and US Treasury bonds during periods of financial stress and uncertainty has boosted the dollar and kept interest rates low. But sooner or later the large US budget deficit, worsened by recession and bailouts, and the large trade deficit, which requires constant recycling of dollars held by foreigners into US financial and real assets, will result in renewed effort on the part of foreigners to lighten their dollar holdings.
When this time arrives, US interest rates will have to rise in order for the government to be able to continue to rely on foreigners to recycle the dollars acquired in trade to finance the US government’s annual budget deficit.
The current financial problems have pushed into the background the larger problems of the US budget and trade deficits. Goods and services for American markets that US corporations outsource offshore return as imports, which widen the US trade deficit. Moving production offshore reduces US GDP and employment and increases foreign GDP and employment. Moving production offshore reduces the export capacity of the US economy while raising the import bill.
Therefore, how is the trade deficit to be closed? One way is through the dollar’s loss in exchange value, which would reduce American consumers’ real incomes and leave them too poor to purchase the offshore goods and services.
How is the budget deficit to be closed when jobs are disappearing and GDP (tax base) is being relocated offshore?
Not by higher taxes. Higher taxes are problematic for a recessionary economy in which unemployment, properly measured, is already in double digits ( www.shadowstats.com ).
Some people have speculated that the budget deficit will be closed by dismantling entitlement programs such as Medicare. However, considering the cost of medical insurance, this would be catastrophic for tens of millions of older Americans.
The more likely avenue will be a raid on private pensions. The Clinton administration’s appointee, Alicia Munnell, as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy argued that private pensions should face a capital levy to make up for the fact that their accumulation was tax free. I expect that the federal government, faced with its own bankruptcy, will resurrect this argument, as it will be preferable to printing money like a banana republic or Weimar Germany.
In the 21st century, the US economy has been kept going by debt expansion, not by real income growth. Economists have hyped US productivity growth, but there is no sign that increased productivity has raised family incomes, an indication that there is a problem with the productivity statistics. With consumers overloaded with debt and the value of their most important asset–housing–falling, the American consumer will not be leading a recovery.
A country that had intelligent leaders would recognize its dire straits, stop its gratuitous wars, and slash its massive military budget, which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined. But a country whose foreign policy goal is world hegemony will continue on the path to destruction until the rest of the world ceases to finance its existence.
Most Americans, including the presidential candidates and the media, are unaware that the US government today, now at this minute, is unable to finance its day to operations and must rely on foreigners to purchase its bonds. The government pays the interest to foreigners by selling more bonds, and when the bonds come due, the government redeems the bonds by selling new bonds. The day the foreigners do not buy is the day the American people and their government are brought to reality.
This is not the financial position of a superpower.
Will what happened to Lehman Brothers today be America’s fate tomorrow?
How We Got Here: It's Housing, Stupid
by Chris Isidore
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Wall Street crisis has been caused by plunging housing prices. So despite the billions of dollars being thrown at the problem, experts say more trouble lies ahead.
The nation's financial system is in the midst of a massive shakeup and many on Wall Street and in Washington are pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame.
But in the end, it all comes back to one issue - housing.
Earlier this decade, it was much easier to get a mortgage. Home prices soared about 85% from 1996 through 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars, creating a bubble.
Then the bubble popped. And the fallout isn't over yet, experts say.
In the past two weeks, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America.
If all that weren't enough, the Federal Reserve announced late Tuesday night that it was loaning $85 billion to insurer American International Group.
None of this would have happened if the housing market had not imploded, leaving all these firms with staggering losses from their investments tied to mortgages.
"These institutions, which weathered all kinds of calamities before, including depressions, are being knocked out," said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "It's a testament to the significance of the problem we have here."
Thus, experts agree that there are likely to be future shocks to the financial system until the housing market finally hits bottom.
Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration's point man in the many rescue discussions of the past month, admits this.
"The housing correction poses the biggest risk to our economy," Paulson said the day he announced the Fannie and Freddie seizure. "Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us."
The Problem of Falling Home Prices
But because of the depth of the housing problems, it may take a long time before real estate prices head higher again. Here's why.
Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts.
The reason housing is wreaking havoc even on insurers like AIG and big investment banks, who do not make mortgage loans, is that during the boom, trillions of dollars of mortgages were packaged together into securities that promised to pay investors with the proceeds of those loan payments.
Those securities paid better rates than other types of assets during the boom years. So many investors from around the globe poured as much money as they could into those securities.
Faced with this demand, lenders starting making more loans to riskier borrowers, including people who might not be able to afford their mortgage payments in the future and even many with no proof of income.
When prices were rising, this wasn't a problem. The risk of loan foreclosure or default was limited because many homeowners were able to sell their house for more than they owed and make a profit.
But once prices topped out and began falling, loan defaults and foreclosures started shooting higher as homeowners found it more difficult to sell their house. This created problems not just for subprime borrowers but even for those with good credit and income.
When foreclosures rose, the value of the various types of securities tied to mortgages started to fall, causing huge losses up and down Wall Street. It also made banks less eager to extend credit because of the risks involved.
A Downward Spiral
This credit crunch in of itself slowed the economy, leading to job losses and more defaults, feeding a downward spiral that has been difficult to stop.
"A really bad situation -- a home price bubble bursting -- was made significantly worse when the recession began," said Achuthan. "Now we have to let this thing play out."
Some experts even argue that the steps being taken to rescue firms like AIG could make a recovery in housing and the broader economy more difficult, as financial firms and investors become more reluctant to lend money.
"We are certainly taking credit and squeezing it tighter and tighter," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of investment bank Morgan Keegan. "Housing needs buyers. Buyers need credit."
Achuthan said that even though rates for mortgages and other types of loans have fallen in the last two weeks, those loans are becoming more difficult for many consumers and businesses to get because banks are severely tightening their lending standards.
And if housing prices do fall further, that will only cause more losses in the financial sector and perhaps more failures of banks, insurers and securities firms.
"I would hesitate to say the worst is behind us," Achuthan said.
So even with perhaps hundreds of billions of tax dollars going to AIG, Fannie and Freddie, one expert said the only real solution to the housing problem is for the correction in housing to finish running its course.
"We want home prices to return to normal," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ and author of the upcoming book "Bailout Nation."
"Until that happens, you can throw as much money at the market as you want at the situation....and it ain't going to make any difference," Ritholtz said.
Copyrighted, CNNMoney. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
The Wall Street crisis has been caused by plunging housing prices. So despite the billions of dollars being thrown at the problem, experts say more trouble lies ahead.
The nation's financial system is in the midst of a massive shakeup and many on Wall Street and in Washington are pointing fingers and looking for someone to blame.
But in the end, it all comes back to one issue - housing.
Earlier this decade, it was much easier to get a mortgage. Home prices soared about 85% from 1996 through 2006 in inflation-adjusted dollars, creating a bubble.
Then the bubble popped. And the fallout isn't over yet, experts say.
In the past two weeks, the government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and Merrill Lynch sold itself to Bank of America.
If all that weren't enough, the Federal Reserve announced late Tuesday night that it was loaning $85 billion to insurer American International Group.
None of this would have happened if the housing market had not imploded, leaving all these firms with staggering losses from their investments tied to mortgages.
"These institutions, which weathered all kinds of calamities before, including depressions, are being knocked out," said Lakshman Achuthan, the managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute. "It's a testament to the significance of the problem we have here."
Thus, experts agree that there are likely to be future shocks to the financial system until the housing market finally hits bottom.
Even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the administration's point man in the many rescue discussions of the past month, admits this.
"The housing correction poses the biggest risk to our economy," Paulson said the day he announced the Fannie and Freddie seizure. "Our economy and our markets will not recover until the bulk of this housing correction is behind us."
The Problem of Falling Home Prices
But because of the depth of the housing problems, it may take a long time before real estate prices head higher again. Here's why.
Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts.
The reason housing is wreaking havoc even on insurers like AIG and big investment banks, who do not make mortgage loans, is that during the boom, trillions of dollars of mortgages were packaged together into securities that promised to pay investors with the proceeds of those loan payments.
Those securities paid better rates than other types of assets during the boom years. So many investors from around the globe poured as much money as they could into those securities.
Faced with this demand, lenders starting making more loans to riskier borrowers, including people who might not be able to afford their mortgage payments in the future and even many with no proof of income.
When prices were rising, this wasn't a problem. The risk of loan foreclosure or default was limited because many homeowners were able to sell their house for more than they owed and make a profit.
But once prices topped out and began falling, loan defaults and foreclosures started shooting higher as homeowners found it more difficult to sell their house. This created problems not just for subprime borrowers but even for those with good credit and income.
When foreclosures rose, the value of the various types of securities tied to mortgages started to fall, causing huge losses up and down Wall Street. It also made banks less eager to extend credit because of the risks involved.
A Downward Spiral
This credit crunch in of itself slowed the economy, leading to job losses and more defaults, feeding a downward spiral that has been difficult to stop.
"A really bad situation -- a home price bubble bursting -- was made significantly worse when the recession began," said Achuthan. "Now we have to let this thing play out."
Some experts even argue that the steps being taken to rescue firms like AIG could make a recovery in housing and the broader economy more difficult, as financial firms and investors become more reluctant to lend money.
"We are certainly taking credit and squeezing it tighter and tighter," said Kevin Giddis, managing director of investment bank Morgan Keegan. "Housing needs buyers. Buyers need credit."
Achuthan said that even though rates for mortgages and other types of loans have fallen in the last two weeks, those loans are becoming more difficult for many consumers and businesses to get because banks are severely tightening their lending standards.
And if housing prices do fall further, that will only cause more losses in the financial sector and perhaps more failures of banks, insurers and securities firms.
"I would hesitate to say the worst is behind us," Achuthan said.
So even with perhaps hundreds of billions of tax dollars going to AIG, Fannie and Freddie, one expert said the only real solution to the housing problem is for the correction in housing to finish running its course.
"We want home prices to return to normal," said Barry Ritholtz, CEO of Fusion IQ and author of the upcoming book "Bailout Nation."
"Until that happens, you can throw as much money at the market as you want at the situation....and it ain't going to make any difference," Ritholtz said.
Copyrighted, CNNMoney. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
THIS IS YOUR NATION ON WHITE PRIVILEGE
September 13, 2008, 2:01 pm
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
This is Your Nation on White Privilege
By Tim Wise
For those who still can’t grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are constantly looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.
White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because “every family has challenges,” even as black and Latino families with similar “challenges” are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.
White privilege is when you can call yourself a “fuckin’ redneck,” like Bristol Palin’s boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll “kick their fuckin' ass,” and talk about how you like to “shoot shit” for fun, and still be viewed as a responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.
White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.
White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don’t all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you’re “untested.”
White privilege is being able to say that you support the words “under God” in the pledge of allegiance because “if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it’s good enough for me,” and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the “under God” part wasn’t added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.
White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.
White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto was “Alaska first,” and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she’s being disrespectful.
White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you’re being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college--you’re somehow being mean, or even sexist.
White privilege is being able to convince white women who don’t even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because all of a sudden your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a “second look.”
White privilege is being able to fire people who didn’t support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.
White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for John Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict in the Middle East is God’s punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you’re just a good church-going Christian, but if you’re black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you’re an extremist who probably hates America.
White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a “trick question,” while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O’Reilly means you’re dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.
White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism is, as Sarah Palin has referred to it a “light” burden.
And finally, white privilege is the only thing that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing, people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren’t sure about that whole “change” thing. Ya know, it’s just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain…
White privilege is, in short, the problem.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Why The Fed Allowed Derivatives Trading on a Sunday
George Washington’s Blog
September 15, 2008
In an unprecedented move, the Fed and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association allowed derivatives trading today, on a Sunday, to “reduce risk associated with a potential Lehman . . . bankruptcy.”
Lehman holds $ 800 billion in derivatives.
As the very even-keeled and level-headed chief executive of Pimco, the world’s biggest bond fund, said:
“This is an extremely, and I stress extremely, rare event. It also speaks to the more general notion that, in today’s highly disrupted financial markets, the unthinkable is thinkable.”What is the “unthinkable” he’s referring to?
Another great depression. Perhaps even a world-wide depression.
To see why derivatives are the key to the financial crisis in the U.S. and the world, and why the Fed allowed derivatives trading today, read this.
September 15, 2008
In an unprecedented move, the Fed and the International Swaps and Derivatives Association allowed derivatives trading today, on a Sunday, to “reduce risk associated with a potential Lehman . . . bankruptcy.”
Lehman holds $ 800 billion in derivatives.
As the very even-keeled and level-headed chief executive of Pimco, the world’s biggest bond fund, said:
“This is an extremely, and I stress extremely, rare event. It also speaks to the more general notion that, in today’s highly disrupted financial markets, the unthinkable is thinkable.”What is the “unthinkable” he’s referring to?
Another great depression. Perhaps even a world-wide depression.
To see why derivatives are the key to the financial crisis in the U.S. and the world, and why the Fed allowed derivatives trading today, read this.
Rogers: Dollar To Lose World Reserve Status
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, September 15, 2008
With the greenback plummeting after the news of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, top investor Jim Rogers predicts that the dollar will lose its status as the world reserve currency status and has resolved to buy more gold despite a recent fall in the price of the commodity.
Rogers, who correctly predicted China’s resurgence as an economic superpower back in the 80’s as well as crude oil surpassing $100, says the global economy is in a recession that is going to get much worse while inflation will continue to skyrocket.
“Some countries lie about it. But, inflation in all countries is going to get worse. The next decade is going to see lot more inflation, which is not good,” Rogers told the India Business Standard.
“Frequently, since the prices of the commodities go up before the inflation numbers, one can stay ahead of inflation. But, if you get it wrong you might do worse. So, investing in those commodities, which are going to go up first or selecting the right commodities, is the key to stay ahead of the inflation and make a lot of money.”
Turning to the dollar, Rogers dismissed the greenback as a “flawed currency” that would continue to deteriorate for two to three decades, adding that he would seek to use the dollar’s recent rally as an opportunity to get out of the currency completely.
“I do not want to own any US dollars. Also, I would not urge you to buy US dollars. (The) dollar is going to loose its status as world reserve currency,” said Rogers.
“Some of the OPEC countries have already started and no longer take dollar, like Venezuela no longer accepts the dollar. Other countries are already looking and may be taking a package of basket of currencies instead of the dollar. I am not the only one who knows the dollar is in trouble. Anybody who watches the TV knows that the dollar is in trouble,” he added.
Rogers also said that the bull market in oil has at least another ten years to run and that oil prices will only go higher.
Speaking on the subject of commodities, Rogers recommended sugar, coffee and cotton and also said that he would be buying more precious metals.
“I am trying and want to buy some gold. However, whether this is the low in the gold, I have no idea, but if gold goes lower, I will add some more. Gold is something I do not plan to sell. Gold is something I will gift to my children,” concluded Rogers.
Prison Planet
Monday, September 15, 2008
With the greenback plummeting after the news of Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy, top investor Jim Rogers predicts that the dollar will lose its status as the world reserve currency status and has resolved to buy more gold despite a recent fall in the price of the commodity.
Rogers, who correctly predicted China’s resurgence as an economic superpower back in the 80’s as well as crude oil surpassing $100, says the global economy is in a recession that is going to get much worse while inflation will continue to skyrocket.
“Some countries lie about it. But, inflation in all countries is going to get worse. The next decade is going to see lot more inflation, which is not good,” Rogers told the India Business Standard.
“Frequently, since the prices of the commodities go up before the inflation numbers, one can stay ahead of inflation. But, if you get it wrong you might do worse. So, investing in those commodities, which are going to go up first or selecting the right commodities, is the key to stay ahead of the inflation and make a lot of money.”
Turning to the dollar, Rogers dismissed the greenback as a “flawed currency” that would continue to deteriorate for two to three decades, adding that he would seek to use the dollar’s recent rally as an opportunity to get out of the currency completely.
“I do not want to own any US dollars. Also, I would not urge you to buy US dollars. (The) dollar is going to loose its status as world reserve currency,” said Rogers.
“Some of the OPEC countries have already started and no longer take dollar, like Venezuela no longer accepts the dollar. Other countries are already looking and may be taking a package of basket of currencies instead of the dollar. I am not the only one who knows the dollar is in trouble. Anybody who watches the TV knows that the dollar is in trouble,” he added.
Rogers also said that the bull market in oil has at least another ten years to run and that oil prices will only go higher.
Speaking on the subject of commodities, Rogers recommended sugar, coffee and cotton and also said that he would be buying more precious metals.
“I am trying and want to buy some gold. However, whether this is the low in the gold, I have no idea, but if gold goes lower, I will add some more. Gold is something I do not plan to sell. Gold is something I will gift to my children,” concluded Rogers.
Top Economist: Americans Should Worry About Bank Deposits if Congress Doesn't Act
Posted Sep 15, 2008 12:58pm EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Recession, Banking
Related: LEH, MER, BAC, AIG, WM, ^DJI, ^GSPC
Updated from 12:58 p.m. EDT
With the "financial storm of the century" hitting financial institutions, many Americans are worried about the safety of their bank deposits. While the FDIC insures individual accounts up to $100,000, the reaction to IndyMac's failure this summer -- lines outside retail branches -- shows Americans have limited faith in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which guarantees individual accounts up to $100,000.
Update: "The banking system is safe and sound," Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson declared at a mid-afternoon press conference Monday, seeking to ameliorate such concerns.
"Nothing is more important than the stability and orderliness of our financial markets [and] regulators remain vigilant," Paulson continued. "We're working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work of some of the past excesses, but the American people can remain confident in the soundness and resilience of our financial system."
But Americans are justified to be worried, says Nouriel Roubini, of NYU's Stern School and RGE Monitor, who notes there is already a "slow-motion run on retail banks" occurring nationwide.
That "run" could accelerate as people realize the FDIC fund has about $50 billion to "insure" about $1 trillion in assets at the nation's financial institutions, says Roubini. "They're going to run out of money" unless Congress acts soon to recapitalize the FDIC.
In addition, the recent spike in number of banks on the FDIC's "troubled list" is only through June, meaning even that inflated number understates the problem.
The intent here isn't to add to people's anxieties, but Roubini is one of the few market watchers to correctly predict the severity of this ongoing credit crisis. If nothing else, he says people with accounts exceeding $100,000 in value should spread their money - and the risk - among different firms.
Related: LEH, MER, BAC, AIG, WM, ^DJI, ^GSPC
Updated from 12:58 p.m. EDT
With the "financial storm of the century" hitting financial institutions, many Americans are worried about the safety of their bank deposits. While the FDIC insures individual accounts up to $100,000, the reaction to IndyMac's failure this summer -- lines outside retail branches -- shows Americans have limited faith in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which guarantees individual accounts up to $100,000.
Update: "The banking system is safe and sound," Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson declared at a mid-afternoon press conference Monday, seeking to ameliorate such concerns.
"Nothing is more important than the stability and orderliness of our financial markets [and] regulators remain vigilant," Paulson continued. "We're working through a difficult period in our financial markets right now as we work of some of the past excesses, but the American people can remain confident in the soundness and resilience of our financial system."
But Americans are justified to be worried, says Nouriel Roubini, of NYU's Stern School and RGE Monitor, who notes there is already a "slow-motion run on retail banks" occurring nationwide.
That "run" could accelerate as people realize the FDIC fund has about $50 billion to "insure" about $1 trillion in assets at the nation's financial institutions, says Roubini. "They're going to run out of money" unless Congress acts soon to recapitalize the FDIC.
In addition, the recent spike in number of banks on the FDIC's "troubled list" is only through June, meaning even that inflated number understates the problem.
The intent here isn't to add to people's anxieties, but Roubini is one of the few market watchers to correctly predict the severity of this ongoing credit crisis. If nothing else, he says people with accounts exceeding $100,000 in value should spread their money - and the risk - among different firms.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
AP Enterprise: Drugs affect more drinking water
By MARTHA MENDOZA, AP National Writer
Thu Sep 11, 5:35 PM ET
Testing prompted by an Associated Press story that revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies has shown that more Americans are affected by the problem than previously thought — at least 46 million.
That's up from 41 million people reported by the AP in March as part of an investigation into the presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation's waterways.
The AP stories prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water. Positive tests were reported in 17 cases, including Reno, Nev., Savannah, Ga., Colorado Springs, Colo., and Huntsville, Ala. Results are pending in three others.
The test results, added to data from communities and water utilities that bowed to pressure to disclose earlier test results, produce the new total of Americans known to be exposed to drug-contaminated drinking water supplies.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. cities have not tested drinking water while eight cities — including Boston, Phoenix and Seattle — were relieved that tests showed no detections.
"We didn't think we'd find anything because our water comes from a pristine source, but after the AP stories we wanted to make sure and reassure our customers," said Andy Ryan, spokesman for Seattle Public Utilities.
The substances detected in the latest tests mirrored those cited in the earlier AP report.
Chicago, for example, found a cholesterol medication and a nicotine derivative. Many cities found the anti-convulsant carbamazepine. Officials in one of those communities, Colorado Springs, say they detected five pharmaceuticals in all, including a tranquilizer and a hormone.
"This is obviously an emerging issue and after the AP stories came out we felt it was the responsible thing for us to do, as a utility, to find out where we stand. We believe that at these levels, based on current science, that the water is completely safe for our customers," said Colorado Springs spokesman Steve Berry. "We don't want to create unnecessary alarm, but at the same time we have a responsibility as a municipal utility to communicate with our customers and let them know."
Fargo's water director, Bruce Grubb, said the concentrations of three drugs detected there were so incredibly minute — parts per trillion — that he sent them to the local health officer to figure out how to interpret the information for the community.
"We plan to put this into some kind of context other than just scientific nomenclature, so folks can get some level of understanding about what it means," said Grubb.
The drug residues detected in water supplies are generally flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion. Many of the pharmaceuticals are known to slip through sewage and drinking water treatment plants.
While the comprehensive risks are still unclear, researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild and impair the workings of human cells in the laboratory.
And while the new survey expands the known extent of the problem, the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities have yet to test, including the single largest water provider in the country, New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.
In April, New York City council members insisted during an emergency hearing that their drinking water be tested. But DEP officials subsequently declared that "the testing of finished tap water is not warranted at this time."
___
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org
Thu Sep 11, 5:35 PM ET
Testing prompted by an Associated Press story that revealed trace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies has shown that more Americans are affected by the problem than previously thought — at least 46 million.
That's up from 41 million people reported by the AP in March as part of an investigation into the presence of pharmaceuticals in the nation's waterways.
The AP stories prompted federal and local legislative hearings, brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, and led officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas to analyze their drinking water. Positive tests were reported in 17 cases, including Reno, Nev., Savannah, Ga., Colorado Springs, Colo., and Huntsville, Ala. Results are pending in three others.
The test results, added to data from communities and water utilities that bowed to pressure to disclose earlier test results, produce the new total of Americans known to be exposed to drug-contaminated drinking water supplies.
The overwhelming majority of U.S. cities have not tested drinking water while eight cities — including Boston, Phoenix and Seattle — were relieved that tests showed no detections.
"We didn't think we'd find anything because our water comes from a pristine source, but after the AP stories we wanted to make sure and reassure our customers," said Andy Ryan, spokesman for Seattle Public Utilities.
The substances detected in the latest tests mirrored those cited in the earlier AP report.
Chicago, for example, found a cholesterol medication and a nicotine derivative. Many cities found the anti-convulsant carbamazepine. Officials in one of those communities, Colorado Springs, say they detected five pharmaceuticals in all, including a tranquilizer and a hormone.
"This is obviously an emerging issue and after the AP stories came out we felt it was the responsible thing for us to do, as a utility, to find out where we stand. We believe that at these levels, based on current science, that the water is completely safe for our customers," said Colorado Springs spokesman Steve Berry. "We don't want to create unnecessary alarm, but at the same time we have a responsibility as a municipal utility to communicate with our customers and let them know."
Fargo's water director, Bruce Grubb, said the concentrations of three drugs detected there were so incredibly minute — parts per trillion — that he sent them to the local health officer to figure out how to interpret the information for the community.
"We plan to put this into some kind of context other than just scientific nomenclature, so folks can get some level of understanding about what it means," said Grubb.
The drug residues detected in water supplies are generally flushed into sewers and waterways through human excretion. Many of the pharmaceuticals are known to slip through sewage and drinking water treatment plants.
While the comprehensive risks are still unclear, researchers are finding evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of pharmaceutical residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species in the wild and impair the workings of human cells in the laboratory.
And while the new survey expands the known extent of the problem, the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities have yet to test, including the single largest water provider in the country, New York City's Department of Environmental Protection, which delivers water to 9 million people.
In April, New York City council members insisted during an emergency hearing that their drinking water be tested. But DEP officials subsequently declared that "the testing of finished tap water is not warranted at this time."
___
The AP National Investigative Team can be reached at investigate (at) ap.org
Fannie, Freddie: Ticking Time Bomb Explodes, Public Shocked
Lew Rockwell
LRC Blog
September 12, 2008
The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, setting in motion the biggest government bailout/takeover in U.S. history, brings a grim sense of fulfillment to competent economists. After all, what did people expect, that water would flow uphill forever?
This financial mega-mess is the same sort of event as the collapse of the USSR’s centrally planned economy, another economically unworkable Rube Goldberg apparatus that was kept going, more or less badly, for decades before it fell apart completely. Along the way, of course, famous (yet actually unsound) economists assured the world that everything was working out splendidly. As late as 1989, when the pillars were crumbling on all sides of the temple, Nobel Prize winner Paul A. Samuelson informed readers of his widely used textbook, “The Soviet economy is proof that…a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”
In the future, we will see a similar breakdown of the U.S. government’s Social Security system, with its ill-fated pension system and its even more inauspicious Medicare system of financing health care for the elderly. These government schemes are fighting a losing battle against demographic realities, the laws of economics, and the rules of arithmetic. The question is not whether they will fail, but when—and then how the government that can no longer sustain them in their previous Ponzi-scheme form will alter them to salvage what little can be salvaged with minimal damage to the government itself.
Our political economy is rife with such catastrophes in waiting, yet the public always seems startled, and outraged, when the day of reckoning can no longer be deferred, and another apartment collapses in the state’s Hotel of Impossible Promises, loading onto the taxpayers more visibly the burden of sheltering the previous occupants.
Each of these time bombs has at least one element in common: it promises current benefits, often seemingly without cost; but if it must acknowledge a substantial cost, it places that burden somewhere in the distant future, where it will be borne by somebody else. From the standpoint of society in general, every such scheme is a species of eating the seed corn. It satisfies the public’s appetite to consume something for nothing right now, with no thought for the morrow. It represents the height of irresponsibility by permitting people to live higher today than they can truly afford, financing this profligacy by borrowing recklessly and by taxing politically weak and ill-organized people in order to shower benefits on politically strong and well-organized special interests.
Call it democracy in action or utterly corrupt governance; they are the same thing.
The architecture of the Hotel of Impossible Promises is not arcane. All competent economists understand these things. Ludwig von Mises explained as early as 1920 why a centrally planned economy could not work as a rational system of allocating resources. The reasons why Social Security, especially its Medicare component, and many other such government programs contain the seeds of their own destruction have been explained time and again. Are the politicians who construct these structures really such idiots that they cannot understand the logic of what they are doing?
Not at all. But they are not striving to create economically viable institutions that serve the general public interest; they are feathering their own electoral nests in the only way they can in the context of our political institutions. As H. L. Mencken explained back in 1940, the politicians “will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable,” because they understand that “votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.”
And are members of the public so dense that they will fall for such promises? Yes. Moreover, they are greedy, impatient, and immoral, because the present benefits they hope to gain via politics, however unsustainable in the long run, come entirely at the expense of the taxpayers from whom the government extorts its revenues.
“Politics, under democracy,” Mencken wrote more than 80 years ago, “resolves itself into impossible alternatives. Whatever the label on the parties, or the war cries issuing from the demagogues who lead them, the practical choice is between the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” And in a declaration even apter now than it was at the time, he concluded that what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.”
