The politics of greed is what keeps this world wrapped in corruption. If you want to stick around for a while longer, I suggest you educate yourself and try to do something constructive to help save what little good, honesty, and trust we have left.

A motto for us old vets: Take one with you!

Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.

Go to Home

Highest Go To numbers are the latest Links.

Go to 5547
http://newswithviews.com/Cuddy/dennis19.htm
RICHARD ARMITAGE AND THE ISI

By Dennis L. Cuddy, Ph.D.
November 30, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

On November 17, 2004, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage indicated he would be leaving that job. The average American is probably aware of little if anything about this important power player in international affairs, but his activities have been of considerable significance.

For years, Richard Armitage worked for the CIA and DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency). He also holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that a foreigner can receive, and he has many friends in Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI, Inter-Services Intelligence).

Why would an American government official become so involved with Pakistan? For one thing, most CIA covert operations in that part of the world have been run through the ISI. Also, Pakistan is geopolitically important in obtaining oil from the Caspian region where Kazakhstan is located. Armitage (whose business clients have included Halliburton's Brown & Root division, Boeing, Goldman Sachs and Chase Manhattan) and Dick Cheney in the 1990s had business or consulting interests in the Caspian region (Cheney has been CEO of Halliburton and on the Kazakhstan Oil Advisory Board), and in 1997 Armitage was contacted by the oil and gas giant UNOCAL to work for its Central Asia pipeline interests. Armitage also co-authored the July 2000 report of The Commission on America's National Interests, which described the need for obtaining oil from the Caspian region. The recalcitrant Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, however, were standing in the way of moving the oil and gas from that region to Pakistan, the U.S., and elsewhere.

Relevant to this, in 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski (first director of the Trilateral Commission) wrote THE GRAND CHESSBOARD, referring several times to "ruling national elites," and describing the importance of a pipeline from the Caspian region to the Arabian Sea via Afghanistan. He explained: "America is now Eurasia's arbiter....How the United States both manipulates and manages Eurasia's key geopolitical pivots will be critical to the longevity and stability of America's global primacy....A possible challenge to American primacy from Islamic fundamentalism could be part of the problem in this unstable region...and would be likely to express itself through diffuse violence." And concerning American power, he continued: "The pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being....America may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." Like the terrorist attack of 9-11, or the claim that Saddam Hussein had WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)?

Digressing briefly, in 1952 the World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government developed a map showing what nations' military forces would be policing other nations when the world government became a reality. According to the map, American forces would be policing the Caspian region (Kazakhstan, etc.), and on September 14, 1997 American military forces did indeed begin conducting joint military exercises there, where the U.S. now has military bases.

The rumor now is that Richard Armitage will be replaced as Deputy Secretary of State by John Bolton, both of whom (along with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and others) have been members of PNAC (Project for the New American Century), which University of Pennsylvania Professor Ian Lustick on ABC's "Nightline" (March 5, 2003) said was in "control, now, of the White House." On January 26, 1998, Armitage, Bolton, Wolfowitz et al signed a PNAC letter to President Bill Clinton advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein.


And after the terrorists attacks of 9-11, on September 15, 2001 at Camp David, Wolfowitz argued for attacking Iraq, with THE LONDON TIMES (August 29, 2002) reporting that Wolfowitz "argued that September 11 provided a perfect pretext to hit Baghdad."

Returning now to the Armitage-ISI connection, in May 2001 Armitage and CIA director George Tenet had an unusually long meeting in Islamabad, Pakistan with the head of the ISI, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, and with Pakistan's chief executive Gen. Pervez Musharraf. A few weeks later, in mid-July 2001 in Berlin at a U.N.-sponsored international contact group meeting on Afghanistan, U.S. representatives told Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik that the Taliban must submit to U.S. demands regarding Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda or face military action. The Taliban was actually a creation of the ISI.