The trouble is, however, that now, even more than then, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.
If you think that Fannie and Freddie’s bust is a big deal, just wait until Medicare comes crashing down. Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be truly unbearable. As that day rapidly approaches, however, you’ll notice that the politicians are doing utterly nothing to forestall it.
LRC Blog
September 12, 2008
The failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, setting in motion the biggest government bailout/takeover in U.S. history, brings a grim sense of fulfillment to competent economists. After all, what did people expect, that water would flow uphill forever?
This financial mega-mess is the same sort of event as the collapse of the USSR’s centrally planned economy, another economically unworkable Rube Goldberg apparatus that was kept going, more or less badly, for decades before it fell apart completely. Along the way, of course, famous (yet actually unsound) economists assured the world that everything was working out splendidly. As late as 1989, when the pillars were crumbling on all sides of the temple, Nobel Prize winner Paul A. Samuelson informed readers of his widely used textbook, “The Soviet economy is proof that…a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”
In the future, we will see a similar breakdown of the U.S. government’s Social Security system, with its ill-fated pension system and its even more inauspicious Medicare system of financing health care for the elderly. These government schemes are fighting a losing battle against demographic realities, the laws of economics, and the rules of arithmetic. The question is not whether they will fail, but when—and then how the government that can no longer sustain them in their previous Ponzi-scheme form will alter them to salvage what little can be salvaged with minimal damage to the government itself.
Our political economy is rife with such catastrophes in waiting, yet the public always seems startled, and outraged, when the day of reckoning can no longer be deferred, and another apartment collapses in the state’s Hotel of Impossible Promises, loading onto the taxpayers more visibly the burden of sheltering the previous occupants.
Each of these time bombs has at least one element in common: it promises current benefits, often seemingly without cost; but if it must acknowledge a substantial cost, it places that burden somewhere in the distant future, where it will be borne by somebody else. From the standpoint of society in general, every such scheme is a species of eating the seed corn. It satisfies the public’s appetite to consume something for nothing right now, with no thought for the morrow. It represents the height of irresponsibility by permitting people to live higher today than they can truly afford, financing this profligacy by borrowing recklessly and by taxing politically weak and ill-organized people in order to shower benefits on politically strong and well-organized special interests.
Call it democracy in action or utterly corrupt governance; they are the same thing.
The architecture of the Hotel of Impossible Promises is not arcane. All competent economists understand these things. Ludwig von Mises explained as early as 1920 why a centrally planned economy could not work as a rational system of allocating resources. The reasons why Social Security, especially its Medicare component, and many other such government programs contain the seeds of their own destruction have been explained time and again. Are the politicians who construct these structures really such idiots that they cannot understand the logic of what they are doing?
Not at all. But they are not striving to create economically viable institutions that serve the general public interest; they are feathering their own electoral nests in the only way they can in the context of our political institutions. As H. L. Mencken explained back in 1940, the politicians “will all promise every man, woman and child in the country whatever he, she or it wants. They’ll all be roving the land looking for chances to make the rich poor, to remedy the irremediable, to succor the unsuccorable, to unscramble the unscrambleable, to dephlogisticate the undephlogisticable,” because they understand that “votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.”
And are members of the public so dense that they will fall for such promises? Yes. Moreover, they are greedy, impatient, and immoral, because the present benefits they hope to gain via politics, however unsustainable in the long run, come entirely at the expense of the taxpayers from whom the government extorts its revenues.
“Politics, under democracy,” Mencken wrote more than 80 years ago, “resolves itself into impossible alternatives. Whatever the label on the parties, or the war cries issuing from the demagogues who lead them, the practical choice is between the plutocracy on the one side and a rabble of preposterous impossibilists on the other.” And in a declaration even apter now than it was at the time, he concluded that what democracy “needs beyond everything is a party of liberty.”
The trouble is, however, that now, even more than then, the American people have little interest in liberty. Instead, they want the impossible: home ownership for those who cannot afford homes, credit for those who are not creditworthy, old-age pensions for those who have not saved, health care for those who make no attempt to keep themselves healthy, and college educations for those who lack the wit to finish high school. Moreover, they want it now, and they want somebody else to pay for it.
If you think that Fannie and Freddie’s bust is a big deal, just wait until Medicare comes crashing down. Then, the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be truly unbearable. As that day rapidly approaches, however, you’ll notice that the politicians are doing utterly nothing to forestall it.
Friday, September 12, 2008
The Suppression of Dissent in America
http://www.counterpunch.org/washington09112008.html
By LINN WASHINGTON, Jr.
In presenting a compelling examination of the plight of death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal the documentary “In Prison My Whole Life” also probes one of the deeper contradictions of America: persistent suppression of dissent.
For a nation that extols the provisions of the First Amendment, politicians and police have histories of running roughshod over the rights of citizens to exercise their constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly and presenting grievances to government.
The recent actions against peaceful demonstrators and non-mainstream journalists by federal and local law enforcement personnel during the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minnesota is yet another example of suppression of dissent.
Amnesty International is among the organizations condemning the assaults and arrests at the Republican Convention, terming that use of force and mass arrests excessive.
Amnesty International has officially endorsed “In Prison My Whole Life” – the first time this respected human rights organization ever placed its imprimatur on a film.
This well received documentary that premiered simultaneously last October 25th at the London and Rome Film Festivals focuses on the journey of one young man – William Francome – to discover more about the death row inmate arrested on the day he was born.
Francome’s birthday is December 9, 1981 – the day Abu-Jamal was arrested for murdering of a Philadelphia policeman. Francome’s American-born mother followed the Abu-Jamal case, reminding her son on each of his birthdays about the man languishing on death-row for a conviction based on what the AI report determined was a grossly unfair trial.
The film follows Francome across America from New York City to California’s Bay Area in his journey to discover more about the Abu-Jamal case and related issues like racism, class prejudice and suppression of dissent.
“In Prison My Whole Life” will have two screening in New York City at the Urbanworld Film Festival – on Thursday 9/11 and Saturday 9/13. Additionally, a screening is set for 9/26 at the CR10 Conference in Oakland, California.
The only previous US screening of this documentary occurred this past January during the Sundance Film Festival.
In 2000, Amnesty International authored the comprehensive yet concise report on the Abu-Jamal case that presented a unique examination of unethical and suspect conduct by the Pa Supreme Court in this controversial case – newsworthy material that the US news media buried.
Only two American daily newspapers carried articles on that news-laden AI report according to the NEXUS newspaper database and both of those articles were ‘news briefs.’ The news brief on the AI report published by the Philadelphia Inquirer in Abu-Jamal’s hometown was the fifth of six items in the B Section, listed below reporting on two non-fatal shootings, a small nightclub fire and a proposal to ban cell phone use while driving.
The Abu-Jamal case is fraught with suppression of dissent.
Incidents of suppression include the well publicized 1994 action by police and politicians forcing NPR to cancel airing prison commentaries by the award-winning journalist, the little known 2000 federal imprisonment of a leading Abu-Jamal activist for speaking at an anti-death penalty rally during the GOP national convention held that year in Philadelphia and 2007 strong-arming by Philadelphia’s police union to block a pro-Abu-Jamal program.
Francome’s “In Prison My Whole Life” interviews include Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Mos Def, Snoop Dog and Alice Walker – famed persons who’ve endured violations of their First Amendment rights.
This documentary also presents the first film interview with Abu-Jamal’s brother, Billy Cook. The slain officer’s beating of Cook during a traffic stop allegedly triggered the shooting. Cook shows a head scar he still carries from that beating. Cook also confirms the presence of his close friend long suspected by some as the person who fatally shot the officer.
Producers for the documentary are acclaimed British actor Colin Firth and his wife Livia Giuggioli who enlisted renowned director Marc Evans.
Producer Livia Giuggioli, during a recent interview with Hans Bennett, said intense passions displayed by advocates and enemies of Abu-Jamal is one of the things that interested them about pursuing this project.
“This is what really fascinated us all when we started to approach the subject and research,” said Giuggioli who lives in London.
“If you detach everything from this “figure” you just find a man who has been a victim of politics more than anything else,” Giuggioli noted echoing a conclusion of the 2000 AI report that politics had polluted judicial rulings in the Abu-Jamal case.
“In Prison” presents extraordinary evidence pointing to Abu-Jamal’s innocence inclusive of crime scene photographs discovered in 2006 that contradict core elements of the prosecution’s case against the man whose written five books while on death row.
The photos, for example, show no bullet marks in the sidewalk where prosecutors declared Abu-Jamal shot into the sidewalk around the fallen officer three times before shooting him once in the face. The photos show no cab behind the officer’s squad car where prosecutors told jurors a cab driver observed the murder.
Additionally, the photos show police tampering with evidence at the crime scene. A consultant for the documentary, German professor Dr. Michael Schiffmann, located these photos shot by a Philadelphia news photographer who arrived at the shooting scene minutes after the crime. Schiffmann published the 2006 book “Race Against Death” one of the two most thorough examinations of the Abu-Jamal case. The other book is “Killing Time” by Philadelphia-area investigative reporter Dave Lindorff. Both Schiffmann and Lindorff have “In Prison” appearances, walking Francome through various aspects of the Abu-Jamal case in Philadelphia.
“Hopefully the film will help people to think and realize that maybe there is more to the story,” Giuggioli said. “Until there is a proper new trial – Mumia is just a man who has been sitting in solitary confinement for 27-years and it is a disgrace.”
The Abu-Jamal case is presently heading for an appeal to the US Supreme Court after the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year rejected a request for a new hearing, principally on the issue of racial discrimination during the selection of the jury at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial.
That Third Circuit ruling created new standards for jury discrimination appeals that are more stringent than standards established by the US Supreme Court. That 2000 Amnesty International report faulted courts for improperly creating new legal standards to deny justice to Abu-Jamal.
Linn Washington Jr. is a Philadelphia journalist who’s followed the Abu-Jamal case since 1981. Washington appears briefly in the “In Prison” documentary talking about police brutality in Philadelphia.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
By LINN WASHINGTON, Jr.
In presenting a compelling examination of the plight of death row journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal the documentary “In Prison My Whole Life” also probes one of the deeper contradictions of America: persistent suppression of dissent.
For a nation that extols the provisions of the First Amendment, politicians and police have histories of running roughshod over the rights of citizens to exercise their constitutional freedoms of speech, assembly and presenting grievances to government.
The recent actions against peaceful demonstrators and non-mainstream journalists by federal and local law enforcement personnel during the Republican National Convention in St Paul, Minnesota is yet another example of suppression of dissent.
Amnesty International is among the organizations condemning the assaults and arrests at the Republican Convention, terming that use of force and mass arrests excessive.
Amnesty International has officially endorsed “In Prison My Whole Life” – the first time this respected human rights organization ever placed its imprimatur on a film.
This well received documentary that premiered simultaneously last October 25th at the London and Rome Film Festivals focuses on the journey of one young man – William Francome – to discover more about the death row inmate arrested on the day he was born.
Francome’s birthday is December 9, 1981 – the day Abu-Jamal was arrested for murdering of a Philadelphia policeman. Francome’s American-born mother followed the Abu-Jamal case, reminding her son on each of his birthdays about the man languishing on death-row for a conviction based on what the AI report determined was a grossly unfair trial.
The film follows Francome across America from New York City to California’s Bay Area in his journey to discover more about the Abu-Jamal case and related issues like racism, class prejudice and suppression of dissent.
“In Prison My Whole Life” will have two screening in New York City at the Urbanworld Film Festival – on Thursday 9/11 and Saturday 9/13. Additionally, a screening is set for 9/26 at the CR10 Conference in Oakland, California.
The only previous US screening of this documentary occurred this past January during the Sundance Film Festival.
In 2000, Amnesty International authored the comprehensive yet concise report on the Abu-Jamal case that presented a unique examination of unethical and suspect conduct by the Pa Supreme Court in this controversial case – newsworthy material that the US news media buried.
Only two American daily newspapers carried articles on that news-laden AI report according to the NEXUS newspaper database and both of those articles were ‘news briefs.’ The news brief on the AI report published by the Philadelphia Inquirer in Abu-Jamal’s hometown was the fifth of six items in the B Section, listed below reporting on two non-fatal shootings, a small nightclub fire and a proposal to ban cell phone use while driving.
The Abu-Jamal case is fraught with suppression of dissent.
Incidents of suppression include the well publicized 1994 action by police and politicians forcing NPR to cancel airing prison commentaries by the award-winning journalist, the little known 2000 federal imprisonment of a leading Abu-Jamal activist for speaking at an anti-death penalty rally during the GOP national convention held that year in Philadelphia and 2007 strong-arming by Philadelphia’s police union to block a pro-Abu-Jamal program.
Francome’s “In Prison My Whole Life” interviews include Noam Chomsky, Angela Davis, Mos Def, Snoop Dog and Alice Walker – famed persons who’ve endured violations of their First Amendment rights.
This documentary also presents the first film interview with Abu-Jamal’s brother, Billy Cook. The slain officer’s beating of Cook during a traffic stop allegedly triggered the shooting. Cook shows a head scar he still carries from that beating. Cook also confirms the presence of his close friend long suspected by some as the person who fatally shot the officer.
Producers for the documentary are acclaimed British actor Colin Firth and his wife Livia Giuggioli who enlisted renowned director Marc Evans.
Producer Livia Giuggioli, during a recent interview with Hans Bennett, said intense passions displayed by advocates and enemies of Abu-Jamal is one of the things that interested them about pursuing this project.
“This is what really fascinated us all when we started to approach the subject and research,” said Giuggioli who lives in London.
“If you detach everything from this “figure” you just find a man who has been a victim of politics more than anything else,” Giuggioli noted echoing a conclusion of the 2000 AI report that politics had polluted judicial rulings in the Abu-Jamal case.
“In Prison” presents extraordinary evidence pointing to Abu-Jamal’s innocence inclusive of crime scene photographs discovered in 2006 that contradict core elements of the prosecution’s case against the man whose written five books while on death row.
The photos, for example, show no bullet marks in the sidewalk where prosecutors declared Abu-Jamal shot into the sidewalk around the fallen officer three times before shooting him once in the face. The photos show no cab behind the officer’s squad car where prosecutors told jurors a cab driver observed the murder.
Additionally, the photos show police tampering with evidence at the crime scene. A consultant for the documentary, German professor Dr. Michael Schiffmann, located these photos shot by a Philadelphia news photographer who arrived at the shooting scene minutes after the crime. Schiffmann published the 2006 book “Race Against Death” one of the two most thorough examinations of the Abu-Jamal case. The other book is “Killing Time” by Philadelphia-area investigative reporter Dave Lindorff. Both Schiffmann and Lindorff have “In Prison” appearances, walking Francome through various aspects of the Abu-Jamal case in Philadelphia.
“Hopefully the film will help people to think and realize that maybe there is more to the story,” Giuggioli said. “Until there is a proper new trial – Mumia is just a man who has been sitting in solitary confinement for 27-years and it is a disgrace.”
The Abu-Jamal case is presently heading for an appeal to the US Supreme Court after the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals earlier this year rejected a request for a new hearing, principally on the issue of racial discrimination during the selection of the jury at Abu-Jamal’s 1982 trial.
That Third Circuit ruling created new standards for jury discrimination appeals that are more stringent than standards established by the US Supreme Court. That 2000 Amnesty International report faulted courts for improperly creating new legal standards to deny justice to Abu-Jamal.
Linn Washington Jr. is a Philadelphia journalist who’s followed the Abu-Jamal case since 1981. Washington appears briefly in the “In Prison” documentary talking about police brutality in Philadelphia.
Freedom Archives
522 Valencia Street
San Francisco, CA 94110
415 863-9977
Beating Back Batson
[col. writ. 9/6/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
For those who read court opinions, few can ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 Batson v. Kentucky decision.
Essentially, it prohibited the State from removing Black jurors for racial reasons. It re-wrote the rules from the Swain v. Alabama ( 1965) case, where the court required systematic discrimination over a number of cases, over a period of years. Needless to say, such a challenge was clearly beyond the resources of most people, and relatively few were made, and even fewer successful. It is hard to resist the suspicion that this was merely judicial lip service to a principle that was easily ignored, in the breach.
For, it took over a generation, over 20 years, for Swain to be overruled by Batson, and now, Batson is beginning to bear an eerie resemblance to its unworkable parentage, because courts have been loathe to grant relief, and have either created new rules, or simply ignored its dictates.
We see this at work recently in a number of cases, among them Com. v. (Robert) Cook, WL 284060 (July 24, 2008). In this case, the DA used 74% of his strikes to remove 14 Black jurors. Incredibly, the Phila. Court of Common Pleas initially found that even this didn't constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. Later, it found a prima facie case, but ruled that the DA put forth sufficient race-neutral reasons for exclusion, and therefore not a violation of Batson.
Recently, the PA Supreme Court agreed, even though the DA couldn't recall why he removed 2 Black jurors -- or, in other words, couldn't articulate a justification.
Now remember -- Batson states that the improper removal of one juror violates the constitution. One -- not 14.
But here's the kicker. The DA in Mr. Cook's case made a video training tape, where he taught his fellow prosecutors how to violateBatson - and how to lie about it to judges.
but perhaps the then prosecutor, Jack McMahon, didn't need to work that hard, for courts would take up the slack. For where the DA can't remember a reason, the court will invent one.
This is especially egregious in this case, for the man who wrote the opinion was the DA when McMahon made the tapes, but now sits as Chief Justice of the court. Can you spell 'conflict of interest?' Did he recuse himself? (What do you think?)
For over a decade, Pennsylvania courts have painted McMahon as the bad guy, a kind of rogue prosecutor, and most of his convictions have been reversed (except Cook's), but McMahon wasn't, and never should've been, the issue. For he was simply describing the pattern and practice of the office, and training his colleagues in techniques used over years of trials.
Mr. McMahon was putting into words what DAs did to get convictions. Does that mean his office sought a fair and impartial jury? In McMahon's words, " Well, that's ridiculous. You're not trying to get that." In fact, McMahon explained, their jobs were to get the most "unfair" jury possible. And, in many cases, that meant getting as few Blacks to serve on the jury as possible.
Batson is as empty as Swain was, for if they don't want to give it up, any reason will do.
They proclaim ideals of fairness that bear no relationship to the real process happening daily in courtrooms all across America.
That would be, to quote McMahon, "ridiculous."
-- (c) '08 maj
For those who read court opinions, few can ignore the U.S. Supreme Court's 1986 Batson v. Kentucky decision.
Essentially, it prohibited the State from removing Black jurors for racial reasons. It re-wrote the rules from the Swain v. Alabama ( 1965) case, where the court required systematic discrimination over a number of cases, over a period of years. Needless to say, such a challenge was clearly beyond the resources of most people, and relatively few were made, and even fewer successful. It is hard to resist the suspicion that this was merely judicial lip service to a principle that was easily ignored, in the breach.
For, it took over a generation, over 20 years, for Swain to be overruled by Batson, and now, Batson is beginning to bear an eerie resemblance to its unworkable parentage, because courts have been loathe to grant relief, and have either created new rules, or simply ignored its dictates.
We see this at work recently in a number of cases, among them Com. v. (Robert) Cook, WL 284060 (July 24, 2008). In this case, the DA used 74% of his strikes to remove 14 Black jurors. Incredibly, the Phila. Court of Common Pleas initially found that even this didn't constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. Later, it found a prima facie case, but ruled that the DA put forth sufficient race-neutral reasons for exclusion, and therefore not a violation of Batson.
Recently, the PA Supreme Court agreed, even though the DA couldn't recall why he removed 2 Black jurors -- or, in other words, couldn't articulate a justification.
Now remember -- Batson states that the improper removal of one juror violates the constitution. One -- not 14.
But here's the kicker. The DA in Mr. Cook's case made a video training tape, where he taught his fellow prosecutors how to violateBatson - and how to lie about it to judges.
but perhaps the then prosecutor, Jack McMahon, didn't need to work that hard, for courts would take up the slack. For where the DA can't remember a reason, the court will invent one.
This is especially egregious in this case, for the man who wrote the opinion was the DA when McMahon made the tapes, but now sits as Chief Justice of the court. Can you spell 'conflict of interest?' Did he recuse himself? (What do you think?)
For over a decade, Pennsylvania courts have painted McMahon as the bad guy, a kind of rogue prosecutor, and most of his convictions have been reversed (except Cook's), but McMahon wasn't, and never should've been, the issue. For he was simply describing the pattern and practice of the office, and training his colleagues in techniques used over years of trials.
Mr. McMahon was putting into words what DAs did to get convictions. Does that mean his office sought a fair and impartial jury? In McMahon's words, " Well, that's ridiculous. You're not trying to get that." In fact, McMahon explained, their jobs were to get the most "unfair" jury possible. And, in many cases, that meant getting as few Blacks to serve on the jury as possible.
Batson is as empty as Swain was, for if they don't want to give it up, any reason will do.
They proclaim ideals of fairness that bear no relationship to the real process happening daily in courtrooms all across America.
That would be, to quote McMahon, "ridiculous."
-- (c) '08 maj
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
What Is The Secret Killing Weapon In Iraq?
Woodward compares clandestine program to Manhattan Project, could secret weapon be terrifying radiation canon?
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
September 9, 2008
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward revealed to Larry King last night that the U.S. has embarked on a “secret killing program” in Iraq which has dramatically reduced attacks on coalition troops by wiping out terrorists, but what could this secret weapon possibly be?
A CNN report details Woodward’s revelations.
The program — which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb — must remain secret for now or it would “get people killed,” Woodward said Monday on CNN’s Larry King Live.
“The top secret operations will “some day in history … be described to people’s amazement,” Woodward told King.
While he would not reveal the details, Woodward said the terrorists who have been targeted were already aware of the capabilities.
“The enemy has a heads up because they’ve been getting wiped out and a lot of them have been killed,” he said. “It’s not news to them.”
For the weapon to be comparable to the atomic bomb, one would speculate that it must employ some kind of exotic new technology and is potentially related to neutron bomb and electromagnetic weapons research.
As far back as 2002, a Cox News Service report entitled Super-Secret Microwave Weapons May Be Used In Iraq, speculated that the military was preparing to utilize high-powered microwave weapons that send bursts of electromagnetic energy which completely disable enemy electronic devices.
However, Woodward’s discussion of the secret weapon wiping out alleged terrorists in large numbers suggests it may be a far more barbaric device than an EMP weapon, which would more traditionally be used against standing armies rather than scattered insurgents.
One possibility is that the weapon is something similar that described to film maker Patrick Dillon by Iraqi infantryman Majid al-Ghazali - a frightening giant flame-thrower type device that instead shoots out “concentrated lightning bolts” or radiation bursts that result in vehicles and people being almost literally liquidized.
During a street battle in Baghdad on April 12 2003, Al-Ghazali describes witnessing American troops unveil an oddly configured tank which “suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles.”
“Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging “like a wet rag” as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.”
Al-Ghazali adds that following the battle, U.S. troops were scrupulous about burying the evidence of the weapon’s deadly consequences, but that telltale signs remained which he showed to journalist Dillon.
Dillon, a battlefield medic in Vietnam, Somalia and Kosovo, stated, “I’ve seen a freaking smorgasbord of destruction in my life, flame-throwers, napalm, white phosphorous, thermite, you name it. I know of nothing short of an H-bomb that conceivably might cause a bus to instantly liquefy or that can flash broil a human body down to the size of an infant. God pity humanity if that thing is a preview of what’s in store for the 21st century.”
An interview with Majid al-Ghazali can be viewed below along with a further exploration of exotic weapons systems being employed in Iraq. Aid workers and others have backed up reports of terrifying new weapons systems being deployed that cause horrific injuries and agonizing deaths. Woodward’s characterization of the victims merely as “terrorists” conceals the fact that a great number of the victims of these brutal weapons are no doubt innocent people caught up in the fighting.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
September 9, 2008
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob Woodward revealed to Larry King last night that the U.S. has embarked on a “secret killing program” in Iraq which has dramatically reduced attacks on coalition troops by wiping out terrorists, but what could this secret weapon possibly be?
A CNN report details Woodward’s revelations.
The program — which Woodward compares to the World War II era Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb — must remain secret for now or it would “get people killed,” Woodward said Monday on CNN’s Larry King Live.
“The top secret operations will “some day in history … be described to people’s amazement,” Woodward told King.
While he would not reveal the details, Woodward said the terrorists who have been targeted were already aware of the capabilities.
“The enemy has a heads up because they’ve been getting wiped out and a lot of them have been killed,” he said. “It’s not news to them.”
For the weapon to be comparable to the atomic bomb, one would speculate that it must employ some kind of exotic new technology and is potentially related to neutron bomb and electromagnetic weapons research.
As far back as 2002, a Cox News Service report entitled Super-Secret Microwave Weapons May Be Used In Iraq, speculated that the military was preparing to utilize high-powered microwave weapons that send bursts of electromagnetic energy which completely disable enemy electronic devices.
However, Woodward’s discussion of the secret weapon wiping out alleged terrorists in large numbers suggests it may be a far more barbaric device than an EMP weapon, which would more traditionally be used against standing armies rather than scattered insurgents.
One possibility is that the weapon is something similar that described to film maker Patrick Dillon by Iraqi infantryman Majid al-Ghazali - a frightening giant flame-thrower type device that instead shoots out “concentrated lightning bolts” or radiation bursts that result in vehicles and people being almost literally liquidized.
During a street battle in Baghdad on April 12 2003, Al-Ghazali describes witnessing American troops unveil an oddly configured tank which “suddenly let loose a blinding stream of what seemed like fire and lightning, engulfing a large passenger bus and three automobiles.”
“Within seconds the bus had become semi-molten, sagging “like a wet rag” as he put it. He said the bus rapidly melted under this withering blast, shrinking until it was a twisted blob about the dimensions of a VW bug. As if that were not bizarre enough, al-Ghazali explicitly describes seeing numerous human bodies shriveled to the size of newborn babies. By the time local street fighting ended that day, he estimates between 500 and 600 soldiers and civilians had been cooked alive as a result of the mysterious tank-mounted device.”
Al-Ghazali adds that following the battle, U.S. troops were scrupulous about burying the evidence of the weapon’s deadly consequences, but that telltale signs remained which he showed to journalist Dillon.
Dillon, a battlefield medic in Vietnam, Somalia and Kosovo, stated, “I’ve seen a freaking smorgasbord of destruction in my life, flame-throwers, napalm, white phosphorous, thermite, you name it. I know of nothing short of an H-bomb that conceivably might cause a bus to instantly liquefy or that can flash broil a human body down to the size of an infant. God pity humanity if that thing is a preview of what’s in store for the 21st century.”
An interview with Majid al-Ghazali can be viewed below along with a further exploration of exotic weapons systems being employed in Iraq. Aid workers and others have backed up reports of terrifying new weapons systems being deployed that cause horrific injuries and agonizing deaths. Woodward’s characterization of the victims merely as “terrorists” conceals the fact that a great number of the victims of these brutal weapons are no doubt innocent people caught up in the fighting.
Items Off the Table
[col. writ. 9/4/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
As the national political conventions fade into the fog of our short-term memory, few items seem to have penetrated the made-for-TV presentations.
We remember a few snippets (if we're lucky), a few disparate images, an emotional impression, perhaps.
I'm willing to bet that few of us remember any meaningful discussion of the real economic problems faced by the U.S. That's because none of the major presidential candidates have even the remotest solutions to the economic problems plaguing the country, for both are ardent advocates of globalization -- and globalization ain't the solution -- it's the problem.
For globalization emerged as a tool of U.S. economic power to dominate the world in the post-Cold War era. It was designed to open up foreign markets to U.S. and Western businesses, using the illusion of "free trade" to crowbar into local and national economies.
Chalmers Johnson, in his 2000 book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of Empire (N.Y.: Owl Books) puts forth precisely this thesis with clarity and conviction. He illustrates how much of this could be traced to former president Richard Nixon's abolition of the post-World War Bretton Woods agreements, which pegged world currencies to the dollar, and the dollar to U.S. gold reserves. From that day on, economies became free floating, and whole new industry was born -- finance capital, or the business of speculating in, and profiting from, the moneys of others. Such a system, especially when wedded with the protectionism that prevailed in East Asia for some 50 years, created havoc around the world, where foreign wealth destabilizes local markets, for the quick buck.
A byproduct of this new globalized economy was the hollowing out of American industries, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the failure of America's domestic economy.
Johnson cites the work of City College of New York historian, Judith Stein, for examples of how U.S. industrial policy became a wrecking ball to Black communities both in the South and North, industries abroad was a keystone of U.S. strategic policy, and encouraging steel imports became a tool for maintaining vital alliances. The nation's leaders by and large ignored the resulting conflict between Cold War and domestic goals" { p.195}.
While presidential candidates argue over taxes on capital gains, millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet. Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes, due to lost jobs or foreclosures.
It is a globalized economy for capital, high finance, and speculation, but it can hardly be considered one for working people. For them, a hundred barriers bloom, making it harder than ever to chase jobs.
Both major candidates are deaf to their plight, and thus are ill-disposed to address it, much less solve it.
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: Johnson's Blowback.; Goodman, Peter S., "U.S. and Global Economies Slipping in Unison," New York Times (Sunday), 8/24/08, pp.1, 12.]
As the national political conventions fade into the fog of our short-term memory, few items seem to have penetrated the made-for-TV presentations.
We remember a few snippets (if we're lucky), a few disparate images, an emotional impression, perhaps.
I'm willing to bet that few of us remember any meaningful discussion of the real economic problems faced by the U.S. That's because none of the major presidential candidates have even the remotest solutions to the economic problems plaguing the country, for both are ardent advocates of globalization -- and globalization ain't the solution -- it's the problem.
For globalization emerged as a tool of U.S. economic power to dominate the world in the post-Cold War era. It was designed to open up foreign markets to U.S. and Western businesses, using the illusion of "free trade" to crowbar into local and national economies.
Chalmers Johnson, in his 2000 book, Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of Empire (N.Y.: Owl Books) puts forth precisely this thesis with clarity and conviction. He illustrates how much of this could be traced to former president Richard Nixon's abolition of the post-World War Bretton Woods agreements, which pegged world currencies to the dollar, and the dollar to U.S. gold reserves. From that day on, economies became free floating, and whole new industry was born -- finance capital, or the business of speculating in, and profiting from, the moneys of others. Such a system, especially when wedded with the protectionism that prevailed in East Asia for some 50 years, created havoc around the world, where foreign wealth destabilizes local markets, for the quick buck.
A byproduct of this new globalized economy was the hollowing out of American industries, the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the failure of America's domestic economy.
Johnson cites the work of City College of New York historian, Judith Stein, for examples of how U.S. industrial policy became a wrecking ball to Black communities both in the South and North, industries abroad was a keystone of U.S. strategic policy, and encouraging steel imports became a tool for maintaining vital alliances. The nation's leaders by and large ignored the resulting conflict between Cold War and domestic goals" { p.195}.
While presidential candidates argue over taxes on capital gains, millions of Americans struggle to make ends meet. Tens of thousands of people have lost their homes, due to lost jobs or foreclosures.
It is a globalized economy for capital, high finance, and speculation, but it can hardly be considered one for working people. For them, a hundred barriers bloom, making it harder than ever to chase jobs.
Both major candidates are deaf to their plight, and thus are ill-disposed to address it, much less solve it.
--(c) '08 maj
[Source: Johnson's Blowback.; Goodman, Peter S., "U.S. and Global Economies Slipping in Unison," New York Times (Sunday), 8/24/08, pp.1, 12.]
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Stern puts virgin up for sale
By ALISON MALONEY
Published: 09 Sep 2008
AMERICAN shock jock HOWARD STERN will create his biggest outrage yet – by auctioning off a girl’s virginity on his radio show.
The 22-year-old brunette, who is using the pseudonym of NATALIE DYLAN “for safety reasons,” says the money will pay for her college tuition.
She was introduced to Howard by the owner of a brothel in Nevada, one of two US States where prostitution is legal.
The winner of the auction will get to consummate the relationship at the brothel, where the student's sister already works.
Natalie says: “I don't have a moral dilemma with it.
“We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?”
In case anyone doubts her virginity, she is willing to submit to a polygraph test and a gynaecological exam.
The auction will be launched on Stern’s Sirius radio in San Diego today and conducted on the brothel’s website.
Natalie says her mother - a “conservative” fourth-grade teacher - doesn't approve of the auction “but supports me” and she is prepared for the adverse publicity that the stunt will attract.
“I understand some people may condemn me,” she admits. “But I think this is empowering. I'm using what I have to better myself.”
The girl, who already has a bachelor's degree in women's studies at Sacramento State, wants to study for a master’s in marriage and family therapy.
Published: 09 Sep 2008
AMERICAN shock jock HOWARD STERN will create his biggest outrage yet – by auctioning off a girl’s virginity on his radio show.
The 22-year-old brunette, who is using the pseudonym of NATALIE DYLAN “for safety reasons,” says the money will pay for her college tuition.
She was introduced to Howard by the owner of a brothel in Nevada, one of two US States where prostitution is legal.
The winner of the auction will get to consummate the relationship at the brothel, where the student's sister already works.
Natalie says: “I don't have a moral dilemma with it.
“We live in a capitalist society. Why shouldn't I be allowed to capitalize on my virginity?”
In case anyone doubts her virginity, she is willing to submit to a polygraph test and a gynaecological exam.
The auction will be launched on Stern’s Sirius radio in San Diego today and conducted on the brothel’s website.
Natalie says her mother - a “conservative” fourth-grade teacher - doesn't approve of the auction “but supports me” and she is prepared for the adverse publicity that the stunt will attract.
“I understand some people may condemn me,” she admits. “But I think this is empowering. I'm using what I have to better myself.”
The girl, who already has a bachelor's degree in women's studies at Sacramento State, wants to study for a master’s in marriage and family therapy.
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
by Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”
The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”
Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”
“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.
The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.
The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.
Members of Congress have expressed skepticism in the past about the information provided by the White House. On March 15, 2005, David Obey, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, announced that he was putting aside an amendment that he had intended to offer that day, and that would have cut off all funding for national-intelligence programs unless the President agreed to keep Congress fully informed about clandestine military activities undertaken in the war on terror. He had changed his mind, he said, because the White House promised better coöperation. “The Executive Branch understands that we are not trying to dictate what they do,” he said in a floor speech at the time. “We are simply trying to see to it that what they do is consistent with American values and will not get the country in trouble.”
Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran, but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to consult more fully with Congress. He said, “I suspect there’s something going on, but I don’t know what to believe. Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it. We still don’t get enough information from the agencies, and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the edge.”
None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.” However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White House also declined to comment.)
A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”
One irony of Admiral Fallon’s departure is that he was, in many areas, in agreement with President Bush on the threat posed by Iran. They had a good working relationship, Fallon told me, and, when he ran CENTCOM, were in regular communication. On March 4th, a week before his resignation, Fallon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that he was “encouraged” about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the role played by Iran’s leaders, he said, “They’ve been absolutely unhelpful, very damaging, and I absolutely don’t condone any of their activities. And I have yet to see anything since I’ve been in this job in the way of a public action by Iran that’s been at all helpful in this region.”
Fallon made it clear in our conversations that he considered it inappropriate to comment publicly about the President, the Vice-President, or Special Operations. But he said he had heard that people in the White House had been “struggling” with his views on Iran. “When I arrived at CENTCOM, the Iranians were funding every entity inside Iraq. It was in their interest to get us out, and so they decided to kill as many Americans as they could. And why not? They didn’t know who’d come out ahead, but they wanted us out. I decided that I couldn’t resolve the situation in Iraq without the neighborhood. To get this problem in Iraq solved, we had to somehow involve Iran and Syria. I had to work the neighborhood.”
Fallon told me that his focus had been not on the Iranian nuclear issue, or on regime change there, but on “putting out the fires in Iraq.” There were constant discussions in Washington and in the field about how to engage Iran and, on the subject of the bombing option, Fallon said, he believed that “it would happen only if the Iranians did something stupid.”
Fallon’s early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. One of Fallon’s defenders is retired Marine General John J. (Jack) Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “One of the reasons the White House selected Fallon for CENTCOM was that he’s known to be a strategic thinker and had demonstrated those skills in the Pacific,” Sheehan told me. (Fallon served as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific from 2005 to 2007.) “He was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”
The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world, the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed military.
“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.”
Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for Cheney.”
The Pentagon consultant said, “Fallon went down because, in his own way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire him for that.”
In recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership. The Iranian press reports are being carefully monitored by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy at the National War College and now conducts war games centered on Iran for the federal government, think tanks, and universities. The Iranian press “is very open in describing the killings going on inside the country,” Gardiner said. It is, he said, “a controlled press, which makes it more important that it publishes these things. We begin to see inside the government.” He added, “Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere. There were three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.”
Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A.,” Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great Satan.’ ” In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.
Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.
A strategy of using ethnic minorities to undermine Iran is flawed, according to Vali Nasr, who teaches international politics at Tufts University and is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Just because Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan have ethnic problems, it does not mean that Iran is suffering from the same issue,” Nasr told me. “Iran is an old country—like France and Germany—and its citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating ethnic tension in Iran.” The minority groups that the U.S. is reaching out to are either well integrated or small and marginal, without much influence on the government or much ability to present a political challenge, Nasr said. “You can always find some activist groups that will go and kill a policeman, but working with the minorities will backfire, and alienate the majority of the population.”
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.
One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.
The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”
The Kurdish party, PJAK, which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States, has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. (Iran, like Iraq and Turkey, has a Kurdish minority, and PJAK and other groups have sought self-rule in territory that is now part of each of those countries.) In recent weeks, according to Sam Gardiner, the military strategist, there has been a marked increase in the number of PJAK armed engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. In early June, the news agency Fars reported that a dozen PJAK members and four Iranian border guards were killed in a clash near the Iraq border; a similar attack in May killed three Revolutionary Guards and nine PJAK fighters. PJAK has also subjected Turkey, a member of NATO, to repeated terrorist attacks, and reports of American support for the group have been a source of friction between the two governments.
Gardiner also mentioned a trip that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, made to Tehran in June. After his return, Maliki announced that his government would ban any contact between foreigners and the M.E.K.—a slap at the U.S.’s dealings with the group. Maliki declared that Iraq was not willing to be a staging ground for covert operations against other countries. This was a sign, Gardiner said, of “Maliki’s increasingly choosing the interests of Iraq over the interests of the United States.” In terms of U.S. allegations of Iranian involvement in the killing of American soldiers, he said, “Maliki was unwilling to play the blame-Iran game.” Gardiner added that Pakistan had just agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government. America’s covert operations, he said, “seem to be harming relations with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad.”
The White House’s reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence communities. JSOC’s operations in Iran are believed to be modelled on a program that has, with some success, used surrogates to target the Taliban leadership in the tribal territories of Waziristan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the situations in Waziristan and Iran are not comparable.
In Waziristan, “the program works because it’s small and smart guys are running it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “It’s being executed by professionals. The N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A.”—the Defense Intelligence Agency—“are right in there with the Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence, and they’re dealing with serious bad guys.” He added, “We have to be really careful in calling in the missiles. We have to hit certain houses at certain times. The people on the ground are watching through binoculars a few hundred yards away and calling specific locations, in latitude and longitude. We keep the Predator loitering until the targets go into a house, and we have to make sure our guys are far enough away so they don’t get hit.” One of the most prominent victims of the program, the former official said, was Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda* commander, who was killed on January 31st, reportedly in a missile strike that also killed eleven other people.
A dispatch published on March 26th by the Washington Post reported on the increasing number of successful strikes against Taliban and other insurgent units in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A follow-up article noted that, in response, the Taliban had killed “dozens of people” suspected of providing information to the United States and its allies on the whereabouts of Taliban leaders. Many of the victims were thought to be American spies, and their executions—a beheading, in one case—were videotaped and distributed by DVD as a warning to others.
It is not simple to replicate the program in Iran. “Everybody’s arguing about the high-value-target list,” the former senior intelligence official said. “The Special Ops guys are pissed off because Cheney’s office set up priorities for categories of targets, and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags—basic counterintelligence and counter-insurgency tactics. And we’re beginning to tie them in knots in Afghanistan. But the White House is going to kill the program if they use it to go after Iran. It’s one thing to engage in selective strikes and assassinations in Waziristan and another in Iran. The White House believes that one size fits all, but the legal issues surrounding extrajudicial killings in Waziristan are less of a problem because Al Qaeda and the Taliban cross the border into Afghanistan and back again, often with U.S. and NATO forces in hot pursuit. The situation is not nearly as clear in the Iranian case. All the considerations—judicial, strategic, and political—are different in Iran.”
He added, “There is huge opposition inside the intelligence community to the idea of waging a covert war inside Iran, and using Baluchis and Ahwazis as surrogates. The leaders of our Special Operations community all have remarkable physical courage, but they are less likely to voice their opposition to policy. Iran is not Waziristan.”
A Gallup poll taken last November, before the N.I.E. was made public, found that seventy-three per cent of those surveyed thought that the United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while only eighteen per cent favored direct military action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a military strike. Weariness with the war in Iraq has undoubtedly affected the public’s tolerance for an attack on Iran. This mood could change quickly, however. The potential for escalation became clear in early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. Initial reports of the incident made public by the Pentagon press office said that the Iranians had transmitted threats, over ship-to-ship radio, to “explode” the American ships. At a White House news conference, the President, on the day he left for an eight-day trip to the Middle East, called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,” and there was, very briefly, a sense of crisis and of outrage at Iran. “TWO MINUTES FROM WAR” was the headline in one British newspaper.
The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region. No warning shots were fired, the Admiral told the Pentagon press corps on January 7th, via teleconference from his headquarters, in Bahrain. “Yes, it’s more serious than we have seen, but, to put it in context, we do interact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Navy regularly,” Cosgriff said. “I didn’t get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.”
Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.
In June, President Bush went on a farewell tour of Europe. He had tea with Queen Elizabeth II and dinner with Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni, the President and First Lady of France. The serious business was conducted out of sight, and involved a series of meetings on a new diplomatic effort to persuade the Iranians to halt their uranium-enrichment program. (Iran argues that its enrichment program is for civilian purposes and is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) Secretary of State Rice had been involved with developing a new package of incentives. But the Administration’s essential negotiating position seemed unchanged: talks could not take place until Iran halted the program. The Iranians have repeatedly and categorically rejected that precondition, leaving the diplomatic situation in a stalemate; they have not yet formally responded to the new incentives.
The continuing impasse alarms many observers. Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister, recently wrote in a syndicated column that it may not “be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.” When I spoke to him last week, Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”
The big question, Fischer added, is in Washington. “I think the Americans are deeply divided on the issue of what to do about Iran,” he said. “Some officials are concerned about the fallout from a military attack and others think an attack is unavoidable. I know the Europeans, but I have no idea where the Americans will end up on this issue.”
There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously criticized by John McCain. The Washington Post recently quoted Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s national-security director, as stating that McCain supports the White House’s position, and that the program be suspended before talks begin. What Obama is proposing, Scheunemann said, “is unilateral cowboy summitry.”
Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain campaign’s most important channel of communication with the White House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann’s influence with McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn’t taken seriously while “telling Cheney and others what they want to hear,” as a senior McCain adviser put it.
It is not known whether McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been formally briefed on the operations in Iran. At the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in June, Obama repeated his plea for “tough and principled diplomacy.” But he also said, along with McCain, that he would keep the threat of military action against Iran on the table. ♦
by Seymour M. Hersh
July 7, 2008
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.
The request for funding came in the same period in which the Administration was coming to terms with a National Intelligence Estimate, released in December, that concluded that Iran had halted its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. The Administration downplayed the significance of the N.I.E., and, while saying that it was committed to diplomacy, continued to emphasize that urgent action was essential to counter the Iranian nuclear threat. President Bush questioned the N.I.E.’s conclusions, and senior national-security officials, including Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, made similar statements. (So did Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee.) Meanwhile, the Administration also revived charges that the Iranian leadership has been involved in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq: both directly, by dispatching commando units into Iraq, and indirectly, by supplying materials used for roadside bombs and other lethal goods. (There have been questions about the accuracy of the claims; the Times, among others, has reported that “significant uncertainties remain about the extent of that involvement.”)
Military and civilian leaders in the Pentagon share the White House’s concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but there is disagreement about whether a military strike is the right solution. Some Pentagon officials believe, as they have let Congress and the media know, that bombing Iran is not a viable response to the nuclear-proliferation issue, and that more diplomacy is necessary.
A Democratic senator told me that, late last year, in an off-the-record lunch meeting, Secretary of Defense Gates met with the Democratic caucus in the Senate. (Such meetings are held regularly.) Gates warned of the consequences if the Bush Administration staged a preëmptive strike on Iran, saying, as the senator recalled, “We’ll create generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling our enemies here in America.” Gates’s comments stunned the Democrats at the lunch, and another senator asked whether Gates was speaking for Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney. Gates’s answer, the senator told me, was “Let’s just say that I’m here speaking for myself.” (A spokesman for Gates confirmed that he discussed the consequences of a strike at the meeting, but would not address what he said, other than to dispute the senator’s characterization.)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman is Admiral Mike Mullen, were “pushing back very hard” against White House pressure to undertake a military strike against Iran, the person familiar with the Finding told me. Similarly, a Pentagon consultant who is involved in the war on terror said that “at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders”—the four-star officers who direct military operations around the world—“have weighed in on that issue.”
The most outspoken of those officers is Admiral William Fallon, who until recently was the head of U.S. Central Command, and thus in charge of American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. In March, Fallon resigned under pressure, after giving a series of interviews stating his reservations about an armed attack on Iran. For example, late last year he told the Financial Times that the “real objective” of U.S. policy was to change the Iranians’ behavior, and that “attacking them as a means to get to that spot strikes me as being not the first choice.”
Admiral Fallon acknowledged, when I spoke to him in June, that he had heard that there were people in the White House who were upset by his public statements. “Too many people believe you have to be either for or against the Iranians,” he told me. “Let’s get serious. Eighty million people live there, and everyone’s an individual. The idea that they’re only one way or another is nonsense.”
When it came to the Iraq war, Fallon said, “Did I bitch about some of the things that were being proposed? You bet. Some of them were very stupid.”
The Democratic leadership’s agreement to commit hundreds of millions of dollars for more secret operations in Iran was remarkable, given the general concerns of officials like Gates, Fallon, and many others. “The oversight process has not kept pace—it’s been coöpted” by the Administration, the person familiar with the contents of the Finding said. “The process is broken, and this is dangerous stuff we’re authorizing.”
Senior Democrats in Congress told me that they had concerns about the possibility that their understanding of what the new operations entail differs from the White House’s. One issue has to do with a reference in the Finding, the person familiar with it recalled, to potential defensive lethal action by U.S. operatives in Iran. (In early May, the journalist Andrew Cockburn published elements of the Finding in Counterpunch, a newsletter and online magazine.)
The language was inserted into the Finding at the urging of the C.I.A., a former senior intelligence official said. The covert operations set forth in the Finding essentially run parallel to those of a secret military task force, now operating in Iran, that is under the control of JSOC. Under the Bush Administration’s interpretation of the law, clandestine military activities, unlike covert C.I.A. operations, do not need to be depicted in a Finding, because the President has a constitutional right to command combat forces in the field without congressional interference. But the borders between operations are not always clear: in Iran, C.I.A. agents and regional assets have the language skills and the local knowledge to make contacts for the JSOC operatives, and have been working with them to direct personnel, matériel, and money into Iran from an obscure base in western Afghanistan. As a result, Congress has been given only a partial view of how the money it authorized may be used. One of JSOC’s task-force missions, the pursuit of “high-value targets,” was not directly addressed in the Finding. There is a growing realization among some legislators that the Bush Administration, in recent years, has conflated what is an intelligence operation and what is a military one in order to avoid fully informing Congress about what it is doing.
“This is a big deal,” the person familiar with the Finding said. “The C.I.A. needed the Finding to do its traditional stuff, but the Finding does not apply to JSOC. The President signed an Executive Order after September 11th giving the Pentagon license to do things that it had never been able to do before without notifying Congress. The claim was that the military was ‘preparing the battle space,’ and by using that term they were able to circumvent congressional oversight. Everything is justified in terms of fighting the global war on terror.” He added, “The Administration has been fuzzing the lines; there used to be a shade of gray”—between operations that had to be briefed to the senior congressional leadership and those which did not—“but now it’s a shade of mush.”
“The agency says we’re not going to get in the position of helping to kill people without a Finding,” the former senior intelligence official told me. He was referring to the legal threat confronting some agency operatives for their involvement in the rendition and alleged torture of suspects in the war on terror. “This drove the military people up the wall,” he said. As far as the C.I.A. was concerned, the former senior intelligence official said, “the over-all authorization includes killing, but it’s not as though that’s what they’re setting out to do. It’s about gathering information, enlisting support.” The Finding sent to Congress was a compromise, providing legal cover for the C.I.A. while referring to the use of lethal force in ambiguous terms.
The defensive-lethal language led some Democrats, according to congressional sources familiar with their views, to call in the director of the C.I.A., Air Force General Michael V. Hayden, for a special briefing. Hayden reassured the legislators that the language did nothing more than provide authority for Special Forces operatives on the ground in Iran to shoot their way out if they faced capture or harm.
The legislators were far from convinced. One congressman subsequently wrote a personal letter to President Bush insisting that “no lethal action, period” had been authorized within Iran’s borders. As of June, he had received no answer.
Members of Congress have expressed skepticism in the past about the information provided by the White House. On March 15, 2005, David Obey, then the ranking Democrat on the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee, announced that he was putting aside an amendment that he had intended to offer that day, and that would have cut off all funding for national-intelligence programs unless the President agreed to keep Congress fully informed about clandestine military activities undertaken in the war on terror. He had changed his mind, he said, because the White House promised better coöperation. “The Executive Branch understands that we are not trying to dictate what they do,” he said in a floor speech at the time. “We are simply trying to see to it that what they do is consistent with American values and will not get the country in trouble.”
Obey declined to comment on the specifics of the operations in Iran, but he did tell me that the White House reneged on its promise to consult more fully with Congress. He said, “I suspect there’s something going on, but I don’t know what to believe. Cheney has always wanted to go after Iran, and if he had more time he’d find a way to do it. We still don’t get enough information from the agencies, and I have very little confidence that they give us information on the edge.”
None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.” However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White House also declined to comment.)
A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”
One irony of Admiral Fallon’s departure is that he was, in many areas, in agreement with President Bush on the threat posed by Iran. They had a good working relationship, Fallon told me, and, when he ran CENTCOM, were in regular communication. On March 4th, a week before his resignation, Fallon testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee, saying that he was “encouraged” about the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regarding the role played by Iran’s leaders, he said, “They’ve been absolutely unhelpful, very damaging, and I absolutely don’t condone any of their activities. And I have yet to see anything since I’ve been in this job in the way of a public action by Iran that’s been at all helpful in this region.”
Fallon made it clear in our conversations that he considered it inappropriate to comment publicly about the President, the Vice-President, or Special Operations. But he said he had heard that people in the White House had been “struggling” with his views on Iran. “When I arrived at CENTCOM, the Iranians were funding every entity inside Iraq. It was in their interest to get us out, and so they decided to kill as many Americans as they could. And why not? They didn’t know who’d come out ahead, but they wanted us out. I decided that I couldn’t resolve the situation in Iraq without the neighborhood. To get this problem in Iraq solved, we had to somehow involve Iran and Syria. I had to work the neighborhood.”
Fallon told me that his focus had been not on the Iranian nuclear issue, or on regime change there, but on “putting out the fires in Iraq.” There were constant discussions in Washington and in the field about how to engage Iran and, on the subject of the bombing option, Fallon said, he believed that “it would happen only if the Iranians did something stupid.”
Fallon’s early retirement, however, appears to have been provoked not only by his negative comments about bombing Iran but also by his strong belief in the chain of command and his insistence on being informed about Special Operations in his area of responsibility. One of Fallon’s defenders is retired Marine General John J. (Jack) Sheehan, whose last assignment was as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Atlantic Command, where Fallon was a deputy. Last year, Sheehan rejected a White House offer to become the President’s “czar” for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “One of the reasons the White House selected Fallon for CENTCOM was that he’s known to be a strategic thinker and had demonstrated those skills in the Pacific,” Sheehan told me. (Fallon served as commander-in-chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific from 2005 to 2007.) “He was charged with coming up with an over-all coherent strategy for Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and, by law, the combatant commander is responsible for all military operations within his A.O.”—area of operations. “That was not happening,” Sheehan said. “When Fallon tried to make sense of all the overt and covert activity conducted by the military in his area of responsibility, a small group in the White House leadership shut him out.”
The law cited by Sheehan is the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, known as Goldwater-Nichols, which defined the chain of command: from the President to the Secretary of Defense, through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and on to the various combatant commanders, who were put in charge of all aspects of military operations, including joint training and logistics. That authority, the act stated, was not to be shared with other echelons of command. But the Bush Administration, as part of its global war on terror, instituted new policies that undercut regional commanders-in-chief; for example, it gave Special Operations teams, at military commands around the world, the highest priority in terms of securing support and equipment. The degradation of the traditional chain of command in the past few years has been a point of tension between the White House and the uniformed military.
“The coherence of military strategy is being eroded because of undue civilian influence and direction of nonconventional military operations,” Sheehan said. “If you have small groups planning and conducting military operations outside the knowledge and control of the combatant commander, by default you can’t have a coherent military strategy. You end up with a disaster, like the reconstruction efforts in Iraq.”
Admiral Fallon, who is known as Fox, was aware that he would face special difficulties as the first Navy officer to lead CENTCOM, which had always been headed by a ground commander, one of his military colleagues told me. He was also aware that the Special Operations community would be a concern. “Fox said that there’s a lot of strange stuff going on in Special Ops, and I told him he had to figure out what they were really doing,” Fallon’s colleague said. “The Special Ops guys eventually figured out they needed Fox, and so they began to talk to him. Fox would have won his fight with Special Ops but for Cheney.”
The Pentagon consultant said, “Fallon went down because, in his own way, he was trying to prevent a war with Iran, and you have to admire him for that.”
In recent months, according to the Iranian media, there has been a surge in violence in Iran; it is impossible at this early stage, however, to credit JSOC or C.I.A. activities, or to assess their impact on the Iranian leadership. The Iranian press reports are being carefully monitored by retired Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, who has taught strategy at the National War College and now conducts war games centered on Iran for the federal government, think tanks, and universities. The Iranian press “is very open in describing the killings going on inside the country,” Gardiner said. It is, he said, “a controlled press, which makes it more important that it publishes these things. We begin to see inside the government.” He added, “Hardly a day goes by now we don’t see a clash somewhere. There were three or four incidents over a recent weekend, and the Iranians are even naming the Revolutionary Guard officers who have been killed.”
Earlier this year, a militant Ahwazi group claimed to have assassinated a Revolutionary Guard colonel, and the Iranian government acknowledged that an explosion in a cultural center in Shiraz, in the southern part of the country, which killed at least twelve people and injured more than two hundred, had been a terrorist act and not, as it earlier insisted, an accident. It could not be learned whether there has been American involvement in any specific incident in Iran, but, according to Gardiner, the Iranians have begun publicly blaming the U.S., Great Britain, and, more recently, the C.I.A. for some incidents. The agency was involved in a coup in Iran in 1953, and its support for the unpopular regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi—who was overthrown in 1979—was condemned for years by the ruling mullahs in Tehran, to great effect. “This is the ultimate for the Iranians—to blame the C.I.A.,” Gardiner said. “This is new, and it’s an escalation—a ratcheting up of tensions. It rallies support for the regime and shows the people that there is a continuing threat from the ‘Great Satan.’ ” In Gardiner’s view, the violence, rather than weakening Iran’s religious government, may generate support for it.
Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.
A strategy of using ethnic minorities to undermine Iran is flawed, according to Vali Nasr, who teaches international politics at Tufts University and is also a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Just because Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan have ethnic problems, it does not mean that Iran is suffering from the same issue,” Nasr told me. “Iran is an old country—like France and Germany—and its citizens are just as nationalistic. The U.S. is overestimating ethnic tension in Iran.” The minority groups that the U.S. is reaching out to are either well integrated or small and marginal, without much influence on the government or much ability to present a political challenge, Nasr said. “You can always find some activist groups that will go and kill a policeman, but working with the minorities will backfire, and alienate the majority of the population.”
The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.
One of the most active and violent anti-regime groups in Iran today is the Jundallah, also known as the Iranian People’s Resistance Movement, which describes itself as a resistance force fighting for the rights of Sunnis in Iran. “This is a vicious Salafi organization whose followers attended the same madrassas as the Taliban and Pakistani extremists,” Nasr told me. “They are suspected of having links to Al Qaeda and they are also thought to be tied to the drug culture.” The Jundallah took responsibility for the bombing of a busload of Revolutionary Guard soldiers in February, 2007. At least eleven Guard members were killed. According to Baer and to press reports, the Jundallah is among the groups in Iran that are benefitting from U.S. support.
The C.I.A. and Special Operations communities also have long-standing ties to two other dissident groups in Iran: the Mujahideen-e-Khalq, known in the West as the M.E.K., and a Kurdish separatist group, the Party for a Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK.
The M.E.K. has been on the State Department’s terrorist list for more than a decade, yet in recent years the group has received arms and intelligence, directly or indirectly, from the United States. Some of the newly authorized covert funds, the Pentagon consultant told me, may well end up in M.E.K. coffers. “The new task force will work with the M.E.K. The Administration is desperate for results.” He added, “The M.E.K. has no C.P.A. auditing the books, and its leaders are thought to have been lining their pockets for years. If people only knew what the M.E.K. is getting, and how much is going to its bank accounts—and yet it is almost useless for the purposes the Administration intends.”
The Kurdish party, PJAK, which has also been reported to be covertly supported by the United States, has been operating against Iran from bases in northern Iraq for at least three years. (Iran, like Iraq and Turkey, has a Kurdish minority, and PJAK and other groups have sought self-rule in territory that is now part of each of those countries.) In recent weeks, according to Sam Gardiner, the military strategist, there has been a marked increase in the number of PJAK armed engagements with Iranians and terrorist attacks on Iranian targets. In early June, the news agency Fars reported that a dozen PJAK members and four Iranian border guards were killed in a clash near the Iraq border; a similar attack in May killed three Revolutionary Guards and nine PJAK fighters. PJAK has also subjected Turkey, a member of NATO, to repeated terrorist attacks, and reports of American support for the group have been a source of friction between the two governments.
Gardiner also mentioned a trip that the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, made to Tehran in June. After his return, Maliki announced that his government would ban any contact between foreigners and the M.E.K.—a slap at the U.S.’s dealings with the group. Maliki declared that Iraq was not willing to be a staging ground for covert operations against other countries. This was a sign, Gardiner said, of “Maliki’s increasingly choosing the interests of Iraq over the interests of the United States.” In terms of U.S. allegations of Iranian involvement in the killing of American soldiers, he said, “Maliki was unwilling to play the blame-Iran game.” Gardiner added that Pakistan had just agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government. America’s covert operations, he said, “seem to be harming relations with the governments of both Iraq and Pakistan and could well be strengthening the connection between Tehran and Baghdad.”
The White House’s reliance on questionable operatives, and on plans involving possible lethal action inside Iran, has created anger as well as anxiety within the Special Operations and intelligence communities. JSOC’s operations in Iran are believed to be modelled on a program that has, with some success, used surrogates to target the Taliban leadership in the tribal territories of Waziristan, along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. But the situations in Waziristan and Iran are not comparable.
In Waziristan, “the program works because it’s small and smart guys are running it,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “It’s being executed by professionals. The N.S.A., the C.I.A., and the D.I.A.”—the Defense Intelligence Agency—“are right in there with the Special Forces and Pakistani intelligence, and they’re dealing with serious bad guys.” He added, “We have to be really careful in calling in the missiles. We have to hit certain houses at certain times. The people on the ground are watching through binoculars a few hundred yards away and calling specific locations, in latitude and longitude. We keep the Predator loitering until the targets go into a house, and we have to make sure our guys are far enough away so they don’t get hit.” One of the most prominent victims of the program, the former official said, was Abu Laith al-Libi, a senior Al Qaeda* commander, who was killed on January 31st, reportedly in a missile strike that also killed eleven other people.
A dispatch published on March 26th by the Washington Post reported on the increasing number of successful strikes against Taliban and other insurgent units in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A follow-up article noted that, in response, the Taliban had killed “dozens of people” suspected of providing information to the United States and its allies on the whereabouts of Taliban leaders. Many of the victims were thought to be American spies, and their executions—a beheading, in one case—were videotaped and distributed by DVD as a warning to others.
It is not simple to replicate the program in Iran. “Everybody’s arguing about the high-value-target list,” the former senior intelligence official said. “The Special Ops guys are pissed off because Cheney’s office set up priorities for categories of targets, and now he’s getting impatient and applying pressure for results. But it takes a long time to get the right guys in place.”
The Pentagon consultant told me, “We’ve had wonderful results in the Horn of Africa with the use of surrogates and false flags—basic counterintelligence and counter-insurgency tactics. And we’re beginning to tie them in knots in Afghanistan. But the White House is going to kill the program if they use it to go after Iran. It’s one thing to engage in selective strikes and assassinations in Waziristan and another in Iran. The White House believes that one size fits all, but the legal issues surrounding extrajudicial killings in Waziristan are less of a problem because Al Qaeda and the Taliban cross the border into Afghanistan and back again, often with U.S. and NATO forces in hot pursuit. The situation is not nearly as clear in the Iranian case. All the considerations—judicial, strategic, and political—are different in Iran.”
He added, “There is huge opposition inside the intelligence community to the idea of waging a covert war inside Iran, and using Baluchis and Ahwazis as surrogates. The leaders of our Special Operations community all have remarkable physical courage, but they are less likely to voice their opposition to policy. Iran is not Waziristan.”
A Gallup poll taken last November, before the N.I.E. was made public, found that seventy-three per cent of those surveyed thought that the United States should use economic action and diplomacy to stop Iran’s nuclear program, while only eighteen per cent favored direct military action. Republicans were twice as likely as Democrats to endorse a military strike. Weariness with the war in Iraq has undoubtedly affected the public’s tolerance for an attack on Iran. This mood could change quickly, however. The potential for escalation became clear in early January, when five Iranian patrol boats, believed to be under the command of the Revolutionary Guard, made a series of aggressive moves toward three Navy warships sailing through the Strait of Hormuz. Initial reports of the incident made public by the Pentagon press office said that the Iranians had transmitted threats, over ship-to-ship radio, to “explode” the American ships. At a White House news conference, the President, on the day he left for an eight-day trip to the Middle East, called the incident “provocative” and “dangerous,” and there was, very briefly, a sense of crisis and of outrage at Iran. “TWO MINUTES FROM WAR” was the headline in one British newspaper.
The crisis was quickly defused by Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of U.S. naval forces in the region. No warning shots were fired, the Admiral told the Pentagon press corps on January 7th, via teleconference from his headquarters, in Bahrain. “Yes, it’s more serious than we have seen, but, to put it in context, we do interact with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Navy regularly,” Cosgriff said. “I didn’t get the sense from the reports I was receiving that there was a sense of being afraid of these five boats.”
Admiral Cosgriff’s caution was well founded: within a week, the Pentagon acknowledged that it could not positively identify the Iranian boats as the source of the ominous radio transmission, and press reports suggested that it had instead come from a prankster long known for sending fake messages in the region. Nonetheless, Cosgriff’s demeanor angered Cheney, according to the former senior intelligence official. But a lesson was learned in the incident: The public had supported the idea of retaliation, and was even asking why the U.S. didn’t do more. The former official said that, a few weeks later, a meeting took place in the Vice-President’s office. “The subject was how to create a casus belli between Tehran and Washington,” he said.
In June, President Bush went on a farewell tour of Europe. He had tea with Queen Elizabeth II and dinner with Nicolas Sarkozy and Carla Bruni, the President and First Lady of France. The serious business was conducted out of sight, and involved a series of meetings on a new diplomatic effort to persuade the Iranians to halt their uranium-enrichment program. (Iran argues that its enrichment program is for civilian purposes and is legal under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.) Secretary of State Rice had been involved with developing a new package of incentives. But the Administration’s essential negotiating position seemed unchanged: talks could not take place until Iran halted the program. The Iranians have repeatedly and categorically rejected that precondition, leaving the diplomatic situation in a stalemate; they have not yet formally responded to the new incentives.
The continuing impasse alarms many observers. Joschka Fischer, the former German Foreign Minister, recently wrote in a syndicated column that it may not “be possible to freeze the Iranian nuclear program for the duration of the negotiations to avoid a military confrontation before they are completed. Should this newest attempt fail, things will soon get serious. Deadly serious.” When I spoke to him last week, Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”
The big question, Fischer added, is in Washington. “I think the Americans are deeply divided on the issue of what to do about Iran,” he said. “Some officials are concerned about the fallout from a military attack and others think an attack is unavoidable. I know the Europeans, but I have no idea where the Americans will end up on this issue.”
There is another complication: American Presidential politics. Barack Obama has said that, if elected, he would begin talks with Iran with no “self-defeating” preconditions (although only after diplomatic groundwork had been laid). That position has been vigorously criticized by John McCain. The Washington Post recently quoted Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign’s national-security director, as stating that McCain supports the White House’s position, and that the program be suspended before talks begin. What Obama is proposing, Scheunemann said, “is unilateral cowboy summitry.”
Scheunemann, who is known as a neoconservative, is also the McCain campaign’s most important channel of communication with the White House. He is a friend of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. I have heard differing accounts of Scheunemann’s influence with McCain; though some close to the McCain campaign talk about him as a possible national-security adviser, others say he is someone who isn’t taken seriously while “telling Cheney and others what they want to hear,” as a senior McCain adviser put it.
It is not known whether McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has been formally briefed on the operations in Iran. At the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, in June, Obama repeated his plea for “tough and principled diplomacy.” But he also said, along with McCain, that he would keep the threat of military action against Iran on the table. ♦
Monday, September 08, 2008
Very Disturbing Facts About The TSA (Homeland Security)
1. Common names like Robert Johnson, John Williams and David Nelson are on the Terrorist Watch List. The 9/11 hijackers, although all dead, remain on the Terrorist Watch List. Several members of the U.S. Congress, including Senator Edward Kennedy and Representatives John Lewis, Don Young and Loretta Sanchez all reported problems flying.
2. Approximately 1 million names are on the Terrorist Watch List.
3. Saddam Hussein remains on the Terrorist Watch List.
4. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, from December 2003 through May 2007, the government had more than 53,000 official encounters with individuals on the Terrorist Watch List. However, “agencies reported arresting subjects of watch list records for various reasons hundreds of times, such as the individual having an outstanding arrest warrant or the individual’s behavior or actions during the encounter.”
5. The Terrorist Watch List does not contain the names of the most wanted terrorists as the TSA does not want to share that information with the airlines.
6. The U.S. government can seize your laptop, cell phone or PDA as you enter the U.S. and download all your private information—all without a warrant or probable cause.
7. The TSA is currently using see-through body scanning machines which are capable of projecting an image of a passenger's naked body like a virtual strip search, researching the creation of an "electro-muscular disruption" bracelet that would give airline personnel or air marshals the power to shock a person into submission and adding approximately 20,000 new names a month to the Terrorist Watch List.
2. Approximately 1 million names are on the Terrorist Watch List.
3. Saddam Hussein remains on the Terrorist Watch List.
4. According to a report by the Government Accountability Office, from December 2003 through May 2007, the government had more than 53,000 official encounters with individuals on the Terrorist Watch List. However, “agencies reported arresting subjects of watch list records for various reasons hundreds of times, such as the individual having an outstanding arrest warrant or the individual’s behavior or actions during the encounter.”
5. The Terrorist Watch List does not contain the names of the most wanted terrorists as the TSA does not want to share that information with the airlines.
6. The U.S. government can seize your laptop, cell phone or PDA as you enter the U.S. and download all your private information—all without a warrant or probable cause.
7. The TSA is currently using see-through body scanning machines which are capable of projecting an image of a passenger's naked body like a virtual strip search, researching the creation of an "electro-muscular disruption" bracelet that would give airline personnel or air marshals the power to shock a person into submission and adding approximately 20,000 new names a month to the Terrorist Watch List.
Interesting Email from the ACLU
Dear ACLU Supporter,
Why is 7-year-old John Anderson from Minneapolis on the national Terrorist Watch List?
He pushed Tommy too hard on the playground.
His July 4th birthday means he distracts other Americans from celebrating their country.
John didn’t pick up the blocks during playtime.
The truth is that we don’t know how he got on the Terrorist Watch List. Or if he can get off it. It took an Act of Congress to get Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, off the list.
This ever-growing and ineffective Watch List demonstrates what's wrong with the U.S. government’s current approach to security: it’s unfair and a waste of resources. And when our government wastes time and money like this, we are all put in more danger -- not less.
The questions above might be light hearted, but the problems Americans face everyday due to overzealous security measures are real.
According to USA Today:
John Anderson of Minneapolis, [now 7] was first stopped at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 2004, when his family took him for his first airplane ride to Disney World. "We checked in at the ticket counter, and the woman said in a stern voice, 'Who is John Anderson?' " says his mother, Christine Anderson. "I pointed to my stroller."
Her son is allowed to fly. But because his name is flagged, his family cannot print out a boarding pass for him online and he must check in at the ticket counter so an airline official can see that he's a child.
Why is 7-year-old John Anderson from Minneapolis on the national Terrorist Watch List?
He pushed Tommy too hard on the playground.
His July 4th birthday means he distracts other Americans from celebrating their country.
John didn’t pick up the blocks during playtime.
The truth is that we don’t know how he got on the Terrorist Watch List. Or if he can get off it. It took an Act of Congress to get Nelson Mandela, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, off the list.
This ever-growing and ineffective Watch List demonstrates what's wrong with the U.S. government’s current approach to security: it’s unfair and a waste of resources. And when our government wastes time and money like this, we are all put in more danger -- not less.
The questions above might be light hearted, but the problems Americans face everyday due to overzealous security measures are real.
According to USA Today:
John Anderson of Minneapolis, [now 7] was first stopped at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 2004, when his family took him for his first airplane ride to Disney World. "We checked in at the ticket counter, and the woman said in a stern voice, 'Who is John Anderson?' " says his mother, Christine Anderson. "I pointed to my stroller."
Her son is allowed to fly. But because his name is flagged, his family cannot print out a boarding pass for him online and he must check in at the ticket counter so an airline official can see that he's a child.
FDA sued for slow-footed response to petition
Two years ago, the group Public Citizen filed a petition to the FDA asking that it ban the prescription painkiller propoxphene. They're still waiting for a response from the slow-footed government agency – which is why they've decided to sue.
Public Citizen says that the agency broke the law by not ruling on their petition within six months.
The requested ban isn't without merit. Propoxphene (marketed as Darvon and Darvocette) has been linked to the accidental deaths of upwards of 2,000 people since 1981. It can be addictive and can cause serious side effects like slowed heartbeat and other cardiac issues. It's even been pulled off the market entirely in Britain because of its links to accidental deaths.
And all for what? The drug isn't even that effective. Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe unearthed studies claiming that over-the-counter ibuprofen is more effective at treating most types of pain than propoxphene.
Public Citizen is definitely fighting the good fight. I always admire the pluck of groups that regularly line up to play David in the face of the government's Goliath. And while I admire them for holding the FDA's feet to the fire over their petition, I think we all know how the FDA will rule on that petition: they'll decline it.
Propoxphene has been around for a while and is considered one of the weaker prescription painkillers, and – this is the important part – it's one of the most widely prescribed generic drugs, with over 22 million prescriptions in 2007.
In other words: ka-ching!
Obviously, Big Pharma is making big bucks off the marketing of propoxphene, so what do you think the odds are that some petition will move the FDA to act? Even as I write this, I can tell you're slowly shaking your head. Unfortunately, we all know how this is going to turn out. But I'll keep an eye on this story anyway…
Always hypercritical of the hyper incompetence of the FDA,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Public Citizen says that the agency broke the law by not ruling on their petition within six months.
The requested ban isn't without merit. Propoxphene (marketed as Darvon and Darvocette) has been linked to the accidental deaths of upwards of 2,000 people since 1981. It can be addictive and can cause serious side effects like slowed heartbeat and other cardiac issues. It's even been pulled off the market entirely in Britain because of its links to accidental deaths.
And all for what? The drug isn't even that effective. Public Citizen's Dr. Sidney Wolfe unearthed studies claiming that over-the-counter ibuprofen is more effective at treating most types of pain than propoxphene.
Public Citizen is definitely fighting the good fight. I always admire the pluck of groups that regularly line up to play David in the face of the government's Goliath. And while I admire them for holding the FDA's feet to the fire over their petition, I think we all know how the FDA will rule on that petition: they'll decline it.
Propoxphene has been around for a while and is considered one of the weaker prescription painkillers, and – this is the important part – it's one of the most widely prescribed generic drugs, with over 22 million prescriptions in 2007.
In other words: ka-ching!
Obviously, Big Pharma is making big bucks off the marketing of propoxphene, so what do you think the odds are that some petition will move the FDA to act? Even as I write this, I can tell you're slowly shaking your head. Unfortunately, we all know how this is going to turn out. But I'll keep an eye on this story anyway…
Always hypercritical of the hyper incompetence of the FDA,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
FDA ignores dangers of food coloring
Dear Friend,
Consumer advocacy groups are working overtime trying to get the FDA to wake up to the dangers of artificial food colorings—especially for children. As usual, the FDA has turned a deaf ear. The consumer advocacy groups claim these additives could cause hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children.
As you know, I'm not the biggest believer in the ADHD/hyperactivity diagnosis in today's kids – I think it's overblown at best. But there's some convincing and long-standing research about certain dyes used in foodstuffs triggering behavior issues, and the fact that the FDA obstinately refuses to open its mind to these possibilities… well, it's just standard operating procedure for the slow-footed government bureaucracy.
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), studies conduced over the last 30 years have indicated that children's behavior can be altered by some artificial dyes. In fact, the British government is currently pressuring UK food manufacturers to switch to safer food colorings.
The FDA, on the other hand, continually ignores these and other findings. Instead, our "vigilant" FDA emphatically says that additives DO NOT cause childhood hyperactivity.
But if the FDA is wrong – and well, let's face it, they've been wrong before – imagine the consequences. There are no foods with more food coloring additives than children's foods. The dyes are used in vast numbers of products that are marketed to children: cereals, candies, sodas, and snack foods. According to Michael F. Jacobson of CSPI, "The purpose of these chemicals is often to mask the absence of real food, to increase the appeal of a low-nutrition product to children, or both – who can tell the parents of kids with behavioral problems that this is truly worth the risk?"
As a parent, I encourage you to be on the safe side and establish your own ban Yellow 5, Red 40, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, and Yellow 6. I don't think something called "Green 3" occurs naturally…
Consumer advocacy groups are working overtime trying to get the FDA to wake up to the dangers of artificial food colorings—especially for children. As usual, the FDA has turned a deaf ear. The consumer advocacy groups claim these additives could cause hyperactivity and behavior problems in some children.
As you know, I'm not the biggest believer in the ADHD/hyperactivity diagnosis in today's kids – I think it's overblown at best. But there's some convincing and long-standing research about certain dyes used in foodstuffs triggering behavior issues, and the fact that the FDA obstinately refuses to open its mind to these possibilities… well, it's just standard operating procedure for the slow-footed government bureaucracy.
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), studies conduced over the last 30 years have indicated that children's behavior can be altered by some artificial dyes. In fact, the British government is currently pressuring UK food manufacturers to switch to safer food colorings.
The FDA, on the other hand, continually ignores these and other findings. Instead, our "vigilant" FDA emphatically says that additives DO NOT cause childhood hyperactivity.
But if the FDA is wrong – and well, let's face it, they've been wrong before – imagine the consequences. There are no foods with more food coloring additives than children's foods. The dyes are used in vast numbers of products that are marketed to children: cereals, candies, sodas, and snack foods. According to Michael F. Jacobson of CSPI, "The purpose of these chemicals is often to mask the absence of real food, to increase the appeal of a low-nutrition product to children, or both – who can tell the parents of kids with behavioral problems that this is truly worth the risk?"
As a parent, I encourage you to be on the safe side and establish your own ban Yellow 5, Red 40, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Orange B, Red 3, and Yellow 6. I don't think something called "Green 3" occurs naturally…
Dangers of Drinking Tap Water
"Be sure to drink 8 glasses of water daily" WRONG AGAIN! The water that comes out of your faucet contains chemicals that could cause cancer and Alzheimer's! And the US government not only blindly looks the other way, they're the ones pumping it into your house through the public water systems!
In fact, if you drink tap water, you might as well eat rat poison! That's because fluoride – a by-product of the aluminum manufacturing process – could only legally be sold as an insecticide and a RAT POISON before a 1930s study (funded by the aluminum industry) pointed out the "benefits" of fluoride. Drinking a glass of tap water is really no different than playing Russian Roulette with your health.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg! Your eyes will be opened to the shocking, arrogant and sometimes life-threatening misinformation disseminated by the medical "establishment" in my report, Don't Drink the Water and Other News from Medicine's Most Acclaimed Myth-Buster .
Don't Drink the Water is my new report made up of my best "rants and raves" from The Daily Dose, my email service that reaches over 100,000 health conscious men and women.
When you order your no-risk copy of Don't Drink the Water (I'll tell you about my Ultimate Guarantee in a bit) your jaw will drop in amazement as you read more about the four medical myths above and what the "big bad three"-the US Government, big pharma and bloated corporations-do to perpetuate them to line their pockets. You'll also learn about:
How the government is allowed to arbitrarily regulate one of our most fundamental of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "public health"––and how this could affect your choice of medicines, doctors and health treatments in the future
The damaging effects of "health reporting" that goes on every single day in the mainstream press. At best, it's shamelessly sensationalist––at worst, horribly misleading. And people wonder why I'm always railing against the popular media.
Why the Food and Drug Administration is playing "hired gun" for the greed-is-good prescription drug business by road blocking cheaper foreign medication sales. It's nothing but legalized racketeering!
The colossal, tragic US armed forces cover-up concerning a widely used malaria drug with devastating side effects for the soldiers involved, including psychosis and death (as a lifelong supporter of our troops and a former Navy Flight Surgeon, this one breaks my heart)
Why you should stay away from hospitals as much as possible––contrary to their squeaky-clean image, hospitals are far from sterile places. In fact, they're among the most hazardous of climes with regard to infections. Remember, hospitals are where all the sick people are, which means they're where all the GERMS are. But what's even more disturbing than this is the fact that hospitals can expose you to different germs than what you'd come into contact with in the outside world.
Why do I want you to read theses stories? The answer is simple: As an American, your very health depends on it!
It's not an exaggeration to say that when it comes to health in this country, we live in dangerous times. Cancer, bioterrorism and the threat of epidemics like bird flu are on the rise. Combine that with the rising tide of misinformation out there on the Internet, in newspapers and on TV and making the right decisions about your health becomes a difficult task.
But fortunately, you have me on your side. When it comes to evaluating the latest health research, I have, and please excuse my French, a very finely tuned "B.S. Detector". And in Don't Drink the Water , I expose some of the biggest myths the health establishment has tried to foist on the American public in the past few years. You'll shake your head and wonder how they get away with it!
In fact, if you drink tap water, you might as well eat rat poison! That's because fluoride – a by-product of the aluminum manufacturing process – could only legally be sold as an insecticide and a RAT POISON before a 1930s study (funded by the aluminum industry) pointed out the "benefits" of fluoride. Drinking a glass of tap water is really no different than playing Russian Roulette with your health.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg! Your eyes will be opened to the shocking, arrogant and sometimes life-threatening misinformation disseminated by the medical "establishment" in my report, Don't Drink the Water and Other News from Medicine's Most Acclaimed Myth-Buster .
Don't Drink the Water is my new report made up of my best "rants and raves" from The Daily Dose, my email service that reaches over 100,000 health conscious men and women.
When you order your no-risk copy of Don't Drink the Water (I'll tell you about my Ultimate Guarantee in a bit) your jaw will drop in amazement as you read more about the four medical myths above and what the "big bad three"-the US Government, big pharma and bloated corporations-do to perpetuate them to line their pockets. You'll also learn about:
How the government is allowed to arbitrarily regulate one of our most fundamental of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "public health"––and how this could affect your choice of medicines, doctors and health treatments in the future
The damaging effects of "health reporting" that goes on every single day in the mainstream press. At best, it's shamelessly sensationalist––at worst, horribly misleading. And people wonder why I'm always railing against the popular media.
Why the Food and Drug Administration is playing "hired gun" for the greed-is-good prescription drug business by road blocking cheaper foreign medication sales. It's nothing but legalized racketeering!
The colossal, tragic US armed forces cover-up concerning a widely used malaria drug with devastating side effects for the soldiers involved, including psychosis and death (as a lifelong supporter of our troops and a former Navy Flight Surgeon, this one breaks my heart)
Why you should stay away from hospitals as much as possible––contrary to their squeaky-clean image, hospitals are far from sterile places. In fact, they're among the most hazardous of climes with regard to infections. Remember, hospitals are where all the sick people are, which means they're where all the GERMS are. But what's even more disturbing than this is the fact that hospitals can expose you to different germs than what you'd come into contact with in the outside world.
Why do I want you to read theses stories? The answer is simple: As an American, your very health depends on it!
It's not an exaggeration to say that when it comes to health in this country, we live in dangerous times. Cancer, bioterrorism and the threat of epidemics like bird flu are on the rise. Combine that with the rising tide of misinformation out there on the Internet, in newspapers and on TV and making the right decisions about your health becomes a difficult task.
But fortunately, you have me on your side. When it comes to evaluating the latest health research, I have, and please excuse my French, a very finely tuned "B.S. Detector". And in Don't Drink the Water , I expose some of the biggest myths the health establishment has tried to foist on the American public in the past few years. You'll shake your head and wonder how they get away with it!
Popular air fresheners may have deadly scents
Dear Friend,
The next time you come across a kitchen that smells "lemony fresh," or get a whiff of a cool mountain glen in your t-shirt, don't breathe too deeply. According to researchers from the University of Washington, air fresheners and fragranced laundry products often emit literally dozens of chemicals – some of which are considered toxic by federal law.
Suddenly, those sweaty old gym socks don't smell so bad, huh?
This shocking new study shows that, amazingly, none of the potentially hazardous chemicals that are thrown off by these "fresh-smelling" products are even listed on the label of ingredients. University of Washington researcher Ann C. Steinemann, PhD, said, "I didn't find a brand that didn't emit at least one toxic chemical."
As shocking as this may seem, there's a part of me that's not the least bit surprised. After all, I'm a bright guy and I realize that laundry detergents and air fresheners that smell like a cleansing summer rain storm aren't made from fresh-picked mountain flowers after a sun shower. There are chemicals — toxic and potentially deadly ones — that are replicating these odors.
Of course the manufacturers of these products are already in full cornered-animal mode. They're proclaiming that the products are safe when "used as directed," and that the chemicals in question are present only in amounts not known to cause health issues. Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association said, "This research really lacks a real-world risk perspective."