On September 10, 2001 at the same time Armitage was meeting with Sir David Manning (national security adviser to Tony Blair, British Prime Minister and a vice-president of Socialist International), the Pakistan daily newspaper THE NEWS reported that Gen. Ahmad was in Washington, and had been meeting some top officials at the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSC (National Security Council). Was it a coincidence that on this same day, some top Pentagon officials suddenly cancelled their travel plans for the next morning (9-11) apparently because of security concerns? What did Gen. Ahmad tell some top Pentagon officials before September 11, and did it have anything to do with the fact that Gen. Ahmad previously had Saeed Sheikh (convicted on July 15, 2002 of kidnapping and killing WALL STREET JOURNAL reporter Daniel Pearl) wire $100,000 to 9-11 terrorist leader Mohammed Atta?

As the attacks of 9-11 unfolded, Gen. Ahmad was having breakfast with Porter Goss (a member of Yale University's secret Book & Snake society), who would be named late in 2004 by President George W. Bush (a member of Yale's secret Skull & Bones society) as the new head of the CIA, reportedly having previously been a member of its infamous "Operation Forty" team. And the afternoon of 9-11, as well as on September 12 and 13, Ahmad met with Richard Armitage.

Looking more closely at Saeed Sheikh (who studied for some time at the Fabian Socialists' London School of Economics), on February 5, 2002 Sheikh voluntarily surrendered to Pakistani authorities who wanted to take him into custody for the kidnapping and killing of Daniel Pearl. Sheikh reportedly was taken to Rawalpindi (where Gen. Ahmad is now living in seclusion), where Ahmad ally Gen. Mohammed Aziz Khan has lived. Khan has been with the ISI and is now head of Pakistan leader Gen. Musharraf's Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Khan also hosted parties where Sheikh was frequently in attendance before October 8, 2000. The reason Sheikh was taken to Rawalpindi reportedly was so that Gen. Khan could convince Sheikh not to reveal the ISI-bin Laden connection. Gen. Khan had helped Osama bin Laden get dialysis treatment and helped the Taliban and Al Qaeda relocate in safe sanctuaries in Pakistan after the U.S. attacked the Taliban.

Have you ever wondered why Sheikh was not charged for his alleged involvement in the attacks of 9-11, and why the U.S. did not request his extradition for the murder of Daniel Pearl who was investigating the ISI-Al Qaeda connection? Could it be because Sheikh would have exposed the link between Gen. Musharraf, the ISI and bin Laden? On November 27, 2004 Gen. Musharraf's military spokesman, Major-General Shaukat Sultan, announced that they were pulling Pakistani forces who had been searching for Osama bin Laden and other members of Al Qaeda away from checkpoints and some other positions along the border with Afghanistan, and they would no longer be searching specifically for them there.

In the Spring of this year, I wrote that there could be a surprise from Osama bin Laden before the election here, and sure enough, shortly before the November vote he released a videotape warning the U.S. that "Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security." But the warning is illogical (e.g., Al Qaeda does make decisions that effect our security, and individual states do not decide to take or not take action against Al Qaeda), unless it was a coded message. Perhaps Osama was signaling his agents in various U.S. states to wait until after the election, and regardless of who won, they should not wait for a directive from bin Laden himself before striking at a previously determined place, time, or occasion.

There are certain things the power elite simply do not want the people to know. First of all, they would prefer the public was unaware of their existence, but the fact that there is a power elite is explained in Prof. Suzanne Keller's BEYOND THE RULING CLASS: STRATEGIC ELITES IN MODERN SOCIETY (1963): "The notion of a stratum elevated above the mass of men may prompt approval, indifference, or despair, but regardless of how men feel about it, the fact remains that their lives, fortunes, and fate are and have long been dependent on what a small number of men in high places think and do."

And the attitude of the power elite has been revealed by today's Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said: "My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it....People need somebody to watch over them....Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave." (U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, November 26, 1990) Of course, in order to tell people "what to do and how to behave," the power elite will have to be able to keep track of us. In this regard, WorldNetDaily on October 7, 2004 published "Feds plan to track every car" about a report concerning the federal Intelligent Transportation Systems Joint Program Office's plan to use Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology to track every movement of every vehicle in the country. "Onboard units" will be in the first model vehicles by Spring 2005, and by 2015 they will be in 57 million vehicles. Then, on October 13, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an implantable computer chip for hospital patients containing their medical details. And most recently, THE LONDON TIMES (November 24, 2004) reported that British Prime Minister Tony Blair has backed compulsory ID cards (for public service health care, passports, etc.) for everyone in Britain by 2010-2012.

At this point, you may say that Americans would never submit to a national ID card, but then would you have ever thought Americans would allow the U.S. Senate to say that parents do not have to give their permission before their children receive a mental health screening? On November 20, 2004 Congress passed the omnibus spending bill, but rejected Rep. Ron Paul's amendment, which stated: "None of the funds available for State Incentive Grants for Transformation should be used for any programs of mandatory or universal mental-health screening that performs mental-health screening on anyone under 18 years of age without the express, written permission of the parents or legal guardians of each individual involved." Although the U.S. House leadership supported Rep. Paul's language, the Senators on the conference committee objected. Kent Snyder, executive director of the Liberty Committee (founded by Rep. Paul), declared: " We believe the drug companies and psychiatric establishment convinced Senators Arlen Specter and Bill Frist to block it." It is a truly sad day when the U.S. Senate does not support parental rights when it comes to something as far-reaching and psychologically invasive as the "mandatory or universal mental-health screening" of their children!


Go to 5546
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/feith/feith.php
Double-agents in High Places: The Pentagon's Douglas Feith
Check out this bio. Click Doug Feith's pic (above) and see who's running the psy-ops on Today's Media. & then ask yerself: WHY (do we let dual- agents serve as government officials on We The People's dime?)

Isn't it incredible: that We The People must pony up to support an undersecretary of Defense who is not only a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, but, by the sum-total analysis of it, a paid agent of Israel?


Douglas Feith
Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
Center for Security Policy: Former chair
Middle East Forum: Study member

Highlights & Quotes

Feith served as the number three civilian in the George W. Bush administration's Defense Department, under Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. Undersecretary for Policy Feith had previously served in the Reagan administration, starting off as Middle East specialist at the National Security Council (1981-82) and then transferring to the Defense Department where he spent two years as staff lawyer for Assistant Defense Secretary Richard Perle. In 1984 Feith advanced to become Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy. Feith and Perle were among the leading advocates of a policy to build closer U.S. military and diplomatic ties with Turkey and to increase the military ties between Turkey and Israel. (21)

Feith left DOD in mid-1986 to found the Feith & Zell law firm, based initially in Israel, whose clients included major military contractor Northrup Grumman. In 1989 Feith established another company, International Advisors, Inc., which provided lobbying services to foreign clients including Turkey.

Feith's private business dealings raised eyebrows in Washington. In 1999, his firm Feith & Zell formed an alliance with the Israel-based Zell, Goldberg & Co., which resulted in the creation of the Fandz International Law Group. According to Fandz's web site, the law group "has recently established a task force dealing with issues and opportunities relating to the recently ended war with Iraq.and is assisting regional construction and logistics firms to collaborate with contractors from the United States and other coalition countries in implementing infrastructure and other reconstruction projects in Iraq." Remarked Washington Post columnist Al Kamen, "Interested parties can reach [Fandz] through its Web site, at www.fandz.com. Fandz.com? Hmmm. Rings a bell. Oh, yes, that was the Web site of the Washington law firm of Feith & Zell, P.C., as in Douglas Feith [the] undersecretary of defense for policy and head of-what else?-reconstruction matters in Iraq. It would be impossible indeed to overestimate how perfect ZGC would be in 'assisting American companies in their relations with the United States government in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects'." (9) (15)


Go to 5545
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/233685e6-4277-11d9-8e3c-00000e2511c8.html
Brics provide a solid foundation for US investors
By Stephen Schurr
Published: November 30 2004
Every few decades, a seismic shift occurs in the world economy that has far-reaching implications . . . therise of the four largest emerging economies, the Brics - Brazil, Russia, India and China - could be this kind of transforming event over the next few decades." Goldman Sachs research report.