But you've got to wonder, don't you? Steinemann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and public affairs at the University of Washington, says her idea for the revealing study was born of the fact that she had for years been told by many people that household cleaners and air fresheners caused them to have dizzy spells, or had spurred bouts of headache, asthma, shortness of breath – even seizures.
"I actually witnessed someone having a seizure when exposed to an air freshener," Steinemann said.
Steinemann's study closely examined six popular consumer produces: liquid spray air fresheners, plug-in air fresheners, fabric softeners, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, and the kinds of solid disc deodorizers used in airliner toilets. Steinemann found that these six products emitted a staggering 100 volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
But to me, the most disheartening discovery of Steinemann's study came when she turned to federal law to find out what laws were on the books to protect consumers from this kind of thing.
Shockingly, Steinemann says she found that "no law requires disclosure of all chemicals in fragrances."
This is the kind of thing that really boils my blood. After all, I'm always telling you about all of the government red tape that must be cut and the various regulatory hoops that all- natural and herbal medicines must jump through in order to make it to store shelves. And it takes just one glance down the incredibly long detergent aisle at your local grocery store to see that there are DOZENS of these fragranced products – and yet the government doesn't see the need to place some form of full-disclosure law for their ingredients?
It's an outrage to say the least. Steve Gilbert, a toxicologist not associated with the study put it very succinctly: "At the very minimum, we should have a right to know what's in these products."
Fragrance-free products aren't much better. Steinemann found that many of them also contain the same chemicals that are in the scented products, and sadly, the same is true of product labeled as "natural" or "organic."
Your best bet is to stop using store-bought air fresheners altogether. Try the real thing instead – cut open a lemon or orange, gather some mint leaves, or just open a box of baking soda.
My question for you is, will you continue to use artificial air fresheners now that they've been found to contain toxic chemicals? Click here to participate in the Weekly Poll.
Keeping my news lemony fresh,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
The next time you come across a kitchen that smells "lemony fresh," or get a whiff of a cool mountain glen in your t-shirt, don't breathe too deeply. According to researchers from the University of Washington, air fresheners and fragranced laundry products often emit literally dozens of chemicals – some of which are considered toxic by federal law.
Suddenly, those sweaty old gym socks don't smell so bad, huh?
This shocking new study shows that, amazingly, none of the potentially hazardous chemicals that are thrown off by these "fresh-smelling" products are even listed on the label of ingredients. University of Washington researcher Ann C. Steinemann, PhD, said, "I didn't find a brand that didn't emit at least one toxic chemical."
As shocking as this may seem, there's a part of me that's not the least bit surprised. After all, I'm a bright guy and I realize that laundry detergents and air fresheners that smell like a cleansing summer rain storm aren't made from fresh-picked mountain flowers after a sun shower. There are chemicals — toxic and potentially deadly ones — that are replicating these odors.
Of course the manufacturers of these products are already in full cornered-animal mode. They're proclaiming that the products are safe when "used as directed," and that the chemicals in question are present only in amounts not known to cause health issues. Brian Sansoni of the Soap and Detergent Association said, "This research really lacks a real-world risk perspective."
But you've got to wonder, don't you? Steinemann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and public affairs at the University of Washington, says her idea for the revealing study was born of the fact that she had for years been told by many people that household cleaners and air fresheners caused them to have dizzy spells, or had spurred bouts of headache, asthma, shortness of breath – even seizures.
"I actually witnessed someone having a seizure when exposed to an air freshener," Steinemann said.
Steinemann's study closely examined six popular consumer produces: liquid spray air fresheners, plug-in air fresheners, fabric softeners, laundry detergents, dryer sheets, and the kinds of solid disc deodorizers used in airliner toilets. Steinemann found that these six products emitted a staggering 100 volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
But to me, the most disheartening discovery of Steinemann's study came when she turned to federal law to find out what laws were on the books to protect consumers from this kind of thing.
Shockingly, Steinemann says she found that "no law requires disclosure of all chemicals in fragrances."
This is the kind of thing that really boils my blood. After all, I'm always telling you about all of the government red tape that must be cut and the various regulatory hoops that all- natural and herbal medicines must jump through in order to make it to store shelves. And it takes just one glance down the incredibly long detergent aisle at your local grocery store to see that there are DOZENS of these fragranced products – and yet the government doesn't see the need to place some form of full-disclosure law for their ingredients?
It's an outrage to say the least. Steve Gilbert, a toxicologist not associated with the study put it very succinctly: "At the very minimum, we should have a right to know what's in these products."
Fragrance-free products aren't much better. Steinemann found that many of them also contain the same chemicals that are in the scented products, and sadly, the same is true of product labeled as "natural" or "organic."
Your best bet is to stop using store-bought air fresheners altogether. Try the real thing instead – cut open a lemon or orange, gather some mint leaves, or just open a box of baking soda.
My question for you is, will you continue to use artificial air fresheners now that they've been found to contain toxic chemicals? Click here to participate in the Weekly Poll.
Keeping my news lemony fresh,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Power company enlists kids to be "climate cops"
Dear Friend,
If the tree-hugging, save-the-planet zealots have their way, the idiocy of global warming will not only be a matter of unquestionable scientific fact, the policies that "protect" the earth from global warming will be a matter of law – and those laws will be enforced with an iron rigidity. If you want a chilling preview of what the future may look like if the environmentalist nut jobs gain the control they seek, get a load of this story from Great Britain.
A new Web campaign by a British power company seeks to enlist kids as "Climate Cops" to actively keep watch over their parents and neighbors, and keep track of any "energy crimes" they commit.
Kids policing their parents? It's a Stalinist dream come true.
The site lures kids aged seven to 11 in with games, badges, and cartoons, and then actually prompts the children to investigate family and friends, and then, according to the website, "build your 'Climate Crime Case File' and report back to your family to make sure they don't commit those crimes (or else)!"
The "crimes" that this new legion of planet-loving Communist Youth are supposed to report on include using the wrong light bulbs (heaven forbid!), leaving the water running too long, and – you'll love these – putting hot food in the refrigerator (theoretically because it will require the fridge to have to run longer to cool this food down), and running the clothes dryer on a sunny day!
Coming soon to your neighborhood – government mandated clotheslines! (Don't laugh; it could be closer than you think if a certain senator is elected this November!)
I know what you're thinking: "Calm down, Dr. D! This is just an innocent attempt by the power company to get kids involved in being a little more environmentally conscious – you're making too much of this."
Well, I don't think so. I'm not the only one to see the disturbing similarities between this "Climate Cops" campaign and the way the communists encouraged children to report their parents for "crimes against the state." Thankfully, some Brit bloggers have been waging their own grass-roots online campaign against this power company's website.
The author of the EU Referendum blog wrote that the kids were being turned into a "network of spies and informers."
I've long contended that neo-fascists of the 21st century come not from the right of the political spectrum, but the left. The left has already promoted their own version of Orwell's "Thought Police" with the "political correctness" movement; so it's not a major leap for the left to want to indoctrinate the young and create their own "little league Gestapo" to enforce their whacked-out environmentalist agenda.
At the end of the day, the environmentalist agenda is less about saving the planet and more about grabbing as much government power and control as possible. And in this case, they're starting with the children.
But there could be a backlash – I went to the npower Climate Cops website after hearing about this story – and it wasn't working. So maybe folks in Britain can again dare to put warm leftovers in the fridge without fear of reprisal!
If the tree-hugging, save-the-planet zealots have their way, the idiocy of global warming will not only be a matter of unquestionable scientific fact, the policies that "protect" the earth from global warming will be a matter of law – and those laws will be enforced with an iron rigidity. If you want a chilling preview of what the future may look like if the environmentalist nut jobs gain the control they seek, get a load of this story from Great Britain.
A new Web campaign by a British power company seeks to enlist kids as "Climate Cops" to actively keep watch over their parents and neighbors, and keep track of any "energy crimes" they commit.
Kids policing their parents? It's a Stalinist dream come true.
The site lures kids aged seven to 11 in with games, badges, and cartoons, and then actually prompts the children to investigate family and friends, and then, according to the website, "build your 'Climate Crime Case File' and report back to your family to make sure they don't commit those crimes (or else)!"
The "crimes" that this new legion of planet-loving Communist Youth are supposed to report on include using the wrong light bulbs (heaven forbid!), leaving the water running too long, and – you'll love these – putting hot food in the refrigerator (theoretically because it will require the fridge to have to run longer to cool this food down), and running the clothes dryer on a sunny day!
Coming soon to your neighborhood – government mandated clotheslines! (Don't laugh; it could be closer than you think if a certain senator is elected this November!)
I know what you're thinking: "Calm down, Dr. D! This is just an innocent attempt by the power company to get kids involved in being a little more environmentally conscious – you're making too much of this."
Well, I don't think so. I'm not the only one to see the disturbing similarities between this "Climate Cops" campaign and the way the communists encouraged children to report their parents for "crimes against the state." Thankfully, some Brit bloggers have been waging their own grass-roots online campaign against this power company's website.
The author of the EU Referendum blog wrote that the kids were being turned into a "network of spies and informers."
I've long contended that neo-fascists of the 21st century come not from the right of the political spectrum, but the left. The left has already promoted their own version of Orwell's "Thought Police" with the "political correctness" movement; so it's not a major leap for the left to want to indoctrinate the young and create their own "little league Gestapo" to enforce their whacked-out environmentalist agenda.
At the end of the day, the environmentalist agenda is less about saving the planet and more about grabbing as much government power and control as possible. And in this case, they're starting with the children.
But there could be a backlash – I went to the npower Climate Cops website after hearing about this story – and it wasn't working. So maybe folks in Britain can again dare to put warm leftovers in the fridge without fear of reprisal!
Tainted tuna raises food safety questions…again
It seems that 2008 will go down in the books as the Year of Tainted Food. First, there was the Saintpaul salmonella scare. Hard on the heels of that outbreak was the E.coli beef recall. And now, there's news that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) is expanding a recall of Listeria-tainted tuna salad.
Is it even possible to have an appetite any more?
The tuna in question was made by Home Made Brand Goods, and the MDPH advised everyone to steer clear of any deli-prepared tuna salad purchase from late July to mid August. No cases of listeriosis infection have been reported in connection with the recall.
The bacteria strain that they're worried about is Listeria monocytogenes, which can cause listeriosis, a major form of food poisoning. Unlike many bacteria, Listeria thrives in the cold.
Of course, there can't be a report out there that mentions Listeria without, of course, saying that outbreaks are usually associated with RAW MILK, among other things. It's amazing to me. In spite of the fact that raw milk is RARELY to blame for listeriosis, it continues to be vilified as the number-one carrier of this disease.
The facts are different! The last time I wrote to you about a Listeria outbreak involving milk, it was listeria-tainted PASTEURIZED milk that led to the tragic deaths of THREE people. Not raw milk!
There was a smaller Listeria recall this year when the grocery chain Stop & Shop voluntarily recalled some varieties of prepared chicken for potential contamination. Notice that I said "chicken," not "raw milk."
The problems with tainted foods continue, but as usual, the media continues to throw milk under the bus, in spite of its many health benefits.
Not hiding my water use from my grandkids – yet,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
Is it even possible to have an appetite any more?
The tuna in question was made by Home Made Brand Goods, and the MDPH advised everyone to steer clear of any deli-prepared tuna salad purchase from late July to mid August. No cases of listeriosis infection have been reported in connection with the recall.
The bacteria strain that they're worried about is Listeria monocytogenes, which can cause listeriosis, a major form of food poisoning. Unlike many bacteria, Listeria thrives in the cold.
Of course, there can't be a report out there that mentions Listeria without, of course, saying that outbreaks are usually associated with RAW MILK, among other things. It's amazing to me. In spite of the fact that raw milk is RARELY to blame for listeriosis, it continues to be vilified as the number-one carrier of this disease.
The facts are different! The last time I wrote to you about a Listeria outbreak involving milk, it was listeria-tainted PASTEURIZED milk that led to the tragic deaths of THREE people. Not raw milk!
There was a smaller Listeria recall this year when the grocery chain Stop & Shop voluntarily recalled some varieties of prepared chicken for potential contamination. Notice that I said "chicken," not "raw milk."
The problems with tainted foods continue, but as usual, the media continues to throw milk under the bus, in spite of its many health benefits.
Not hiding my water use from my grandkids – yet,
William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.
The McCain Gambit: The Politics of Gender
[col. writ. 8/30/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
If you ever needed proof that politics is a kind of war, the
next-day's selection of Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, to join the
presidential campaign ticket of Sen. John McCain should erase all doubts.
Putting aside the political positions of Palin, her choice was a
transparent attempt to exploit disaffected women voters, who felt burned
by the decision of the Democratic nominee to choose someone other than
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) for the number two spot.
But transparent doesn't necessarily mean ineffective.
For is Sen. Barack Obama's (D. -IL) campaign breaks new historic
ground, Sen. McCain is trying to do so as well, by nominating the first
GOP woman for the second chair in the nation's history.
Notice I said 'first GOP woman' for the post, for Democrats will
never forget how former Vice President Walter Mondale in June of 1984
named Geraldine Ferraro as his Vice Presidential pick. In November of
that year, Ronald Reagan swept 49 states in a landslide.
Now, McCain is no Reagan, and 2008 isn't 1984, but in the 24 years
since then women have emerged as pivotal players in the elections.
Will Palin prove helpful to McCain's chances? Time will tell.
But, where Sen. Obama opted for a safe bet, Sen McCain opted for
boldness. Is it bold enough - or too bold?
Again, time will tell.
Not since (the first) George Bush chose an obscure Senator, Dan
Quayle, as his running mate has there been a greater stretch of years
between the two sides of the ticket.
Bush was 23 years older than Quayle; McCain is some 28 years older
than Palin.
Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but McCain, at 72, ain't no
spring chicken. Palin, at 44, could well become the next president of
the United States, in the blink of an eye.
--(c) '08 maj
If you ever needed proof that politics is a kind of war, the
next-day's selection of Alaska Governor, Sarah Palin, to join the
presidential campaign ticket of Sen. John McCain should erase all doubts.
Putting aside the political positions of Palin, her choice was a
transparent attempt to exploit disaffected women voters, who felt burned
by the decision of the Democratic nominee to choose someone other than
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-NY) for the number two spot.
But transparent doesn't necessarily mean ineffective.
For is Sen. Barack Obama's (D. -IL) campaign breaks new historic
ground, Sen. McCain is trying to do so as well, by nominating the first
GOP woman for the second chair in the nation's history.
Notice I said 'first GOP woman' for the post, for Democrats will
never forget how former Vice President Walter Mondale in June of 1984
named Geraldine Ferraro as his Vice Presidential pick. In November of
that year, Ronald Reagan swept 49 states in a landslide.
Now, McCain is no Reagan, and 2008 isn't 1984, but in the 24 years
since then women have emerged as pivotal players in the elections.
Will Palin prove helpful to McCain's chances? Time will tell.
But, where Sen. Obama opted for a safe bet, Sen McCain opted for
boldness. Is it bold enough - or too bold?
Again, time will tell.
Not since (the first) George Bush chose an obscure Senator, Dan
Quayle, as his running mate has there been a greater stretch of years
between the two sides of the ticket.
Bush was 23 years older than Quayle; McCain is some 28 years older
than Palin.
Now, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but McCain, at 72, ain't no
spring chicken. Palin, at 44, could well become the next president of
the United States, in the blink of an eye.
--(c) '08 maj
McCain's history of hot temper raises concerns
By David Lightman and Matt Stearns McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — John McCain made a quick stop at the Capitol one day last spring to sit in on Senate negotiations on the big immigration bill, and John Cornyn was not pleased.
Cornyn, a mild-mannered Texas Republican, saw a loophole in the bill that he thought would allow felons to pursue a path to citizenship.
McCain called Cornyn's claim "chicken-s---," according to people familiar with the meeting, and charged that the Texan was looking for an excuse to scuttle the bill. Cornyn grimly told McCain he had a lot of nerve to suddenly show up and inject himself into the sensitive negotiations.
"F--- you," McCain told Cornyn, in front of about 40 witnesses.
It was another instance of the Republican presidential candidate losing his temper, another instance where, as POW-MIA activist Carol Hrdlicka put it, "It's his way or no way."
There's a lengthy list of similar outbursts through the years: McCain pushing a woman in a wheelchair, trying to get an Arizona Republican aide fired from three different jobs, berating a young GOP activist on the night of his own 1986 Senate election and many more.
McCain observers say the incidents have been blown out of proportion.
"I've never seen anything in the way of an outburst of temper that struck me as anything out of the ordinary," said McCain biographer Robert Timberg.
"Those reports are overstated," said Rives Richey, who attended Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va., with McCain in the early 1950s.
Historians point out that it's not unusual for a president to have a fierce temper, but most knew how to keep it under control.
"Harry Truman wrote scathing letters, but he almost never sent them," said author Robert Dallek.
"George Washington spent a lifetime trying to control his temper," added historian Richard Norton Smith.
But Washington didn't have YouTube replaying videos of his tantrums, nor did he have to make decisions about nuclear weapons.
HE WAS FEISTY
At age 2, McCain's tantrums were so intense that he'd hold his breath for a few minutes and pass out. His parents would dunk him in cold water to "cure" him, he wrote in his memoir, "Faith of My Fathers."
"I have spent much of my life choosing my own attitude, often carelessly, often for no better reason than to indulge a conceit," he wrote. He conceded that some of his actions have been embarrassing, and "others I deeply regret."
He was a tough little guy. At Episcopal High, he was a 114-pound wrestler classmates called "Punk" and "McNasty."
Richey, though, noted that such monikers weren't unusual in those days. "There was a tremendous amount of sarcasm in the way we talked to each other at Episcopal," he recalled. "That's the way we all talked to each other."
McCain, Richey said, "was not looking for a fight. He was feisty."
McCain entered the Naval Academy in 1954, and he was popular, the leader of a group that Timberg described as the Bad Bunch, known largely for its ability to have a good time.
Malcolm Matheson, who knew McCain at Episcopal High and stayed friendly with him in college, said his buddy had no trouble controlling his temper in those days.
"He was a little guy, but he was tough, and no bully ever got in his face," Matheson said.
But as McCain ascended in politics, he began to acquire a reputation for hotheadedness. On election night 1986, then-Arizona Republican Party executive director Jon Hinz recalled, McCain was unhappy, even angry, even though he'd just won a U.S. Senate seat and his party had just made a virtually unprecedented sweep of state offices.
McCain had hoped that night would help launch him as a national figure. Instead, when the 5-foot-9 senator-elect spoke at the Phoenix victory party, the podium was too tall.
"You couldn't see his mouth," Hinz said.
A furious McCain sought out Robert Wexler, the Young Republican head in charge of arrangements.
"McCain kept pointing his finger in Wexler's chest, berating him," Hinz recalled. The 6-foot-6 Hinz stepped between them and told McCain to cut it out. "I told him I'll make sure there's an egg crate around next time," he said. McCain walked away angrily.
About a year later, McCain reportedly erupted again, this time at a meeting with Arizona's then-Gov. Evan Mecham, who was about to be impeached after being indicted on felony charges.
Karen Johnson, then Mecham's secretary and now an Arizona state senator, recalled how McCain told Mecham that he was "causing the party a lot of problems" and was an embarrassment to the party.
"Sen. McCain got very angry," Johnson recalled, "and I said, 'Why are you talking to the governor like this? You're causing problems yourself. You're an embarrassment.' "
Johnson would go on to work at three different jobs over the next five years, and she said that each time, McCain would contact her boss and try to get her removed.
The McCain campaign didn't respond to repeated requests for comment.
LOSING HIS COOL
In January, Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., told The Boston Globe that, "the thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me." (Cochran has since endorsed McCain.)
Added Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., who has a long list of vociferous, sometimes personal disagreements with McCain, "His charm takes a little getting used to." (Bond, too, supports him.)
Democrats are less guarded.
"There have been times when he's just exploded, " said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa.
"Look, around here, people lose their tempers once in a while. But it doesn't happen very often, and it usually happens in some contextual framework. A lot of times there's just not much of a contextual framework for his blowing up."
John Raidt worked for McCain more than 15 years. "Yeah, he could get prickly," he said. "Sometimes that's exactly what's needed to move an issue or get attention. I think he uses it as a tool."
Stories abound on Capitol Hill: How McCain told Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, R-N.M., how "only an a-hole" would craft a budget like he did. Or the time in 1989 when he confronted Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, then a Democrat and now a Republican, because Shelby had promised to vote for McCain friend John Tower as secretary of defense, and then Shelby voted against Tower.
McCain later wrote how, after the vote, he approached Shelby "to bring my nose within an inch of his as I screamed out my intense displeasure over his deceit ... the incident is one of the occasions when my temper lived up to its exaggerated legend."
Cochran recalled earlier this summer that he saw McCain manhandle a Sandinista official during a 1987 diplomatic mission in Nicaragua.
Cochran told the Biloxi Sun-Herald that McCain was talking, and, "I saw some kind of quick movement at the bottom of the table and I looked down there and John had reached over and grabbed this guy by the shirt collar and had snatched him up like he was throwing him up out of the chair to tell him what he thought about him or whatever."
McCain said the incident never took place. "I must say, I did not admire the Sandinistas much," he told a news conference. "But there was never anything of that nature. It just didn't happen."
Former Sen. Robert Dole, who led the mission, couldn't be reached to comment.
Back in Washington, families of POW_MIAs said they have seen McCain's wrath repeatedly.
Some families charged that McCain hadn't been aggressive enough about pursuing their lost relatives and has been reluctant to release relevant documents. McCain himself was a prisoner of war for five-and-a-half years during the Vietnam War.
In 1992, McCain sparred with Dolores Alfond, the chairwoman of the National Alliance of Families for the Return of America's Missing Servicemen and Women, at a Senate hearing.
McCain's prosecutor-like questioning of Alfond — available on YouTube — left her in tears.
Four years later, at her group's Washington conference, about 25 members went to a Senate office building, hoping to meet with McCain. As they stood in the hall, McCain and an aide walked by.
Six people present have written statements describing what they saw. According to the accounts, McCain waved his hand to shoo away Jeannette Jenkins, whose cousin was last seen in South Vietnam in 1970, causing her to hit a wall.
As McCain continued walking, Jane Duke Gaylor, the mother of another missing serviceman, approached the senator. Gaylor, in a wheelchair equipped with portable oxygen, stretched her arms toward McCain.
"McCain stopped, glared at her, raised his left arm ready to strike her, composed himself and pushed the wheelchair away from him," according to Eleanor Apodaca, the sister of an Air Force captain missing since 1967.
McCain's staff wouldn't respond to requests for comment about specific incidents.
But Mark Salter, a longtime McCain aide who functions as the senator's alter ego and the co-author of his books, said that, "McCain gets intense, and intent on his argument."
His blowups with senators often result from colleagues being accustomed to deference, he said.
"A lot of these guys aren't used to that," Salter said, so they get annoyed when a peer gets emotional.
McCain's presidential campaign has tried to use his reputation to its advantage; in an early television ad, McCain said: "I didn't go to Washington to win the Mr. Congeniality award ... I love America. I love her enough to make some people angry."
CAN HE CONTROL IT?
"Yeah, he has a temper," said Democratic vice-presidential nominee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden of Delaware. "It's obvious. You've seen it.
"But is John whatever his opposition painted him to be, this unstable guy who came out of a prisoner or war camp not capable of (acting rationally)? I don't buy that at all."
Independent experts have some concerns about McCain's irascibility.
"Diplomacy is not often dealing with reasonable people," said Steve Clemons, an analyst at the New America Foundation, a centrist public policy group.
"In the nuclear age, you don't want someone flying off the handle, so it's a critical question: Can McCain control his temper?" asked Thomas De Luca, professor of political science at Fordham University in New York.
History is an inexact guide, because little evidence is available tying temper to action.
Richard Norton Smith has found that according to Tobias Lear, George Washington's secretary, "few sounds on earth could compare with that of George Washington swearing a blue streak."
On the other hand, said Smith, Washington could control himself. "One reason George Washington is this cold-blooded marble figure is that he became expert in controlling his temper," he said.
Other presidents have similar histories. Thomas Jefferson, Smith said, could be a "red-faced chief executive throwing his hat on the floor before stomping on it."
Truman had his angry letters, and one that got out showed quite a temper.
"It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful," Truman wrote Washington Post music critic Paul Hume in 1950, after Hume had panned first daughter Margaret Truman's singing performance.
Added the angry father, "Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes and perhaps a supporter below!"
Bill Clinton's infamous red-faced tirades tended to be endured by staffers in the privacy of the White House rather than public displays.
The important question, said Dallek, is whether and how McCain controls his outbursts. Though his aides insist that his temper is simply a way of expressing passion — and that he sometimes uses it for effect — some observers remain concerned.
"It seems the only way to deal with John McCain is to think the way he does," said Hinz, the former Arizona GOP official who now runs an insurance reform advocacy group in Phoenix. "If he gets more power, what's going to make him suddenly become a fuzzy, nice guy?"
(Margaret Talev contributed to this article.)
ON THE WEB
MORE FROM MCCLATCHY
Senator: Angry McCain grabbed Sandinista official at talks
McCain's choice of Palin as running mate draws mixed reactions
John McCain finds key ally in S.C.'s Lindsey Graham
McCain has young supporters, too
As Reagan era closes, Republicans lack shared identity
Check out McClatchy's expanded political coverage
McClatchy Newspapers 2008
Saturday, September 06, 2008
U.S. To Seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
By ALAN ZIBEL, AP Business Writer
2 hours, 18 minutes ago
The government is expected to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as soon as this weekend in a monumental move designed to protect the mortgage market from the failure of the two companies, which together hold or guarantee half of the nation's mortgage debt, a person briefed on the matter said Friday night.
Some of the details of the intervention, which could cost taxpayers billions, were not yet available, but are expected to include the departure of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron, according to the source, who asked not to be named because the plan was yet to be announced.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies' chief regulator, met Friday afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and informed them of the government's plan to put the troubled companies into a conservatorship.
The news, first reported on The Wall Street Journal's Web site, came after stock markets closed. In after-hours trading Fannie Mae's shares plunged $1.54, or 22 percent, to $5.50. Freddie Mac's shares fell $1.06, or almost 21 percent, to $4.04. Common stock in the companies will be worth little to nothing after the government's actions.
The news also followed a report Friday by the Mortgage Bankers Association that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of June.
That confirmed what investors saw in Fannie and Freddie's recent financial results: trouble in the mortgage market has shifted to homeowners who had solid credit but took out exotic loans with little or no proof of their income and assets.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost a combined $3.1 billion between April and June. Half of their credit losses came from these types of risky loans with ballooning monthly payments.
While both companies said they had enough resources to withstand the losses, many investors believe their financial cushions could wither away as defaults and foreclosures mount.
Many in Washington and on Wall Street hadn't expected Paulson to intervene unless the companies had trouble issuing debt to fund their operations.
This summer, Congress passed a plan to provide unlimited government loans to Fannie and Freddie and to purchase stock in the two companies if needed.
Critics say the open-ended nature of the rescue package could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses.
Supporters, however, argue the Bush administration had little choice but to support Fannie and Freddie, which together hold or guarantee $5 trillion in mortgages — almost half the nation's total.
Representatives of Fannie and Freddie declined to comment on the government assistance plan.
Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said officials "have been in regular communications" with Fannie and Freddie, but refused to comment saying, "We are not going to comment on rumors."
Concern has been growing that a government rescue of Fannie and Freddie could not only wipe out common stockholders, but also be costly for scores of investment, banking and insurance companies that hold billions of dollars in their preferred shares.
Paulson has been in contact in recent weeks with foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie debt to reassure them that the United States recognizes the importance of the two companies.
The two companies had nearly $36 billion in preferred shares outstanding as of June 30, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mudd, the son of TV anchor Roger Mudd, was elevated to Fannie Mae's top post in December 2004 when chief executive Franklin Raines and chief financial officer Timothy Howard were swept out of office in an accounting scandal. Syron was named Freddie Mac's CEO in 2003, replacing former chief Gregory Parseghian, who was ousted in after being implicated in accounting irregularities.