During the miraculous bull market of 1982-99, Americans' best investment strategy boiled down to a simple formula: buy American, and go away. For the next two decades, repeating this formula will have substantially negative consequences.

The rest of the world, which owns hefty portions of US stocks, bonds and dollars, is starting to question the long-cherished belief that American investments are inherently safer. US investors would be well-served giving their portfolios a closer inspection and asking themselves the same question.

We tend to shy away from investing overseas, especially in markets such as the high-flying "Bric" countries because we fear the risk and volatility. However, I offer my modest proposal: the US is a far riskier investment over the next 10 years than the Brics.

This statement may seem ludicrous to some America First investors but the emerging market world has changed considerably - as has the US. America, not the Brics, faces massive debt obligations to the rest of the world. America, not the emerging economies, has a currency that is looking weaker by the minute. And America, not the emerging markets, is over-owned as an investment.

US stocks comprise 45 per cent of the world's total market capitalisation. Brazil, Russia, India and China comprise 5 per cent. It is hard to believe that the US is worth nine times the emerging markets, especially when factoring in future growth prospects. At the very least, we should recognise the virtue in overweighting the Brics at the expense of domestic equities.

Most Americans are not doing that. According to Fidelity, the average US investor's 401(k) holds 4.2 per cent in international stocks.

I sense that many US investors recognise the need to get greater exposure to the Bric markets. However, investors are nervous about buying after the stunning rise in the four markets over the past five years. Funny, we had no hesitation buying the Nasdaq in 1999, but the caution is welcome.

Each of the Brics may be due for a correction over the next two years. Plenty of savvy global money managers disagree on which may post a retreat first. I will not wade into that debate; indeed, for my purpose, the question is somewhat irrelevant. As far as I am concerned, the more important matter for Americans is that the four of them are primed to grow much faster than the US over the next decade and beyond - and they deserve a place in your portfolio.


Go to 5544
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F0A47D67-7D17-4140-A992-2AEC1CF0624A.htm
US army blocks aid convoy for Falluja
Tuesday 30 November 2004

The US military has prevented an aid convoy from reaching the besieged city of Falluja, a doctor based in Baghdad who accompanied the convoy says.

"The Iraqi ministry of health asked us to go to Falluja. When we were on our way, the US army stopped our convoy, and carried out a search," said Dr Ibrahim al-Kubaisi.

"After we waited in the US base, located near Falluja, for four hours, a doctor told us that they had agreed with the Iraqi ministry of health to send a medical team to Falluja but only after eight or nine days.

"There is a terrible crime going in Falluja and they do not want anybody to know. I transferred four injured people from the Jordanian field hospital to a hospital in Baghdad.

"They told me that there is a crime in there; chemical weapons are being used. The corpses don't have traces of gunshots but black patches.

"US forces allow people to go into al-Hadra al-Muhammadiya area, in Falluja, but they prohibited anybody to enter al-Julan, al-Askari and al-Senai neighbourhoods.

"There are Iraqi families under siege in there," the doctor said.

The humanitarian situation for Falluja residents has been reported to be dire. Thousands of Falluja residents have fled the city and are living in makeshift shelters surrounding the city.


Go to 5543
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/social_security_is_not_in_crisis.php
Social Security Is Not In Crisis
Dean Baker
November 30, 2004
After the inauguration, Bush is scheduled to push for tort reform first, then attack Social Security. His entitlements offensive relies on the White House's ability to make Americans think Social Security is in crisis. Dean Baker says it's not. But don't just take his word for it. The Social Security Trustees say the same thing.

Dean Baker is economist and co-director at the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) in Washington, DC.

In the wake of his election victory , President Bush said that cutting Social Security will be at the top of his second-term agenda. He supports a proposal from his Social Security commission that hits workers with large cuts in their Social Security benefits. The proposed cuts are phased in over time, but an average wage earner who is 20 today will see their total Social Security benefits cut by close to $160,000 over their retirement. They will have the option of trying to retrieve a small portion of these cuts by seeking higher returns in the stock market, with the additional risk this implies.

Virtually everyone agrees that Social Security is a great system. It provides tens of millions of workers with a guaranteed, core retirement income. It also provides disability insurance to people during their working years. In addition, it provides survivors’ insurance to the children of workers who die at an early age.

It is also extremely efficient. The administrative costs of Social Security are just 0.6 cents of every dollar that gets paid out in benefits. By contrast, the administrative costs of systems of private accounts, like the one in England, eat up 15 cents of every dollar in benefits. Social Security also has a minimal amount of fraud and abuse, as numerous government audits have repeatedly documented.

Why would anyone want to change a system that works so well? The main reason is that President Bush and the financial industry have managed to convince people that Social Security is on the edge of bankruptcy. Millions of younger workers, and even many older workers, now believe that they will never see their Social Security checks.

Of course, President Bush has never felt constrained by the truth. Some may recall the fact that the administration concealed its estimates of the cost of its Medicare prescription drug plan as Congress narrowly approved the measure. Immediately afterwards, the administration told the public that the actual cost of the benefit would be more than $100 billion higher than the projections in front of Congress at the time of the vote. The administration’s conduct of foreign policy also provides some basis for questioning the truthfulness of its public statements.

For these reasons, it would be better to rely on the actual numbers than accept President Bush’s claims about Social Security. The official numbers tell a very different story. The Social Security trustees' report shows that the program can pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042, the program would always be able to pay a higher benefit (in today’s dollars) than what retirees currently receive, although less than the full scheduled benefit.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office did an independent investigation of Social Security’s finances and came up with an even brighter picture. They found that it could pay all benefits through the year 2052 with no changes whatsoever. Furthermore, according to both sets of projections, the changes required to keep the program solvent through its entire 75-year planning period are smaller than the changes made in any of the decades from the 1950s to the 1980s.

If people knew the truth about Social Security’s finances, there would be no support for President Bush’s benefit cuts and privatization plan—and that is why proponents of privatization have worked hard to spread fear about Social Security’s financial health. But remember, there is no more reason to trust these folks on Social Security than their talk about Iraq. Look at the numbers and reach your own conclusion.


Go to 5542
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18156
Arianna Huffington
Arianna Online
11.29.04
Drugs that don't kill: a moral issue
Danger from Canadian drugs pales compared to killers at home

As Democrats continue to search heaven and earth for a moral values issue they can call their own, I have just the prescription: Why not start with the immoral behavior of giant drug companies such as Merck that continue to sacrifice the health of the public on the altar of higher and higher profits?
According to last week's Senate testimony by Dr. David Graham, associate director for science and medicine in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety, as many as 55,000 patients may have died as a result of taking Vioxx. Shocking. But not to Merck, which had spent hundreds of millions of dollars convincing Americans to take its blockbuster pain pill even though the company's own studies showed that it greatly increased the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

If Democrats want to appeal to voters who believe in promoting what the president calls "a culture of life," they should make it a priority to put an end to the kind of corporate behavior that promotes a culture of death.

Merck's actions throughout the entire Vioxx affair have been utterly despicable. When the company pulled the drug off the market in September, CEO Raymond Gilmartin claimed that the scientific findings that led to the withdrawal were "unexpected." This is like releasing a ravenous wolf into a pen full of sheep, then acting surprised that lamb chops are on the menu. Recently uncovered internal Merck documents show that, as far back as 1998 -- a year before the drug was even approved by the FDA -- the drug giant had evidence indicating that Vioxx was a potential killer.