He formerly was executive chairman of Thermo Electron Corp., a Waltham, Mass.-based maker of scientific equipment, served head of the American Stock Exchange and was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in the early 1990s.
Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a shareholder-owned company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.
A government takeover could cost taxpayers up to $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But the epic decision highlights the size of the threats facing the housing market and the economy. On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.
___
AP Business Writers Martin Crutsinger and Jeannine Aversa contributed to this report.
2 hours, 18 minutes ago
The government is expected to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as soon as this weekend in a monumental move designed to protect the mortgage market from the failure of the two companies, which together hold or guarantee half of the nation's mortgage debt, a person briefed on the matter said Friday night.
Some of the details of the intervention, which could cost taxpayers billions, were not yet available, but are expected to include the departure of Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd and Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron, according to the source, who asked not to be named because the plan was yet to be announced.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and James Lockhart, the companies' chief regulator, met Friday afternoon with the top executives from the mortgage companies and informed them of the government's plan to put the troubled companies into a conservatorship.
The news, first reported on The Wall Street Journal's Web site, came after stock markets closed. In after-hours trading Fannie Mae's shares plunged $1.54, or 22 percent, to $5.50. Freddie Mac's shares fell $1.06, or almost 21 percent, to $4.04. Common stock in the companies will be worth little to nothing after the government's actions.
The news also followed a report Friday by the Mortgage Bankers Association that more than 4 million American homeowners with a mortgage, a record 9 percent, were either behind on their payments or in foreclosure at the end of June.
That confirmed what investors saw in Fannie and Freddie's recent financial results: trouble in the mortgage market has shifted to homeowners who had solid credit but took out exotic loans with little or no proof of their income and assets.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lost a combined $3.1 billion between April and June. Half of their credit losses came from these types of risky loans with ballooning monthly payments.
While both companies said they had enough resources to withstand the losses, many investors believe their financial cushions could wither away as defaults and foreclosures mount.
Many in Washington and on Wall Street hadn't expected Paulson to intervene unless the companies had trouble issuing debt to fund their operations.
This summer, Congress passed a plan to provide unlimited government loans to Fannie and Freddie and to purchase stock in the two companies if needed.
Critics say the open-ended nature of the rescue package could expose taxpayers to billions of dollars of potential losses.
Supporters, however, argue the Bush administration had little choice but to support Fannie and Freddie, which together hold or guarantee $5 trillion in mortgages — almost half the nation's total.
Representatives of Fannie and Freddie declined to comment on the government assistance plan.
Treasury spokeswoman Brookly McLaughlin said officials "have been in regular communications" with Fannie and Freddie, but refused to comment saying, "We are not going to comment on rumors."
Concern has been growing that a government rescue of Fannie and Freddie could not only wipe out common stockholders, but also be costly for scores of investment, banking and insurance companies that hold billions of dollars in their preferred shares.
Paulson has been in contact in recent weeks with foreign governments that hold billions of dollars of Fannie and Freddie debt to reassure them that the United States recognizes the importance of the two companies.
The two companies had nearly $36 billion in preferred shares outstanding as of June 30, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Mudd, the son of TV anchor Roger Mudd, was elevated to Fannie Mae's top post in December 2004 when chief executive Franklin Raines and chief financial officer Timothy Howard were swept out of office in an accounting scandal. Syron was named Freddie Mac's CEO in 2003, replacing former chief Gregory Parseghian, who was ousted in after being implicated in accounting irregularities.
He formerly was executive chairman of Thermo Electron Corp., a Waltham, Mass.-based maker of scientific equipment, served head of the American Stock Exchange and was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston in the early 1990s.
Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938, and was turned into a shareholder-owned company 30 years later. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 to provide competition for Fannie.
A government takeover could cost taxpayers up to $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
But the epic decision highlights the size of the threats facing the housing market and the economy. On Friday, Nevada regulators shut down Silver State Bank, the 11th failure this year of a federally insured bank. And earlier this year, the government orchestrated the takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns by JP Morgan Chase.
___
AP Business Writers Martin Crutsinger and Jeannine Aversa contributed to this report.
Minnesota Prosecution of Activists Leads Way to Characterize Dissent as Terrorism
As Amy Goodwin notes at one minute, thirty seconds into this video, the anarchist RNC “Welcoming Committee” will be charged with acts committed by other anarchists, i.e., the agents provocateurs responsible for most of the violent acts committed during the largely peaceful demonstrations in Minnesota. As the authorities admit, the activist group in question was infiltrated by the government, thus casting suspicion over the entire case.
The FBI, working closely with local law enforcement, has a long track record of inserting agents provocateurs in activists groups, from black, Indian, and Puerto Rican “liberation” movements and antiwar organizations — under COINTELPRO and the CIA’s Operation Chaos — to the Judi Bari case in the 90s and beyond.
As the ACLU revealed in 2006, the Pentagon has surveilled Americans opposed to the Iraq war, including Quakers and student groups, and has shared this information with other government agencies through the Threat and Local Observation Notice (TALON) database.
As well, the FBI “has collected extensive information on the tactics, training and organization of antiwar demonstrators and has advised local law enforcement officials to report any suspicious activity at protests to its counterterrorism squads, according to interviews and a confidential bureau memorandum,” Eric Lichtblau reported in November, 2003.
In 2004, the Joint Terrorism Task Force worked with the NSA to monitor antiwar groups, going so far as to document the inflating of protesters’ balloons.
Law enforcement has an established track record of dispatching agents provocateurs, most notably at the Montebello summit in Ottawa last year.
“My own knowledge is that the FBI along with other Federal law enforcement agencies has been involved in a campaign of bombing, arson and terrorism in order to create in the mass public mind a connection between political dissidence of whatever stripe and revolutionaries of whatever violent tendencies,” admitted David Sannes in an interview on WBAI radio. Sannes worked with the FBI in the 1970s to frame activists.
For a recent example of how far the FBI will go to manufacture terrorist scenarios, consider the case of Miami’s “homegrown terrorists,” charged in a ludicrous plot to bomb a federal building in Miami and the Sears tower in Chicago. As it turns out, the putative terrorists were framed by the FBI who sent in an agent provocateur claiming to be with al-Qaeda. “To obtain money and support for their mission, the conspirators sought help from al-Qaida,” that is to say the FBI.
“(COINTELPRO) is still in operation today, but under a different code name. The operation is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the release of documents under the Freedom of Information Act. A clear example of the FBI’s continued COINTELPRO is in the FBI’s alleged involvement in the 1990 bombing of the vehicle occupied by Judi Bari and Darryl Cherney … which was an effort to neutralize [environmentalist] Judi Bari,” writes M. Wesley Swearingen, a retired career FBI agent with first-hand inside knowledge of COINTELPRO, in his book “FBI Secrets — An Agent’s Expose.”
It is significant that the eight members of the RNC Welcoming Committee, who did not actually participate in a crime, will be prosecuted under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act. This comes at a time when the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 is working its way through the Senate after it received almost unanimous support in the House of Representatives.
No doubt the case in Minnesota will provide ample grist for this draconian bill, especially if the government is successful in making its case that the RNC activists are “homegrown” terrorists, never mind the accused did not engage in a crime and the government intends to blame them for the violent acts of anarchist agents provocateurs.
U.S. Government Mad Scientists Geo-Engineer Atmosphere
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, September 5, 2008
U.S. government scientists are bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was again raised in a London Guardian article this week entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promotes the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.
“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”
Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who this year conducted studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.
The project, which reached its conclusion this past April, is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”
The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.
The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioural changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”
This graphic proposes, “Spraying aluminum powder and barium oxide into high levels of the atmosphere, again delivered by aircraft, to increase planetary reflectance (albedo) and cloud cover.” High levels of barium have been found in substances associated with chemtrails.
Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.
“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.
Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist - a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation - Doug Parr has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who recently proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geo-engineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.”
Given all the immediate dangers associated with bombarding the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide, along with the unknown dangers of other geo-engineering projects, many people are concerned that “chemtrails” could be a secret component of the same agenda to alter the Earth’s eco-system.
Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, often blanketing the sky in criss-cross patterns, have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda.
In conducting Google searches, one finds discussion, such as this example, of using sulphur dioxide as a jet fuel additive to be dispersed over the world during routine commercial flights.
“I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel,” writes engineer John Gorman, who has conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario.
“We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere,” he adds.
Earlier this year, KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.
The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
Indeed, barium oxide has cropped up repeatedly as a contaminant from suspected geoengineering experimentation.
KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.”
One of the accepted truisms of scientific study is the fact that if scientists are proposing an idea, then those scientists with access to the bottomless pit of black-budget secret government funding are already doing it.
It is highly likely that chemtrails are merely one manifestation of “geo-engineering” that is taking place without proper debate, notification or any form of legality, and with a callous disregard for the potential dangers to both our health and our environment.
Prison Planet
Friday, September 5, 2008
U.S. government scientists are bombarding the skies with the acid-rain causing pollutant sulphur dioxide in an attempt to fight global warming by “geo-engineering” the planet, despite the fact that injecting aerosols into the upper atmosphere carries with it a host of both known and unknown dangers.
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
The proposal to disperse sulphur dioxide in an attempt to reflect sunlight was again raised in a London Guardian article this week entitled, Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming, in which Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California, promotes the idea of injecting the atmosphere with aerosols.
“One approach is to insert “scatterers” into the stratosphere,” states the article. “Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.”
Experiments similar to Caldeira’s proposal are already being carried out by U.S. government -backed scientists, such as those at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C, who this year conducted studies which involved shooting huge amounts of particulate matter, in this case “porous-walled glass microspheres,” into the stratosphere.
The project, which reached its conclusion this past April, is closely tied to an idea by Nobel Prize winner Paul Crutzen, who “proposed sending aircraft 747s to dump huge quantities of sulfur particles into the far-reaches of the stratosphere to cool down the atmosphere.”
Such programs merely scratch the surface of what is likely to be a gargantuan and overarching black-budget funded project to geo-engineer the planet, with little or no care for the unknown environmental consequences this could engender.
What is known about what happens when the environment is loaded with sulphur dioxide is bad enough, since the compound is the main component of acid rain, which according to the EPA “Causes acidification of lakes and streams and contributes to the damage of trees at high elevations (for example, red spruce trees above 2,000 feet) and many sensitive forest soils. In addition, acid rain accelerates the decay of building materials and paints, including irreplaceable buildings, statues, and sculptures that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage.”
The health effects of bombarding the skies with sulphur dioxide alone are enough to raise serious questions about whether such programs should even be allowed to proceed.
The following health effects are linked with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioural changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
According to the LennTech website, “Laboratory tests with test animals have indicated that sulfur can cause serious vascular damage in veins of the brains, the heart and the kidneys. These tests have also indicated that certain forms of sulfur can cause foetal damage and congenital effects. Mothers can even carry sulfur poisoning over to their children through mother milk. Finally, sulfur can damage the internal enzyme systems of animals.”
This graphic proposes, “Spraying aluminum powder and barium oxide into high levels of the atmosphere, again delivered by aircraft, to increase planetary reflectance (albedo) and cloud cover.” High levels of barium have been found in substances associated with chemtrails.
Fred Singer, president of the Science Environmental Policy Project and a skeptic of man-made global warming theories, warns that the consequences of tinkering with the planet’s delicate eco-system could have far-reaching dangers.
“If you do this on a continuous basis, you would depress the ozone layer and cause all kinds of other problems that people would rather avoid,” said Singer.
Even Greenpeace’s chief UK scientist - a staunch advocate of the man-made global warming explanation - Doug Parr has slammed attempts to geo-engineer the planet as “outlandish” and “dangerous”.
Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, who recently proposed a bizarre plan to send spaceships into the upper atmosphere that would be used to block out the Sun, admits that geo-engineering could cause “conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.”
Given all the immediate dangers associated with bombarding the atmosphere with sulphur dioxide, along with the unknown dangers of other geo-engineering projects, many people are concerned that “chemtrails” could be a secret component of the same agenda to alter the Earth’s eco-system.
Reports of chemtrails, jet plumes emitted from planes that hang in the air for hours and do not dissipate, often blanketing the sky in criss-cross patterns, have increased dramatically over the last 10 years. Many have speculated that they are part of a government program to alter climate, inoculate humans against certain pathogens, or even to toxify humans as part of a population reduction agenda.
In conducting Google searches, one finds discussion, such as this example, of using sulphur dioxide as a jet fuel additive to be dispersed over the world during routine commercial flights.
“I suggest that both the sulphur dioxide and the silica particles could be delivered into the stratosphere by dissolving an additive in jet aviation fuel,” writes engineer John Gorman, who has conducted experiments to test the feasibility of such a scenario.
“We would want to burn fuel containing the additive specifically when the aircraft was cruising in the lower stratosphere,” he adds.
Earlier this year, KSLA news investigation found that a substance that fell to earth from a high altitude chemtrail contained high levels of Barium (6.8 ppm) and Lead (8.2 ppm) as well as trace amounts of other chemicals including arsenic, chromium, cadmium, selenium and silver. Of these, all but one are metals, some are toxic while several are rarely or never found in nature.
The newscast focuses on Barium, which its research shows is a “hallmark of chemtrails.” KSLA found Barium levels in its samples at 6.8 ppm or “more than six times the toxic level set by the EPA.” The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality confirmed that the high levels of Barium were “very unusual,” but commented that “proving the source was a whole other matter” in its discussion with KSLA.
KSLA also asked Mark Ryan, Director of the Poison Control Center, about the effects of Barium on the human body. Ryan commented that “short term exposure can lead to anything from stomach to chest pains and that long term exposure causes blood pressure problems.” The Poison Control Center further reported that long-term exposure, as with any harmful substance, would contribute to weakening the immune system, which many speculate is the purpose of such man-made chemical trails.
Indeed, barium oxide has cropped up repeatedly as a contaminant from suspected geoengineering experimentation.
KSLA also put aerosolized-chemical testing in its historical context, citing a voluminous number of unclassified tests exposed in 1977 Senate hearings. The tests included experimenting with biochemical compounds on the public. KSLA reports that “239 populated areas were contaminated with biological agents between 1949 and 1969.”
One of the accepted truisms of scientific study is the fact that if scientists are proposing an idea, then those scientists with access to the bottomless pit of black-budget secret government funding are already doing it.
It is highly likely that chemtrails are merely one manifestation of “geo-engineering” that is taking place without proper debate, notification or any form of legality, and with a callous disregard for the potential dangers to both our health and our environment.
Bush Extends 9/11 National Emergency Yet Again
Peter Dale Scott
Global Research
September 4, 2008
Though few Americans realize it, Cheney and Rumsfeld worked through the 1980s and 1990s on emergency nuclear-response plans which allegedly suspended the American constitution and also Congress.[1] (Through these decades Rumsfeld was CEO of a major pharmaceutical firm, and in the later 1990s Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; but their private status did not deter them from continuing to exercise a supra-constitutional planning power conferred on them by Ronald Reagan.)
Even fewer Americans know that these rules, originally dealing with a nuclear attack on America, were extended by Reagan Executive Order 12656 to cover “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”[2] And few Americans realize that at least some of these rules, known technically as Continuity of Government or COG rules, were invoked before 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001.[3]
As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency:”
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.[4]
Once again appropriate personnel in Congress should learn and review what those “powers and authorities” are, since almost certainly they include COG (Continuity of Government) rules. In 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), issued by the White House, also extended for one year the emergency proclaimed in 2001; and it empowered the President to personally ensure "continuity of government."[5]
NSPD 51 also contained "classified Continuity Annexes" to "be protected from unauthorized disclosure." Congressman DeFazio twice requested to see these Annexes, the second time in a letter cosigned by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney. The White House denied these requests, claiming that the congressmen lacked the requisite clearances. But as I wrote earlier this year,
"Congress has a right to be concerned about Continuity of Government (COG) plans refined by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over the past quarter century….The story, ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress’s constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution."[6]
Oliver North, who worked on COG planning with Rumsfeld and Cheney in the 1980s, was asked in the Iran-Contra Hearings about his work on an emergency plan “that would suspend the American constitution.” Democratic Senator Inouye, who was presiding, pounded his gavel and interjected that this was a “highly sensitive and classified matter,” not to be dealt with in an open hearing.[7] Congress has never discussed COG plans publicly since that time.
According to Wikipedia, “The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers (emphasis added).
Bush’s denial of the Homeland Security’s right to review the COG plans in the classified Appendices of NSPD-51 should have been seen as a constitutional crisis — a line in the sand for Congress to assert its constitutional rights and duties. Now, one year later, I understand (although I cannot corroborate it from the Internet) that Congressman Kucinich has introduced or will introduce a bill for Congress, under the terms of the National Emergencies Act, to countermand the presidentially proclaimed national emergency. This is an important move, but it should not obviate the need for Congress to review rules which allegedly restrict its own powers under the constitution.
Between now and November the American electorate have an opportunity to present this demand to everyone running for office: that they will insist on vigorous congressional action to expose and dispose of these secret COG rules — rules that allegedly suspend the American constitution.
[1] "One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them," said one of the COG planners in the 1980s, who spoke to James Mann (The Rise of the Vulcans, 141-42). James Bamford reported the same remark in his book Pretext for War (p. 74).
[2] The provisions of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 47491, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 585, “Executive Order 12656—Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities,” http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html. The Washington Post
(Gellman and Schmidt, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret,” March 1, 2002) later claimed, incorrectly, that Executive Order 12656 dealt only with “a nuclear attack.”
[3] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 228; citing 9/11Commision Report, 38, 326; Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 8.
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080828-7.html.
[5] National Security Presidential Directive 51, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html.
[6] Peter Dale Scott, “Congress, the Bush Adminstration and Continuity of Government Planning: The Showdown,” http://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.html.
[7] Scott, Road to 9/11, 9, 23, 184. The New York Times published a complete transcript of the interchange on July 14, 1987, but did not mention it in its news story about North’s testimony.
Global Research
September 4, 2008
Though few Americans realize it, Cheney and Rumsfeld worked through the 1980s and 1990s on emergency nuclear-response plans which allegedly suspended the American constitution and also Congress.[1] (Through these decades Rumsfeld was CEO of a major pharmaceutical firm, and in the later 1990s Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; but their private status did not deter them from continuing to exercise a supra-constitutional planning power conferred on them by Ronald Reagan.)
Even fewer Americans know that these rules, originally dealing with a nuclear attack on America, were extended by Reagan Executive Order 12656 to cover “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”[2] And few Americans realize that at least some of these rules, known technically as Continuity of Government or COG rules, were invoked before 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001.[3]
As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency:”
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.[4]
Once again appropriate personnel in Congress should learn and review what those “powers and authorities” are, since almost certainly they include COG (Continuity of Government) rules. In 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), issued by the White House, also extended for one year the emergency proclaimed in 2001; and it empowered the President to personally ensure "continuity of government."[5]
NSPD 51 also contained "classified Continuity Annexes" to "be protected from unauthorized disclosure." Congressman DeFazio twice requested to see these Annexes, the second time in a letter cosigned by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney. The White House denied these requests, claiming that the congressmen lacked the requisite clearances. But as I wrote earlier this year,
"Congress has a right to be concerned about Continuity of Government (COG) plans refined by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over the past quarter century….The story, ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress’s constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution."[6]
Oliver North, who worked on COG planning with Rumsfeld and Cheney in the 1980s, was asked in the Iran-Contra Hearings about his work on an emergency plan “that would suspend the American constitution.” Democratic Senator Inouye, who was presiding, pounded his gavel and interjected that this was a “highly sensitive and classified matter,” not to be dealt with in an open hearing.[7] Congress has never discussed COG plans publicly since that time.
According to Wikipedia, “The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers (emphasis added).
Bush’s denial of the Homeland Security’s right to review the COG plans in the classified Appendices of NSPD-51 should have been seen as a constitutional crisis — a line in the sand for Congress to assert its constitutional rights and duties. Now, one year later, I understand (although I cannot corroborate it from the Internet) that Congressman Kucinich has introduced or will introduce a bill for Congress, under the terms of the National Emergencies Act, to countermand the presidentially proclaimed national emergency. This is an important move, but it should not obviate the need for Congress to review rules which allegedly restrict its own powers under the constitution.
Between now and November the American electorate have an opportunity to present this demand to everyone running for office: that they will insist on vigorous congressional action to expose and dispose of these secret COG rules — rules that allegedly suspend the American constitution.
[1] "One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them," said one of the COG planners in the 1980s, who spoke to James Mann (The Rise of the Vulcans, 141-42). James Bamford reported the same remark in his book Pretext for War (p. 74).
[2] The provisions of Executive Order 12656 of November 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 47491, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 585, “Executive Order 12656—Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities,” http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12656.html. The Washington Post
(Gellman and Schmidt, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret,” March 1, 2002) later claimed, incorrectly, that Executive Order 12656 dealt only with “a nuclear attack.”
[3] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 228; citing 9/11Commision Report, 38, 326; Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 8.
[4] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/08/20080828-7.html.
[5] National Security Presidential Directive 51, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html.
[6] Peter Dale Scott, “Congress, the Bush Adminstration and Continuity of Government Planning: The Showdown,” http://www.counterpunch.org/scott03312008.html.
[7] Scott, Road to 9/11, 9, 23, 184. The New York Times published a complete transcript of the interchange on July 14, 1987, but did not mention it in its news story about North’s testimony.
Bush administration backs away from Blackwater
By William Fisher
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 10:38 pm
NEW YORK - The 190,000 private contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries will likely cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion by the end of 2008, according to a new report.
The report comes at a time when the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming under increased scrutiny. Various contractors—including Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root—have been investigated in connection with shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops.
And meanwhile an under-the-radar Florida court case has revealed that President George W. Bush—a staunch contractor supporter—may be preparing to throw security contractors such as Blackwater under the political bus.
In the Florida case, relatives of three American servicemen killed in the 2004 crash of an aircraft owned by Blackwater Aviation in Afghanistan are suing the company for damages, based in part on U.S. government reviews that concluded that errors committed by Blackwater staff were responsible for the deaths. In mid-August, despite Mr. Bush’s support for what he has called the critical roles played by overseas contractors, his administration failed to meet a deadline for presenting the court with any defense of Blackwater.
The administration’s silence has caused consternation for Blackwater and its supporters. Erik Prince, Blackwater’s chairman, told Time magazine, “After the president has said that, as commander-in-chief, he is ultimately responsible for contractors on the battlefield, it is disappointing that his administration has been unwilling to make that interest clear before the courts.”
Some observers have speculated that the administration’s silence can be attributed to the controversial nature of the contractor issue and a reluctance to address it during a hotly contested presidential election year.
The Florida battle, which could eventually find its way to the Supreme Court, turns on the question of whether Blackwater and other overseas contractors are subject to U.S. law. That question arises because of a decree issued in 2005 by the then U.S. Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer, granting contractors legal immunity.
The Iraqi government claims that Blackwater and other contractors have been responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and wants to make them subject to Iraqi law. The U.S. has resisted this move, which is thought to be part of the ongoing stalemate in negotiations with Iraq over the future status of U.S. forces in that country.
The White House has also attacked a bill recently passed by the House that would place combat-zone contractors under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. It called the measure an unacceptable extension of federal jurisdiction overseas, arguing that the measure would place additional burdens on the military.
Blackwater’s argument is that the company should be covered by the same “sovereign immunity” that protects the U.S. military from lawsuits because the downed flight in question in the Florida case was under the command and control of the U.S. military.
In July, this argument was rejected by three federal judges, who cited the U.S. government’s failure to take a position in defense of Blackwater as one of their reasons. In their decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the judges ruled, “The apparent lack of interest from the United States … fortifies our conclusion that the case does not yet present a political question.”
Lawyers for many major contractors—including DynCorp, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), Blackwater and others—say a dangerous precedent would be established if this and similar cases are allowed to go forward. Such a decision, they say, would open contractors to large money damages and greatly higher risk insurance costs that could adversely affect their ability to carry out the jobs the U.S. government has hired them to do.
As the Florida case made its way through the U.S. legal system, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of having military personnel provide security services in Iraq might be little different from the prices charged by private security contactors.
The report said $6 billion to $10 billion has been spent on security contactors thus far in 2008 and estimated that about 25,000 to 30,000 employees of security firms were in Iraq as of early this year. It estimated that, if spending for contractors continues at about the current rate, $100 billion will have been paid to military contractors for operations in Iraq.
The Congressional Budget Office report revealed that about 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq has gone to contractors. Currently, it said, there are at least 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries—a ratio of about one contractor per U.S. service member. It noted that the U.S. has relied more heavily on contractors in Iraq than in any other war for functions ranging from food service to the guarding of diplomats.
The report also noted that the legal status of contractor personnel is a grey area of U.S. law, particularly for those who are armed. It said military commanders have less direct authority over contractors because a government contracting officer rather than a military commander manages their contracts.
The Congressional Budget Office review was requested by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In a statement, Sen. Conrad said the Bush administration’s reliance on military contractors has set a dangerous precedent. The use of contractors “restricts accountability and oversight; opens the door to corruption and abuse; and, in some instances, may significantly increase the cost to American taxpayers,” he said.
The report comes at a time when the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming under increased scrutiny. Various contractors—including Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root—have been investigated in connection with shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops.
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony from a former Defense Contract Audit Agency contract overseer who was effectively fired because he refused to authorize $1 billion in unsubstantiated charges from Kellogg Brown and Root. The Government Accountability Office released a report that confirmed whistleblower complaints of Defense Contract Audit Agency supervisors issuing unsupported findings that were favorable to contractors. Government Executive magazine recently reported that nearly a dozen former Defense Contract Audit Agency employees see the agency as a very troubled entity that is more concerned with performance goals than actually overseeing contracts.
The death of a U.S. soldier, who was electrocuted in January while showering in Iraq, prompted a House committee oversight hearing in July into whether Kellogg Brown and Root has properly handled the electrical work at bases it maintains. The military has also said that five other deaths were due to improperly installed or maintained electrical devices, according to a congressional report.
Contractors’ activities have drawn sharp criticism from private nongovernmental watchdog groups, such as OMB Watch, a group that reports on the Office of Management and Budget, which prepares and presents the president’s budget to congress.
Craig Jennings, OMB Watch’s Federal Fiscal Policy Analyst, said: “$100 billion is a very large amount of money—in fact, Iraq’s GDP was just over $100 billion in 2007. But what staggers my imagination is how sober adults would be willing to divert such vast sums of America’s financial resources to the bank accounts of private firms whose dealings are opaque to taxpayers and, for the most part, held unaccountable.” (IPS/GIN)
Related links:
UN criticizes western ‘mercenaries’ (FCN, 12-231-2007)
Al Jazeera Video Report on Mercenaries (Al Jazeera TV)
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 10:38 pm
NEW YORK - The 190,000 private contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries will likely cost U.S. taxpayers more than $100 billion by the end of 2008, according to a new report.
The report comes at a time when the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming under increased scrutiny. Various contractors—including Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root—have been investigated in connection with shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops.
And meanwhile an under-the-radar Florida court case has revealed that President George W. Bush—a staunch contractor supporter—may be preparing to throw security contractors such as Blackwater under the political bus.
In the Florida case, relatives of three American servicemen killed in the 2004 crash of an aircraft owned by Blackwater Aviation in Afghanistan are suing the company for damages, based in part on U.S. government reviews that concluded that errors committed by Blackwater staff were responsible for the deaths. In mid-August, despite Mr. Bush’s support for what he has called the critical roles played by overseas contractors, his administration failed to meet a deadline for presenting the court with any defense of Blackwater.
The administration’s silence has caused consternation for Blackwater and its supporters. Erik Prince, Blackwater’s chairman, told Time magazine, “After the president has said that, as commander-in-chief, he is ultimately responsible for contractors on the battlefield, it is disappointing that his administration has been unwilling to make that interest clear before the courts.”
Some observers have speculated that the administration’s silence can be attributed to the controversial nature of the contractor issue and a reluctance to address it during a hotly contested presidential election year.
The Florida battle, which could eventually find its way to the Supreme Court, turns on the question of whether Blackwater and other overseas contractors are subject to U.S. law. That question arises because of a decree issued in 2005 by the then U.S. Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer, granting contractors legal immunity.
The Iraqi government claims that Blackwater and other contractors have been responsible for the deaths of Iraqi civilians and wants to make them subject to Iraqi law. The U.S. has resisted this move, which is thought to be part of the ongoing stalemate in negotiations with Iraq over the future status of U.S. forces in that country.
The White House has also attacked a bill recently passed by the House that would place combat-zone contractors under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. It called the measure an unacceptable extension of federal jurisdiction overseas, arguing that the measure would place additional burdens on the military.
Blackwater’s argument is that the company should be covered by the same “sovereign immunity” that protects the U.S. military from lawsuits because the downed flight in question in the Florida case was under the command and control of the U.S. military.
In July, this argument was rejected by three federal judges, who cited the U.S. government’s failure to take a position in defense of Blackwater as one of their reasons. In their decision to allow the lawsuit to proceed, the judges ruled, “The apparent lack of interest from the United States … fortifies our conclusion that the case does not yet present a political question.”
Lawyers for many major contractors—including DynCorp, Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), Blackwater and others—say a dangerous precedent would be established if this and similar cases are allowed to go forward. Such a decision, they say, would open contractors to large money damages and greatly higher risk insurance costs that could adversely affect their ability to carry out the jobs the U.S. government has hired them to do.
As the Florida case made its way through the U.S. legal system, a new report from the Congressional Budget Office said the cost of having military personnel provide security services in Iraq might be little different from the prices charged by private security contactors.
The report said $6 billion to $10 billion has been spent on security contactors thus far in 2008 and estimated that about 25,000 to 30,000 employees of security firms were in Iraq as of early this year. It estimated that, if spending for contractors continues at about the current rate, $100 billion will have been paid to military contractors for operations in Iraq.
The Congressional Budget Office report revealed that about 20 percent of funding for operations in Iraq has gone to contractors. Currently, it said, there are at least 190,000 contractors in Iraq and neighboring countries—a ratio of about one contractor per U.S. service member. It noted that the U.S. has relied more heavily on contractors in Iraq than in any other war for functions ranging from food service to the guarding of diplomats.
The report also noted that the legal status of contractor personnel is a grey area of U.S. law, particularly for those who are armed. It said military commanders have less direct authority over contractors because a government contracting officer rather than a military commander manages their contracts.
The Congressional Budget Office review was requested by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., who is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. In a statement, Sen. Conrad said the Bush administration’s reliance on military contractors has set a dangerous precedent. The use of contractors “restricts accountability and oversight; opens the door to corruption and abuse; and, in some instances, may significantly increase the cost to American taxpayers,” he said.
The report comes at a time when the actions of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming under increased scrutiny. Various contractors—including Blackwater and Kellogg Brown and Root—have been investigated in connection with shooting deaths of Iraqis and the accidental electrocutions of U.S. troops.
The Senate Democratic Policy Committee heard testimony from a former Defense Contract Audit Agency contract overseer who was effectively fired because he refused to authorize $1 billion in unsubstantiated charges from Kellogg Brown and Root. The Government Accountability Office released a report that confirmed whistleblower complaints of Defense Contract Audit Agency supervisors issuing unsupported findings that were favorable to contractors. Government Executive magazine recently reported that nearly a dozen former Defense Contract Audit Agency employees see the agency as a very troubled entity that is more concerned with performance goals than actually overseeing contracts.
The death of a U.S. soldier, who was electrocuted in January while showering in Iraq, prompted a House committee oversight hearing in July into whether Kellogg Brown and Root has properly handled the electrical work at bases it maintains. The military has also said that five other deaths were due to improperly installed or maintained electrical devices, according to a congressional report.
Contractors’ activities have drawn sharp criticism from private nongovernmental watchdog groups, such as OMB Watch, a group that reports on the Office of Management and Budget, which prepares and presents the president’s budget to congress.
Craig Jennings, OMB Watch’s Federal Fiscal Policy Analyst, said: “$100 billion is a very large amount of money—in fact, Iraq’s GDP was just over $100 billion in 2007. But what staggers my imagination is how sober adults would be willing to divert such vast sums of America’s financial resources to the bank accounts of private firms whose dealings are opaque to taxpayers and, for the most part, held unaccountable.” (IPS/GIN)
Related links:
UN criticizes western ‘mercenaries’ (FCN, 12-231-2007)
Al Jazeera Video Report on Mercenaries (Al Jazeera TV)
Friday, September 05, 2008
Police drama in the deep south
By Jesse Muhammad
Staff Writer
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 11:15 pm
‘This was a brutal setup and killing’
LAFAYETTE, La. (FinalCall.com) - “This killing was something out of movie the way they took his life. I’ve never witnessed anything like this,” said Henry Sinegel to The Final Call.
Mr. Sinegel was on the scene the morning of the deadly shooting death of a Black male at the hands of a White Lafayette police officer. The family and community are calling it an organized hit based upon the victim’s relationship with the daughter of a former White officer.
Gunshots resonated at the intersection of Mudd and Louisiana Avenues around 1:30 a.m. on July 26 at a local Circle K gas station, where a huge crowd of mostly Blacks coming from a night club were gathered. Police sayShane Damondwas spotted at the store in a vehicle that had been reported stolen and the officer tried to attempt to take him into custody. Police said Mr. Damond began backing up his car, dragging the officer. The officer let off four shots hitting the suspect and bringing the car to a halt, police said. Mr. Damond died shortly thereafter.
“He [the officer]parked his vehicle and attempted to approach the suspect. At which time suspect began backing away with officer hinged on door,” said Cpl. Paul Mouton of the Lafayette Police Department. “The officer was able to get his side-arm and fire at suspect, and vehicle was brought to a halt.”
Other eye witnesses provided a different account. “The police are lying. Shane did not run him [the officer] over. How could he get dragged and then shoot the man in the chest? The officer shot Shane through the front windshield in the heart. Then I saw him drag Shane out of the car onto the concrete and pat him down although Shane was already dead,” said Freddie Narcisse to The Final Call.
“Why did he pat him down when he was already dead? This is a cover up. They killed an unarmed man. The police are always harassing Black people because they think all Black men sell drugs out here,” added Mr. Narcisse, who walked a Final Call staff writer through the entire scenario.
“I’m going to have the image of this in my head for the rest of life. This was a brutal setup and killing,” said Mellissa Andrus. She is a former classmate of Mr. Damond and also witnessed the shooting. “I didn’t see Shane try to drive over him. I saw that cop shoot him and then throw him out of the car like a hog or dog. The cops even lied to the family about which hospital they took the body to. This is crooked and wrong. If that cop was hurt why wasn’t he taken into the ambulance too?”
The officer reportedly will be placed on administrative leave until the conclusion of the investigation. The investigation has been handed over to the Louisiana State Police, which is the policy of the Lafayette Police Department.
According to Jasmine Zeno, a cousin of the shooting victim, the mayhem was a result of Mr. Damond dating the White daughter of a retired Lafayette cop who disliked the relationship.
“This was a straight set up. Shane was dating his [the former officer’s] daughter and he threatened Shane several times to stay away from his daughter because of a few altercations between the two. The vehicle that Shane was in that night belonged to the girl, so it wasn’t stolen,” said Ms. Zeno. “My cousin was killed for nothing because that cop wanted to get back at him. Why won’t the police let us see the body? Why did they lie to us about the hospital they took him to? It was all a cover up for a hit.”
Ms. Zeno said the family has hired an attorney and is planning legal action against the police department.
Bernard Landry told The Final Call, “These cops are out of hand and things have gotten crazier by the minute. I’m not surprised by this. They’re killing Black people with tasers doing routine stops and cops are only getting suspended without pay, then put right back on the job. What are we to do? Some of us are sleepwalking.”
Protestors hit the streets
The day following the shooting, several dozen protestors marched with signs in front of the Circle K to demand an end to police brutality. Cars honked their horns in support of those standing in the blistering heat in a call for justice.
“From the information we have gathered, this shooting was premeditated and a setup. There was no probable cause for this being that Shane did not have a gun or knife. That cop was not dragged by the car like they [police] are saying. This officer was on the hunt,” said Shannon X. He was on of the co-organizers of the march.
“The people passing by were happy to see someone out doing something about this. We are upset about it. We’re going to continue to protest and push it until justice is served,” he said.
“I’m glad to see us coming together. I’m glad that The Final Call and the Nation of Islam came here to investigate what has taken place,” said local videographer and activist Real Nitty. “I believe it’s going to be a frenzy here real soon because it’s the signs of the time. We can’t let this one go. We going to the let the opposition know we are on the move just like they have been on the move.”
“The Black people here don’t fear the drug dealers. They actually fear the ones who are supposed to protect and serve us. The police,” said longtime resident Patrick Narcisse. “The police are the ones killing us. This town is still separated. If a group of young Black boys went over to the White neighborhood, they would immediately get harassed, but White folks can come into our area and do whatever they want to do. We got to stand up and stop being afraid. A war is brewing.”
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Staff Writer
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 11:15 pm
‘This was a brutal setup and killing’
LAFAYETTE, La. (FinalCall.com) - “This killing was something out of movie the way they took his life. I’ve never witnessed anything like this,” said Henry Sinegel to The Final Call.
Mr. Sinegel was on the scene the morning of the deadly shooting death of a Black male at the hands of a White Lafayette police officer. The family and community are calling it an organized hit based upon the victim’s relationship with the daughter of a former White officer.
Gunshots resonated at the intersection of Mudd and Louisiana Avenues around 1:30 a.m. on July 26 at a local Circle K gas station, where a huge crowd of mostly Blacks coming from a night club were gathered. Police sayShane Damondwas spotted at the store in a vehicle that had been reported stolen and the officer tried to attempt to take him into custody. Police said Mr. Damond began backing up his car, dragging the officer. The officer let off four shots hitting the suspect and bringing the car to a halt, police said. Mr. Damond died shortly thereafter.
“He [the officer]parked his vehicle and attempted to approach the suspect. At which time suspect began backing away with officer hinged on door,” said Cpl. Paul Mouton of the Lafayette Police Department. “The officer was able to get his side-arm and fire at suspect, and vehicle was brought to a halt.”
Other eye witnesses provided a different account. “The police are lying. Shane did not run him [the officer] over. How could he get dragged and then shoot the man in the chest? The officer shot Shane through the front windshield in the heart. Then I saw him drag Shane out of the car onto the concrete and pat him down although Shane was already dead,” said Freddie Narcisse to The Final Call.
“Why did he pat him down when he was already dead? This is a cover up. They killed an unarmed man. The police are always harassing Black people because they think all Black men sell drugs out here,” added Mr. Narcisse, who walked a Final Call staff writer through the entire scenario.
“I’m going to have the image of this in my head for the rest of life. This was a brutal setup and killing,” said Mellissa Andrus. She is a former classmate of Mr. Damond and also witnessed the shooting. “I didn’t see Shane try to drive over him. I saw that cop shoot him and then throw him out of the car like a hog or dog. The cops even lied to the family about which hospital they took the body to. This is crooked and wrong. If that cop was hurt why wasn’t he taken into the ambulance too?”
The officer reportedly will be placed on administrative leave until the conclusion of the investigation. The investigation has been handed over to the Louisiana State Police, which is the policy of the Lafayette Police Department.
According to Jasmine Zeno, a cousin of the shooting victim, the mayhem was a result of Mr. Damond dating the White daughter of a retired Lafayette cop who disliked the relationship.
“This was a straight set up. Shane was dating his [the former officer’s] daughter and he threatened Shane several times to stay away from his daughter because of a few altercations between the two. The vehicle that Shane was in that night belonged to the girl, so it wasn’t stolen,” said Ms. Zeno. “My cousin was killed for nothing because that cop wanted to get back at him. Why won’t the police let us see the body? Why did they lie to us about the hospital they took him to? It was all a cover up for a hit.”
Ms. Zeno said the family has hired an attorney and is planning legal action against the police department.
Bernard Landry told The Final Call, “These cops are out of hand and things have gotten crazier by the minute. I’m not surprised by this. They’re killing Black people with tasers doing routine stops and cops are only getting suspended without pay, then put right back on the job. What are we to do? Some of us are sleepwalking.”
Protestors hit the streets
The day following the shooting, several dozen protestors marched with signs in front of the Circle K to demand an end to police brutality. Cars honked their horns in support of those standing in the blistering heat in a call for justice.
“From the information we have gathered, this shooting was premeditated and a setup. There was no probable cause for this being that Shane did not have a gun or knife. That cop was not dragged by the car like they [police] are saying. This officer was on the hunt,” said Shannon X. He was on of the co-organizers of the march.
“The people passing by were happy to see someone out doing something about this. We are upset about it. We’re going to continue to protest and push it until justice is served,” he said.
“I’m glad to see us coming together. I’m glad that The Final Call and the Nation of Islam came here to investigate what has taken place,” said local videographer and activist Real Nitty. “I believe it’s going to be a frenzy here real soon because it’s the signs of the time. We can’t let this one go. We going to the let the opposition know we are on the move just like they have been on the move.”
“The Black people here don’t fear the drug dealers. They actually fear the ones who are supposed to protect and serve us. The police,” said longtime resident Patrick Narcisse. “The police are the ones killing us. This town is still separated. If a group of young Black boys went over to the White neighborhood, they would immediately get harassed, but White folks can come into our area and do whatever they want to do. We got to stand up and stop being afraid. A war is brewing.”
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Calls for new charges in Katrina bridge shooting
By AP
Updated Sep 3, 2008, 11:07 am
FCI Documentary: The Unmasking of New Orleans
New Orleans Police indicted for murder (FCN, 01-19-2007)
The hidden story in New Orleans (FCN, 01-25-2006)
NEW ORLEANS - Religious and civil rights groups in New Orleans are calling on the district attorney to refile charges against seven police officers accused of fatally shooting two men on a bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Representatives from the groups said Aug. 22 they also want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Louisiana State Bar Association to examine how the Orleans Parish district attorney’s office handled the case.
A week earlier, a judge threw out murder and attempted murder charges against the officers. The judge sided with defense arguments that prosecutors violated state law by divulging secret grand jury testimony to an officer who was a witness in the case.
Survivors of the September 2005 shootings on Danziger Bridge have said the officers fired at unarmed people crossing to get food. Two men were killed, four others were wounded.
Officers have acknowledged shooting at people but only after taking fire.
Dr. Rommell Madison’s brother, Ronald Madison, was one of the men killed. He said he just wants the truth about what happened to his brother to come out and was “pleading” for federal intervention.
U.S. Attorney Jim Letten has said his office would not intervene while the district attorney’s office had an “active case ongoing.”
The DA’s office could appeal the judge’s ruling. It also could convene another grand jury to consider new charges against the officers. When a decision on a next step is made, it will be disclosed, a spokeswoman for the office said.
Danatus King, president of the NAACP’s New Orleans chapter, said the call for new charges is meant to let the DA’s office know “the community is very, very much interested in this, very concerned and very much of the opinion that their office needs to be involved, actively involved.”
Representatives from the New Orleans chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and from Muhammad Mosque No. 46 also participated in the news conference. (AP)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Updated Sep 3, 2008, 11:07 am
FCI Documentary: The Unmasking of New Orleans
New Orleans Police indicted for murder (FCN, 01-19-2007)
The hidden story in New Orleans (FCN, 01-25-2006)
NEW ORLEANS - Religious and civil rights groups in New Orleans are calling on the district attorney to refile charges against seven police officers accused of fatally shooting two men on a bridge in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Representatives from the groups said Aug. 22 they also want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate and for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Louisiana State Bar Association to examine how the Orleans Parish district attorney’s office handled the case.
A week earlier, a judge threw out murder and attempted murder charges against the officers. The judge sided with defense arguments that prosecutors violated state law by divulging secret grand jury testimony to an officer who was a witness in the case.
Survivors of the September 2005 shootings on Danziger Bridge have said the officers fired at unarmed people crossing to get food. Two men were killed, four others were wounded.
Officers have acknowledged shooting at people but only after taking fire.
Dr. Rommell Madison’s brother, Ronald Madison, was one of the men killed. He said he just wants the truth about what happened to his brother to come out and was “pleading” for federal intervention.
U.S. Attorney Jim Letten has said his office would not intervene while the district attorney’s office had an “active case ongoing.”
The DA’s office could appeal the judge’s ruling. It also could convene another grand jury to consider new charges against the officers. When a decision on a next step is made, it will be disclosed, a spokeswoman for the office said.
Danatus King, president of the NAACP’s New Orleans chapter, said the call for new charges is meant to let the DA’s office know “the community is very, very much interested in this, very concerned and very much of the opinion that their office needs to be involved, actively involved.”
Representatives from the New Orleans chapter of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and from Muhammad Mosque No. 46 also participated in the news conference. (AP)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Small cities enact curfews to curb gun violence
By Saeed Shabazz
Staff Writer
Updated Sep 4, 2008, 04:20 pm
(FinalCall.com) - In recent weeks, the cities of Hartford, Conn., and Helena-West Helena, Ark., have gotten attention because of curfews the small cities instituted because of spikes in gun violence.
‘We are struggling to get parents and guardians to understand that they must take control of their children .... The teens are getting caught up in the moment with the guns and the drugs.’—James F. Valley,Mayor of Helena-West Helena, Miss.
The 400-year-old city of Hartford, which is the state capital and the center of America’s insurance industry, enacted a 30-day curfew for teens under 18 without an adult present Aug. 11, after 10 people were wounded by gunfire.
The shootings occurred after the annual West Indian Day Parade, at 6:30 p.m. A 21-year-old was killed. A seven-year-old boy was shot in the head, a 15-month-old baby was wounded and bullets hit at least four teens.
“Let there be no doubt that this mayor will impose whatever measures necessary to keep the peace,” Mayor Eddie Perez told reporters at a press conference.
“The curfew was instituted after much thought was given to the issue and only as a last resort,” Sarah Barr, director of communications for the mayor told The Final Call. There hasn’t been a shooting incident since the curfew was established, she said. Anyone younger than 18 and on the streets after 9 p.m. is issued a citation. The Hartford police department said 150 people have been shot so far in 2008, compared to 95 for the same period in 2007.
The city of Helena-West Helena, located on the banks of the Mississippi River with a population of 15,012, instituted its curfew on Aug. 12 over a 10-block area, but expanded the curfew to all neighborhoods a week later.
“Senior citizens came to us complaining that they had to sleep on the floor to avoid being shot,” Mayor James F. Valley told The Final Call. Mayor Valley, a father of five whose oldest son is 17-years-old, said it was a measure of last resort.
The city of Helena-West Helena is one of the nation’s poorest, even worse then parts of the Appalachian region, according to the Associated Press.
Blacks are 66.63 percent of the population, with Whites at 31.85 percent, according to census figures. The median household income is $19,896 a year.
“We are struggling to get parents and guardians to understand that they must take control of their children,” Mayor Valley said.
The sight of police officers armed with military-style M-16 and M-4 rifles, however, raised the ire of the Arkansas American Civil Liberties Union, which has threatened to sue the city.
In an Aug. 20 e-mail statement, the Arkansas ACLU said it opposes “the unconstitutional policies and practices, including forcing innocent people into their homes; arresting citizens for walking on city streets; and ordering innocent people not to travel into or out of parts of certain areas.”
“We have talked with the ACLU. We’re not picking on anyone,” said Mayor Valley. An anti-racial profiling ordinance has been created, he said.
“The teens are getting caught up in the moment with the guns and the drugs,” Mayor Valley added. He also admitted there isn’t much for teens to do in the city. There is no movie theater, skating rink or recreation center. “We have established a Boys and Girls’ club and we have brought in counseling services, trying to change the environment,” said Mayor Valley.
Other problems include teen pregnancy, substandard schools and a plethora of single mothers raising their children, he added.
Naim Muhammad, student minister at Muhammad Mosque No. 14 in Hartford, believes the curfew may have an immediate positive effect. The curfew is a band-aid while substantive work needs to be done on serious problems like unemployment and poor performing schools, he said.
Businesses and gentrification are also coming back to Hartford, said Mr. Muhammad. He and other activists plan to sit down with the mayor when the curfew ends.
Related links:
We Must Pay Attention to the Rise of Gun Violence (FCN, 07-14-2008)
Boston police launch controversial gun search program (FCN, 01-28-2008)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Staff Writer
Updated Sep 4, 2008, 04:20 pm
(FinalCall.com) - In recent weeks, the cities of Hartford, Conn., and Helena-West Helena, Ark., have gotten attention because of curfews the small cities instituted because of spikes in gun violence.
‘We are struggling to get parents and guardians to understand that they must take control of their children .... The teens are getting caught up in the moment with the guns and the drugs.’—James F. Valley,Mayor of Helena-West Helena, Miss.
The 400-year-old city of Hartford, which is the state capital and the center of America’s insurance industry, enacted a 30-day curfew for teens under 18 without an adult present Aug. 11, after 10 people were wounded by gunfire.
The shootings occurred after the annual West Indian Day Parade, at 6:30 p.m. A 21-year-old was killed. A seven-year-old boy was shot in the head, a 15-month-old baby was wounded and bullets hit at least four teens.
“Let there be no doubt that this mayor will impose whatever measures necessary to keep the peace,” Mayor Eddie Perez told reporters at a press conference.
“The curfew was instituted after much thought was given to the issue and only as a last resort,” Sarah Barr, director of communications for the mayor told The Final Call. There hasn’t been a shooting incident since the curfew was established, she said. Anyone younger than 18 and on the streets after 9 p.m. is issued a citation. The Hartford police department said 150 people have been shot so far in 2008, compared to 95 for the same period in 2007.
The city of Helena-West Helena, located on the banks of the Mississippi River with a population of 15,012, instituted its curfew on Aug. 12 over a 10-block area, but expanded the curfew to all neighborhoods a week later.
“Senior citizens came to us complaining that they had to sleep on the floor to avoid being shot,” Mayor James F. Valley told The Final Call. Mayor Valley, a father of five whose oldest son is 17-years-old, said it was a measure of last resort.
The city of Helena-West Helena is one of the nation’s poorest, even worse then parts of the Appalachian region, according to the Associated Press.
Blacks are 66.63 percent of the population, with Whites at 31.85 percent, according to census figures. The median household income is $19,896 a year.
“We are struggling to get parents and guardians to understand that they must take control of their children,” Mayor Valley said.
The sight of police officers armed with military-style M-16 and M-4 rifles, however, raised the ire of the Arkansas American Civil Liberties Union, which has threatened to sue the city.
In an Aug. 20 e-mail statement, the Arkansas ACLU said it opposes “the unconstitutional policies and practices, including forcing innocent people into their homes; arresting citizens for walking on city streets; and ordering innocent people not to travel into or out of parts of certain areas.”
“We have talked with the ACLU. We’re not picking on anyone,” said Mayor Valley. An anti-racial profiling ordinance has been created, he said.
“The teens are getting caught up in the moment with the guns and the drugs,” Mayor Valley added. He also admitted there isn’t much for teens to do in the city. There is no movie theater, skating rink or recreation center. “We have established a Boys and Girls’ club and we have brought in counseling services, trying to change the environment,” said Mayor Valley.
Other problems include teen pregnancy, substandard schools and a plethora of single mothers raising their children, he added.
Naim Muhammad, student minister at Muhammad Mosque No. 14 in Hartford, believes the curfew may have an immediate positive effect. The curfew is a band-aid while substantive work needs to be done on serious problems like unemployment and poor performing schools, he said.
Businesses and gentrification are also coming back to Hartford, said Mr. Muhammad. He and other activists plan to sit down with the mayor when the curfew ends.
Related links:
We Must Pay Attention to the Rise of Gun Violence (FCN, 07-14-2008)
Boston police launch controversial gun search program (FCN, 01-28-2008)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
A Taser death stuns Birmingham, Alabama
By Jesse Muhammad
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 11:04 pm
(FinalCall.com) - “The police thought I was going to keep quiet but I’ve been raising hell. I want justice. They took my son’s life unjustly and it’s not a good feeling,” Corene Dixon told The Final Call in a phone interview.
The Aug. 19 interview came two weeks after she led a rally in Kelly Ingram Park to demand justice for her son, Willie Maye, whose death was caused by a Birmingham, Ala. police officer, according to the Jefferson County coroner.
For Ms. Dixon, the next moves are a lawsuit pending a final review from the District Attorney’s office and more protests to “keep the pressure on.”
Like a recent case in Winnfield, La., the Jefferson County coroner ruled Mr. Maye’s death a homicide. “He had a bad heart, but the adrenalin from fleeing from the police first, the scuffle, the bruises he sustained, the physical exertion, the Taser and the mace—all the ingredients together resulted in his death,” said Chief Deputy Coroner Pat Curry in the Birmingham News.
“I cry almost every day. I feel that the police are trying to cover this up like it was justifiable, but we are going to continue to fight,” said Ms. Dixon. “They beat him, sprayed him with mace and tased him to death. My son didn’t deserve this.”
According to a Birmingham police department report, Mr. Maye, who was Black, arrived at a checkpoint on June 5 near Hibernian Street. Officers reportedly smelled marijuana and said Mr. Maye did not have a driver’s license or proof of insurance.Police said Mr. Maye was asked to pull over but fled in the vehicle, prompting a police pursuit.
Officers said the car chase ended and Mr. Maye attempted escape on foot.A tussle began when officers tried to apprehend him and Mr. Maye was handcuffed, sprayed with mace and Tased, said the authorities. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital.
“These officers must now have their day in court and it must be done expeditiously so the family of Mr. Maye can have closure,” said Hezekiah Jackson IV, president of the Metro-Birmingham chapter of the NAACP, which took part in the rally.
The names and racial identity of the officers involved have remained unannounced, which Ms. Dixon said is to “avoid racial tension.”
“I’m not surprised they are not disclosing the identities of the officers. We as a people have been dealing with this type of injustice since the ’60s. Now things are starting to repeat themselves,” Mr. Jackson told The Final Call.
“He [Mr. Maye] was not driving the car, he was a passenger. We’ve got pictures of the bruises and dents in his body that show his body was still swollen when it got to the coroner’s office,” said Ms. Dixon.
Birmingham Police Chief A.C. Roper told ABC 33/40 news reporters, “The best thing that we can do is conduct a full and impartial investigation, turn those results over to other agencies, which we have done, and let them do their job.”
Legal action brewing
“I don’t care if he was smoking five marijuana sticks in his mouth,” family attorney Stewart Springer, said to ABC 33/40 news.“You don’t stop somebody and then beat them to death.”
“I’m not stating that all policemen are bad, but the ones that killed my son do not deserve to have a badge,” Ms. Dixon told to The Final Call.
Jefferson County District Attorney David Barber commented to ABC 33/40 news that his office is investigating to see whether the actions taken by the police were justifiable. District Attorney Barber did not say when the review should be complete.
The Birmingham City Council unanimously voted June 26 to suspend use of Tasers by police until the investigation into Mr. Maye’s death was complete. Their vote was overruled by Mayor Larry Langford.
Related link:
Taser death ruled a homicide, family wants justice (FCN, 08-12-2008)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Updated Sep 2, 2008, 11:04 pm
(FinalCall.com) - “The police thought I was going to keep quiet but I’ve been raising hell. I want justice. They took my son’s life unjustly and it’s not a good feeling,” Corene Dixon told The Final Call in a phone interview.
The Aug. 19 interview came two weeks after she led a rally in Kelly Ingram Park to demand justice for her son, Willie Maye, whose death was caused by a Birmingham, Ala. police officer, according to the Jefferson County coroner.