But instead of going back to the drawing board, the company made the heart-stopping decision to push ahead -- using every weapon in its well-funded arsenal to put off regulators, rope in consumers and keep the bad news from surfacing. They did a masterful job, turning Vioxx into a commercial elixir: Last year alone, sales of the drug totaled $2.5 billion. It was a huge success. Unless you were one of the people who had to be sacrificed for it.

Merck's CEO also claimed that the company's handling of Vioxx showed it was "really putting patient safety first." Which it definitely did -- if by "first" he meant right after profits and Merck's stock price.

Indeed, those internal documents reveal that nothing in the Merck corporate hierarchy was more important than covering the company's backside. One offers an "obstacle handling guide" for "all field personnel with responsibility for Vioxx." Another is titled "Dodge Ball Vioxx" and suggests ways Merck salespeople can deal with troubling questions raised by doctors concerned about the safety of Vioxx. The final four pages of the manual each contain a single instruction: "DODGE!" (I wonder if Ben Stiller has heard about this? I smell sequel!)

Merck also exhibited a rare gift for putting negative findings into a positive light. When one scientific study found that Vioxx, while indeed multiplying the risk of cardiovascular complications, caused fewer digestive side effects than other pain-relief drugs, the company strong-armed the FDA into allowing it to display the good news about fewer upset stomachs more prominently on the drug's label than that pesky stuff about more heart attacks. I'm surprised they didn't try to turn this tidbit into a TV ad: "Sure Vioxx can increase your chances of cardiac arrest, but at least you won't have an upset tummy when it kills you!"

Speaking of ads, the most loathsome aspect of the whole Vioxx affair is the way Merck used a $500 million marketing campaign to persuade over 20 million Americans to pop its noxious little pill. And company executives continued to run these ads long after they knew there was big trouble brewing. I'm sure our evangelical friends in the red states will agree that there ought to be a special place in hell for corporations that show such a wanton disregard for human life.

And if any of this sounds familiar, it should. It's certainly giving me a profound sense of drug company deja vu, with the tragic stories of Baycol, Rezulin and Duract still fresh in my mind. How many times do we have to travel down this deadly path -- the side of the road littered with bodies and the empty containers of drugs that were approved despite serious questions, and left on the market despite growing evidence of innocent lives being lost?

And after each case come the inevitable calls for accountability and promises to reform the system -- promises that are then forgotten until the next killer drug hits the headlines.

During last week's hearings on the Vioxx scandal, Dr. Graham, while citing an additional five drugs that he feels pose a danger to the public, said that the nation's compromised drug-oversight system had left Americans "virtually defenseless" against killer drugs and warned that we are facing "the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this country or the history of the world."

And you thought our biggest problem with pharmaceuticals was President Bush refusing to allow us to get cheap drugs from Canada -- which he laughably justifies because of concerns about the safety of Canadian drugs.

So why don't things ever change, even as the death toll mounts? As always, the answer can be found by following the money. The big pharmaceutical companies continue to be the 800-pound gorillas of American politics -- their power stemming from a muscular combination of lobbying ($150 million a year), campaign contributions (close to $50 million doled out to federal candidates over the past four years), and powerful friends in very high places (Don Rumsfeld was formerly CEO of drug industry powerhouse G.D. Searle; and Mitch Daniels, the former White House budget director and new governor-elect of Indiana, was a senior vice president at Eli Lilly.)

In a 2000 e-mail, Merck's chief of research called Vioxx's propensity to cause heart attacks and strokes "a shame." Something his company clearly lacks. Of course, the real shame is that we continue to have a regulatory system in which corporate greed, political timidity and a culture of cronyism have rendered the public good a quaint afterthought.

Sen. Charles Grassley, the conservative Republican who chairs the Senate Finance Committee that held the Vioxx hearings, lambasted the FDA for being "under the thumb" of the very pharmaceutical companies it is supposed to regulate, saying the agency "has a relationship with the drug companies that is too cozy." Are Democrats going to sit by while conservatives like Grassley take the moral lead on this issue?