For Ms. Dixon, the next moves are a lawsuit pending a final review from the District Attorney’s office and more protests to “keep the pressure on.”
Like a recent case in Winnfield, La., the Jefferson County coroner ruled Mr. Maye’s death a homicide. “He had a bad heart, but the adrenalin from fleeing from the police first, the scuffle, the bruises he sustained, the physical exertion, the Taser and the mace—all the ingredients together resulted in his death,” said Chief Deputy Coroner Pat Curry in the Birmingham News.
“I cry almost every day. I feel that the police are trying to cover this up like it was justifiable, but we are going to continue to fight,” said Ms. Dixon. “They beat him, sprayed him with mace and tased him to death. My son didn’t deserve this.”
According to a Birmingham police department report, Mr. Maye, who was Black, arrived at a checkpoint on June 5 near Hibernian Street. Officers reportedly smelled marijuana and said Mr. Maye did not have a driver’s license or proof of insurance.Police said Mr. Maye was asked to pull over but fled in the vehicle, prompting a police pursuit.
Officers said the car chase ended and Mr. Maye attempted escape on foot.A tussle began when officers tried to apprehend him and Mr. Maye was handcuffed, sprayed with mace and Tased, said the authorities. He was pronounced dead at a local hospital.
“These officers must now have their day in court and it must be done expeditiously so the family of Mr. Maye can have closure,” said Hezekiah Jackson IV, president of the Metro-Birmingham chapter of the NAACP, which took part in the rally.
The names and racial identity of the officers involved have remained unannounced, which Ms. Dixon said is to “avoid racial tension.”
“I’m not surprised they are not disclosing the identities of the officers. We as a people have been dealing with this type of injustice since the ’60s. Now things are starting to repeat themselves,” Mr. Jackson told The Final Call.
“He [Mr. Maye] was not driving the car, he was a passenger. We’ve got pictures of the bruises and dents in his body that show his body was still swollen when it got to the coroner’s office,” said Ms. Dixon.
Birmingham Police Chief A.C. Roper told ABC 33/40 news reporters, “The best thing that we can do is conduct a full and impartial investigation, turn those results over to other agencies, which we have done, and let them do their job.”
Legal action brewing
“I don’t care if he was smoking five marijuana sticks in his mouth,” family attorney Stewart Springer, said to ABC 33/40 news.“You don’t stop somebody and then beat them to death.”
“I’m not stating that all policemen are bad, but the ones that killed my son do not deserve to have a badge,” Ms. Dixon told to The Final Call.
Jefferson County District Attorney David Barber commented to ABC 33/40 news that his office is investigating to see whether the actions taken by the police were justifiable. District Attorney Barber did not say when the review should be complete.
The Birmingham City Council unanimously voted June 26 to suspend use of Tasers by police until the investigation into Mr. Maye’s death was complete. Their vote was overruled by Mayor Larry Langford.
Related link:
Taser death ruled a homicide, family wants justice (FCN, 08-12-2008)
FCN is a distributor (and not a publisher) of content supplied by third parties. Original content supplied by FCN and FinalCall.com News is Copyright © 2008 FCN Publishing, FinalCall.com. Content supplied by third parties are the property of their respective owners.
Attacks, praise stretch truth at GOP convention
By JIM KUHNHENN,
Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.
Associated Press Writer
Wed Sep 3, 11:48 PM ET
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her Republican supporters held back little Wednesday as they issued dismissive attacks on Barack Obama and flattering praise on her credentials to be vice president. In some cases, the reproach and the praise stretched the truth.
Some examples:
PALIN: "I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere."
THE FACTS: As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a lobbyist and traveled to Washington annually to support earmarks for the town totaling $27 million. In her two years as governor, Alaska has requested nearly $750 million in special federal spending, by far the largest per-capita request in the nation. While Palin notes she rejected plans to build a $398 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport, that opposition came only after the plan was ridiculed nationally as a "bridge to nowhere."
PALIN: "There is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform — not even in the state senate."
THE FACTS: Compared to McCain and his two decades in the Senate, Obama does have a more meager record. But he has worked with Republicans to pass legislation that expanded efforts to intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction and to help destroy conventional weapons stockpiles. The legislation became law last year. To demean that accomplishment would be to also demean the work of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, a respected foreign policy voice in the Senate. In Illinois, he was the leader on two big, contentious measures in Illinois: studying racial profiling by police and requiring recordings of interrogations in potential death penalty cases. He also successfully co-sponsored major ethics reform legislation.
PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."
THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.
Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.
He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.
MCCAIN: "She's been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply ... She's responsible for 20 percent of the nation's energy supply. I'm entertained by the comparison and I hope we can keep making that comparison that running a political campaign is somehow comparable to being the executive of the largest state in America," he said in an interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson.
THE FACTS: McCain's phrasing exaggerates both claims. Palin is governor of a state that ranks second nationally in crude oil production, but she's no more "responsible" for that resource than President Bush was when he was governor of Texas, another oil-producing state. In fact, her primary power is the ability to tax oil, which she did in concert with the Alaska Legislature. And where Alaska is the largest state in America, McCain could as easily have called it the 47th largest state — by population.
MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.
THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.
FORMER ARKANSAS GOV. MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States."
THE FACTS: A whopper. Palin got 616 votes in the 1996 mayor's election, and got 909 in her 1999 re-election race, for a total of 1,525. Biden dropped out of the race after the Iowa caucuses, but he still got 76,165 votes in 23 states and the District of Columbia where he was on the ballot during the 2008 presidential primaries.
FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."
THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.
___
Associated Press Writer Jim Drinkard in Washington contributed to this report.
Why We Were Falsely Arrested
Amy Goodman
Truthdig
September 4, 2008
St. Paul, Minnesota - Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, “Democracy Now!” producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.
The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements-for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.
It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.
There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.
Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, “Get down on your face.” You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing “Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?” She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole’s screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.
I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.
Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.
The attack on and arrest of me and the “Democracy Now!” producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, “By embedding reporters in our mobile field force.”
On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It’s all in a day’s work.
Truthdig
September 4, 2008
St. Paul, Minnesota - Government crackdowns on journalists are a true threat to democracy. As the Republican National Convention meets in St. Paul, Minn., this week, police are systematically targeting journalists. I was arrested with my two colleagues, “Democracy Now!” producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar, while reporting on the first day of the RNC. I have been wrongly charged with a misdemeanor. My co-workers, who were simply reporting, may be charged with felony riot.
The Democratic and Republican national conventions have become very expensive and protracted acts of political theater, essentially four-day-long advertisements for the major presidential candidates. Outside the fences, they have become major gatherings for grass-roots movements-for people to come, amidst the banners, bunting, flags and confetti, to express the rights enumerated in the Constitution’s First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Behind all the patriotic hyperbole that accompanies the conventions, and the thousands of journalists and media workers who arrive to cover the staged events, there are serious violations of the basic right of freedom of the press. Here on the streets of St. Paul, the press is free to report on the official proceedings of the RNC, but not to report on the police violence and mass arrests directed at those who have come to petition their government, to protest.
It was Labor Day, and there was an anti-war march, with a huge turnout, with local families, students, veterans and people from around the country gathered to oppose the war. The protesters greatly outnumbered the Republican delegates.
There was a positive, festive feeling, coupled with a growing anxiety about the course that Hurricane Gustav was taking, and whether New Orleans would be devastated anew. Later in the day, there was a splinter march. The police-clad in full body armor, with helmets, face shields, batons and canisters of pepper spray-charged. They forced marchers, onlookers and working journalists into a nearby parking lot, then surrounded the people and began handcuffing them.
Nicole was videotaping. Her tape of her own violent arrest is chilling. Police in riot gear charged her, yelling, “Get down on your face.” You hear her voice, clearly and repeatedly announcing “Press! Press! Where are we supposed to go?” She was trapped between parked cars. The camera drops to the pavement amidst Nicole’s screams of pain. Her face was smashed into the pavement, and she was bleeding from the nose, with the heavy officer with a boot or knee on her back. Another officer was pulling on her leg. Sharif was thrown up against the wall and kicked in the chest, and he was bleeding from his arm.
I was at the Xcel Center on the convention floor, interviewing delegates. I had just made it to the Minnesota delegation when I got a call on my cell phone with news that Sharif and Nicole were being bloody arrested, in every sense. Filmmaker Rick Rowley of Big Noise Films and I raced on foot to the scene. Out of breath, we arrived at the parking lot. I went up to the line of riot police and asked to speak to a commanding officer, saying that they had arrested accredited journalists.
Within seconds, they grabbed me, pulled me behind the police line and forcibly twisted my arms behind my back and handcuffed me, the rigid plastic cuffs digging into my wrists. I saw Sharif, his arm bloody, his credentials hanging from his neck. I repeated we were accredited journalists, whereupon a Secret Service agent came over and ripped my convention credential from my neck. I was taken to the St. Paul police garage where cages were set up for protesters. I was charged with obstruction of a peace officer. Nicole and Sharif were taken to jail, facing riot charges.
The attack on and arrest of me and the “Democracy Now!” producers was not an isolated event. A video group called I-Witness Video was raided two days earlier. Another video documentary group, the Glass Bead Collective, was detained, with its computers and video cameras confiscated. On Wednesday, I-Witness Video was again raided, forced out of its office location. When I asked St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington how reporters are to operate in this atmosphere, he suggested, “By embedding reporters in our mobile field force.”
On Monday night, hours after we were arrested, after much public outcry, Nicole, Sharif and I were released. That was our Labor Day. It’s all in a day’s work.
Economy yet to dominate Republican convention
20 hours ago
ST PAUL, Minnesota (AFP) — The economy may be the number one issue in the White House race, but the Republican National Convention has yet to dwell on the troubles of Americans trying to make ends meet.
Vice-presidential pick Sarah Palin and party stalwarts Wednesday argued Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would swamp hopes of growth by dumping a massive tax burden on the slowing US economy.
"Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them," said Palin, governor of resource-rich Alaska who Republicans say introduced trailblazing reforms which busted corruption in her home state.
"His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan -- raise income taxes, payroll taxes, investment income taxes, the death tax, business taxes, the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars," she said.
With oil prices still high, the US economy is sputtering amid a weak housing market, squeezed credit and lackluster consumer spending, while inflation pressures are high, the Federal Reserve said in a report Wednesday.
While much of the convention rhetoric focused on patriotism and attacking Obama, Mitt Romney -- a multi-millionaire former chief executive and ex-Massachusetts governor -- reminded delegates about the economic slowdown this year but did not set out a policy prescription.
"Mortgage money was handed out like candy, speculators bought homes for free -- when this mortgage mania finally broke, it slammed the economy. And stratospheric gas prices made things even worse," he said.
Romney then said the US economy was "under attack," blaming China for "acting like Adam Smith on steroids, buying oil from the world's worst, and selling nuclear technology."
Russia and the oil states were also not spared.
They are "siphoning more than 500 billion dollars a year from us in what could become the greatest transfer of economic wealth in history," Romney said.
In an immediate response, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs said the Republicans did not say what they planned to do to better the economy.
The Obama campaign has accused Republican President George W. Bush's administration of creating the economic crisis, saying the party's White House prospect John McCain lacked the necessary skills to grapple with it.
McCain doesn't know "how to fix the economy or the foreign policy or the direction the country's going," Gibbs said.
The struggles of the US economy could give a boost to Obama over John McCain in the November election, according to a study released Wednesday.
The report by Moody's Economy.com suggests Obama is likely to carry 33 states plus the District of Columbia, for a total of 388 electoral college votes -- well above the 270 electoral votes needed to win.
"With inflation high and the labor market getting worse, economic conditions still favor the Democratic candidate," Augustine Faucher, director of macroeconomics at Economy.com.
"The highest inflation rate since 1991 and increasing unemployment rates in most states are creating a difficult environment for the incumbent Republicans and their nominee, Senator John McCain."
But former Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee went out of his way to sympathize with Americans suffering from the weak economy and insisted that the party could make amends.
"When gasoline costs four dollars a gallon, it makes it tough if you're a single mom to get to your job each day in the used car you drive. You want something to change," he said.
"If you're a flight attendant or baggage handler and you're asked to take a pay cut to keep your job, you want something to change.
"If you're a young couple losing your house, your credit rating, and your American dream, you want something to change," said Huckabee, who enjoys support from conservative Christian voters who disdained McCain.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
How Dumbed Down Is America???
After viewing the above clip, I was left at a loss for words. View it for yourselves and you'll see what I'm talking about. Tabloid trash is news and the public just gobbles it up. In the meantime, the problems of America remain ignored and unchecked.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Changeless Change: The Law of Politics
[col. writ. 4/5/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
True change doesn't come through the ballot box -- even though we're all taught that it does. For voting was instituted to insure stability, not change.
I know this may seem somewhat sacrilegious to many entranced during this current political season, for it certainly looks like change.
But if we look deeper, we see how the very process itself -- the campaign -- is an exercise in conformity. People come to political campaigns to reassure themselves that their politicians won't bring too much change.
In essence, our political campaigns are little more than slick popularity contests: who looks best? Who makes me feel most comfortable? Who would I like to have a brew with?
John Kerry lost in 2004 not only because large parts of Ohio were stolen, nor that he was successfully swift-boated by lies about his tour in Vietnam; he lost because his opponents launched a stealth campaign against him branding him as an intellectual, an egghead with advanced degrees who even spoke French!
Americans, especially in this age of anti-intellectualism, aren't comfortable with eggheads. So, they comfortably 'elected' a blockhead.
Therein lies the current contrast between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- not race nor gender -- but popularity.
At bottom, our politics is 95% beauty contest.
On issues, the two are almost inseparable.
And truth be told (despite right wing propaganda to the contrary) neither are actually liberals; both are neo liberals, who are, at heart, globalists of the NAFTA type.
Neither wants to repeal NAFTA -- they want to "re-negotiate" it (not really surprising considering that both are also lawyers.).
They are vying for who will become Chief Manager of the Empire, after the Bush wrecking crew is done.
Neither are anti-imperialists -- they just want better, smarter management of it; empire, with a smile.
(John McCain promises he won't smile)
How could it be otherwise with the almost obscene amounts of money in play? How could it be other than this with the hundreds of millions of dollars that have sloshed through all of the presidential campaigns, most of it for media ad buys?
That doesn't mean that people aren't interested, or even desperate for change. But what kind of change will they get?
When's the last time you've heard any presidential candidate mention the words imperialism, poor people, or -- heavens forfend! -- capitalism? If they mention capitalism, it's almost like a religion that needs defending -- for no "viable" candidate criticizes capitalism. For, like a religion, it must be believed in.
Just like politicians are believed in, until they inevitably betray those who voted for them.
Who do you think they ultimately owe their loyalty to; those who voted for them? Or those who gave them millions of dollars to run?
--(c) '08 maj
True change doesn't come through the ballot box -- even though we're all taught that it does. For voting was instituted to insure stability, not change.
I know this may seem somewhat sacrilegious to many entranced during this current political season, for it certainly looks like change.
But if we look deeper, we see how the very process itself -- the campaign -- is an exercise in conformity. People come to political campaigns to reassure themselves that their politicians won't bring too much change.
In essence, our political campaigns are little more than slick popularity contests: who looks best? Who makes me feel most comfortable? Who would I like to have a brew with?
John Kerry lost in 2004 not only because large parts of Ohio were stolen, nor that he was successfully swift-boated by lies about his tour in Vietnam; he lost because his opponents launched a stealth campaign against him branding him as an intellectual, an egghead with advanced degrees who even spoke French!
Americans, especially in this age of anti-intellectualism, aren't comfortable with eggheads. So, they comfortably 'elected' a blockhead.
Therein lies the current contrast between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton -- not race nor gender -- but popularity.
At bottom, our politics is 95% beauty contest.
On issues, the two are almost inseparable.
And truth be told (despite right wing propaganda to the contrary) neither are actually liberals; both are neo liberals, who are, at heart, globalists of the NAFTA type.
Neither wants to repeal NAFTA -- they want to "re-negotiate" it (not really surprising considering that both are also lawyers.).
They are vying for who will become Chief Manager of the Empire, after the Bush wrecking crew is done.
Neither are anti-imperialists -- they just want better, smarter management of it; empire, with a smile.
(John McCain promises he won't smile)
How could it be otherwise with the almost obscene amounts of money in play? How could it be other than this with the hundreds of millions of dollars that have sloshed through all of the presidential campaigns, most of it for media ad buys?
That doesn't mean that people aren't interested, or even desperate for change. But what kind of change will they get?
When's the last time you've heard any presidential candidate mention the words imperialism, poor people, or -- heavens forfend! -- capitalism? If they mention capitalism, it's almost like a religion that needs defending -- for no "viable" candidate criticizes capitalism. For, like a religion, it must be believed in.
Just like politicians are believed in, until they inevitably betray those who voted for them.
Who do you think they ultimately owe their loyalty to; those who voted for them? Or those who gave them millions of dollars to run?
--(c) '08 maj
When Courts Go Wrong
[col. writ. 4/5/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
We're often surprised when courts get it wrong, but why?
It's because we expect them to get it right -- and therein lies the surprise.
For, if history is any judge, we should all be surprised when they get it right. For courts are political institutions, and politics is rarely about right or wrong: it's about power. As in who has it; and who doesn't.
Courts were set up to protect the wealth and property of the powerful, not the powerless; and any honest reading of legal history leads one back to that conclusion.
Here in this country courts were places for slavemasters, not slaves, and the words of a "justice" of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Thomas Ruffin, are instructive as he illustrates what underpins the law of 1829: The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect... As a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it. But in the actual condition of things it must be so." *
Most of us have heard of the infamous Dred Scott (1857) case, but how many of us know that a generation before Dred was decided, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion said essentially the same things? In Hobbs v. Fogg (1837) the state's highest court ruled that Blacks were not party to the Constitution, and therefore couldn't vote.
And although Dred Scott became a cause for war, by war's end, it was the courts, in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that upheld racial segregation, discrimination and oppression against Black people - even in stark violation of the words in the Constitution.
We like to think of this as ancient history; then - not now. But these are the very foundation stones upon which America was built.
My father was born one year after Plessy was decided, and he lived almost all of his life under its cruel restrictions.
The law has only moved when people organized to make it so. As that great abolitionist, freedom-fighter, and rabble-rouser, Frederick Douglass has taught, "Power concedes nothing without demand...It never has--and never will....."
Social movements in the streets brought an end to Plessy, not lawsuits. People, organized, shook the status quo, not neat words typed on crisp white paper.
When people organize, they make change.
(c) '08 maj
[*Source: Aptheker, Herbert, American Negro Slave Revolts (New York: International Publ., 1943 {197}, p.66]
We're often surprised when courts get it wrong, but why?
It's because we expect them to get it right -- and therein lies the surprise.
For, if history is any judge, we should all be surprised when they get it right. For courts are political institutions, and politics is rarely about right or wrong: it's about power. As in who has it; and who doesn't.
Courts were set up to protect the wealth and property of the powerful, not the powerless; and any honest reading of legal history leads one back to that conclusion.
Here in this country courts were places for slavemasters, not slaves, and the words of a "justice" of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Thomas Ruffin, are instructive as he illustrates what underpins the law of 1829: The power of the master must be absolute, to render the submission of the slave perfect... As a principle of moral right, every person in his retirement must repudiate it. But in the actual condition of things it must be so." *
Most of us have heard of the infamous Dred Scott (1857) case, but how many of us know that a generation before Dred was decided, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion said essentially the same things? In Hobbs v. Fogg (1837) the state's highest court ruled that Blacks were not party to the Constitution, and therefore couldn't vote.
And although Dred Scott became a cause for war, by war's end, it was the courts, in cases like Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that upheld racial segregation, discrimination and oppression against Black people - even in stark violation of the words in the Constitution.
We like to think of this as ancient history; then - not now. But these are the very foundation stones upon which America was built.
My father was born one year after Plessy was decided, and he lived almost all of his life under its cruel restrictions.
The law has only moved when people organized to make it so. As that great abolitionist, freedom-fighter, and rabble-rouser, Frederick Douglass has taught, "Power concedes nothing without demand...It never has--and never will....."
Social movements in the streets brought an end to Plessy, not lawsuits. People, organized, shook the status quo, not neat words typed on crisp white paper.
When people organize, they make change.
(c) '08 maj
[*Source: Aptheker, Herbert, American Negro Slave Revolts (New York: International Publ., 1943 {197}, p.66]
America's Political Prisoners
For those of you who care, please take out the time to send our brother some light, love and encouragement. I'll add other names and addresses as I get them.
=======
Sundiata Acoli
#39794-066(Squire)
P.O. Box 1000
FCI Otisville
Otisville, NY 10963-1000
=======
Mumia Abu-Jamal
AM 8335
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
=======
Veronza Bowers, Jr.
#35316-136
FCC, Medium C-1
P.O. Box 1032
Coleman, FL 33521-1032
=======
Sundiata Acoli
#39794-066(Squire)
P.O. Box 1000
FCI Otisville
Otisville, NY 10963-1000
=======
Mumia Abu-Jamal
AM 8335
SCI-Greene
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
=======
Veronza Bowers, Jr.
#35316-136
FCC, Medium C-1
P.O. Box 1032
Coleman, FL 33521-1032
Obama - Biden? Change? Not So Much
[col. writ. 8/23/08] (c) '08 Mumia Abu-Jamal
The choice of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the Vice Presidential pick of Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL) and his presidential campaign challenges the central theme of the run, and suggests that the constant critique of inexperience is finding its target.
For, no other analysis makes sense.
Biden is a likable guy, but his past presidential runs have had all the oomph of a ham sandwich. He has been a Washington insider for several generations!
He hails from the tiny state of Delaware -- with perhaps 3 electoral votes. As a state that has been safely in the Democratic column since 1992, it brings Obama no more that he needs to corral the electoral votes required to prevail.
Also, Biden, for all of his vaunted foreign policy experience, voted for the Iraq War, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If Obama's star has risen because of his anti-Iraq War rhetoric, how does it help to choose a neo liberal hawk as his number two?
More to the point, Biden doesn't close Obama's perilous Hillary-gap, that of white women amped about the opportunity to make history. That's why I wrongly suspected he'd select Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, to give added oomph to the campaign of change.
But, in opting for Biden, Obama chooses not too much change (or more change than many Americans are able to tolerate).
For Biden is as much a part of the Washington establishment as the Washington monument.
Biden is a central character in the so-called Washington consensus, the brain trust that found Iraq war acceptable, that supported globalization, that lives off of the cream of corporate largess, while the average person lives a life of quiet desperation, in the hung for rent, for food, gas, for a better education.
Change has never seemed so much the same.
--(c) '08 maj
The choice of Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden as the Vice Presidential pick of Sen. Barack Obama (D.IL) and his presidential campaign challenges the central theme of the run, and suggests that the constant critique of inexperience is finding its target.
For, no other analysis makes sense.
Biden is a likable guy, but his past presidential runs have had all the oomph of a ham sandwich. He has been a Washington insider for several generations!
He hails from the tiny state of Delaware -- with perhaps 3 electoral votes. As a state that has been safely in the Democratic column since 1992, it brings Obama no more that he needs to corral the electoral votes required to prevail.
Also, Biden, for all of his vaunted foreign policy experience, voted for the Iraq War, despite all the evidence to the contrary. If Obama's star has risen because of his anti-Iraq War rhetoric, how does it help to choose a neo liberal hawk as his number two?
More to the point, Biden doesn't close Obama's perilous Hillary-gap, that of white women amped about the opportunity to make history. That's why I wrongly suspected he'd select Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas, to give added oomph to the campaign of change.
But, in opting for Biden, Obama chooses not too much change (or more change than many Americans are able to tolerate).
For Biden is as much a part of the Washington establishment as the Washington monument.
Biden is a central character in the so-called Washington consensus, the brain trust that found Iraq war acceptable, that supported globalization, that lives off of the cream of corporate largess, while the average person lives a life of quiet desperation, in the hung for rent, for food, gas, for a better education.
Change has never seemed so much the same.
--(c) '08 maj
LONG LIVE BROTHER BASHIR HAMID! LONG LIVE REVOLUTION!
It is with great sadness that we join the different organizations that have paid tribute to Brother Bashir Hameed who made his transition this past Saturday night, August 29th. Some of us first met Bashir in these last months of his life and were moved by his spiritual strength, intellectual clarity, and love for his family and people. We had hoped that the video that Bashir so wanted to do would be approved by the Department of Corrections before he passed, but that was not to happen.
Bashir's history as a militant activist in the Black Panther Party parallels so many of the other histories of our political prisoners of African descent. Born in New Jersey, after confronting the racism of the colleges he attended and that of the US Army, he moved to the Bay Area and in his own words "fell in love with the Black Panther Party". Later, he was sent back to New Jersey to try to rebuild the BPP which had already been decimated by the US government and local police. Within two years, he was either in jail or facing imprisonment for up to 20 years, all for doing regular BPP work, distribution of the party newspaper, the breakfast program, and political education. He ended up spending four years in Trenton State Prison and upon release was immediately again targeted. The Queens 2 case, which included Abdul Majid and himself, involved the alleged killing of two policemen in Queens. Their first trial ended in a hung jury, the second was declared a mistrial with 8 to 4 for "not guilty", and the last involved very questionable witnesses and finally led to the conviction the state wanted, and a sentence of 30+ years to life, with the recommendation that Bashir and Abdul never be paroled.
We say to Bashir's family, to his wife, and to all those who loved and admired him, that Bashir will not be forgotten. Just this past Sunday, at the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement hip hop concert, hundreds of young people learned about who Bashir is, were very moved by Brother Dhoruba's tribute to him, and cheered with great respect as each hip hop artist began his/her performance with an individual dedication to Bashir. Would that Bashir had heard this in his lifetime, but he knew he would be remembered, and showed that confidence in his last days.
Revolutionaries never die! We extend our condolences to Bashir's devoted mother, Mrs. York, to his son, his sister, his niece (who became a doctor with the encouragement and prodding of her incarcerated uncle and who monitored his medical care in the last years of his life when he faced several serious medical conditions), and to his wife, Florence, who left her home in Texas to spend these last months by her husband's side.
In loving revolutionary memory,
International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal
Bashir's history as a militant activist in the Black Panther Party parallels so many of the other histories of our political prisoners of African descent. Born in New Jersey, after confronting the racism of the colleges he attended and that of the US Army, he moved to the Bay Area and in his own words "fell in love with the Black Panther Party". Later, he was sent back to New Jersey to try to rebuild the BPP which had already been decimated by the US government and local police. Within two years, he was either in jail or facing imprisonment for up to 20 years, all for doing regular BPP work, distribution of the party newspaper, the breakfast program, and political education. He ended up spending four years in Trenton State Prison and upon release was immediately again targeted. The Queens 2 case, which included Abdul Majid and himself, involved the alleged killing of two policemen in Queens. Their first trial ended in a hung jury, the second was declared a mistrial with 8 to 4 for "not guilty", and the last involved very questionable witnesses and finally led to the conviction the state wanted, and a sentence of 30+ years to life, with the recommendation that Bashir and Abdul never be paroled.
We say to Bashir's family, to his wife, and to all those who loved and admired him, that Bashir will not be forgotten. Just this past Sunday, at the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement hip hop concert, hundreds of young people learned about who Bashir is, were very moved by Brother Dhoruba's tribute to him, and cheered with great respect as each hip hop artist began his/her performance with an individual dedication to Bashir. Would that Bashir had heard this in his lifetime, but he knew he would be remembered, and showed that confidence in his last days.
Revolutionaries never die! We extend our condolences to Bashir's devoted mother, Mrs. York, to his son, his sister, his niece (who became a doctor with the encouragement and prodding of her incarcerated uncle and who monitored his medical care in the last years of his life when he faced several serious medical conditions), and to his wife, Florence, who left her home in Texas to spend these last months by her husband's side.
In loving revolutionary memory,
International Concerned Family and Friends of Mumia Abu-Jamal