If the Democratic Party is serious about reclaiming the moral-values high ground, it needs to stop trying to figure out how to triangulate on gay marriage and take a long, hard look in the medicine-chest mirror. Then open it up, let fly with the proper moral outrage, and start cleaning out the mess that lies inside. It's time for Democrats to become the real pro-life party.


Go to 5541
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=18165
Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
11.30.04
How things work in Texas
Wendy Gramm and State Farm Insurance visit the Dollar Docket

AUSTIN, Texas -- Goody, goody, gumdrop. We could get Phil Gramm back again, this time as secretary of the treasury. Oh how I've missed that little ray of sunshine, the bleeding heart from Bryan, the man who thinks poor people are all fat. As author Jim Hightower used to say, if you need a heart transplant, try to get Phil Gramm's -- it's never been used.
Just what we need for treasury secretary: the banking industry's errand boy. The man who helped bring us Enron.

According to The Washington Post, President Bush wants a new economic team. Can't imagine why. Oh, here it is: It's "part of Bush's preparation for sending Congress an ambitious second-term domestic agenda." He wants someone "who can better relate to Congress and be more effective in dealing with financial markets and television interviewers."

There you have it -- Phil's perfect for the job. Mr. Charm. And he knows how to talk those seniors into getting rid of Social Security. He's in practice. He's been back here in Texas lobbying to make it legal to sell "dead peasant" life insurance to the Teacher Retirement System.

"Dead peasant" insurance is such a deal that Wal-Mart and lots of big companies do it. See, a company like Wal-Mart takes out life insurance on low-wage employees (that would be Texas teachers), then it gets to deduct the premiums from its taxes. And when the employee dies, the company gets a benefit between $64,000 to more than $250,000.

Gramm is currently vice chairman of UBS Investment Bank. Under the UBS plan, the Retirement System would buy annuities and life insurance policies on retired teachers and keep the proceeds when they die. Of course, the investment and insurance industries would profit from the premiums and brokerage fees.

Those of you who are regular readers know that I do not pick on the wives or children of politicians. I bring up Wendy Gramm because she is a player in her own right and also because this is a classic example of How Things Work in Texas.

Those who believe the entire nation is being Texasified should pay extremely close attention. Those interested in history will recall that W. Gramm was on the board of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission when it made what many regard as the key decision to set up the Enron scandal. She resigned from the commission a few days later and joined the board of Enron a few weeks after that.

But she has another legal case on her hands, State Farm Mutual and Wendy Gramm vs. Lopez, to be heard by the Texas Supreme Court, which is known here as the Dollar Docket. Texans for Public Justice, an excellent public interest group, keeps track of cases before the court every month and notes on its website the corresponding contributions to the justices from the parties and/or attorneys involved. This keeps us amused on slow days.

W. Gramm was on the board of State Farm Mutual Auto from 1994 through 2001. A policyholder lawsuit alleges that Gramm and other board members stiffed them on dividends after the company reported a $37 billion surplus in 1997.

Even though we elect justices in Texas, Gov. Goodhair Perry gets to make an appointment when one resigns. Phil Gramm gave Goodhair's campaign the $612,000 he had left over from his Senate campaign fund when he retired prematurely from that body after Enron collapsed. Goodhair had appointed Wendy Gramm to the Texas A&M board of regents a year earlier.

Gov. Goodhair in turn is close to James Leininger, who is the big sugar daddy of the Texas right wing. Leininger also created the Texas Public Policy Foundation (not to be confused with the Public Justice people), which is dedicating to shaping public policy here in the state. Leininger is particularly keen on school vouchers and abstinence education. He not only gives generously to members of our legislative and executive branches, but also to candidates for the Texas Supreme Court. Wendy Gramm is the chair of Leininger's Policy Foundation.

Now, Goodhair Perry appointed the current chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court, Wallace Jefferson, who was sworn in by Antonin Scalia, who is rumored to be on George Bush's list for chief of the U.S. Supremes. Goodhair has also appointed three other Texas justices, making four out of the nine.

You will be further amazed to learn that Goodhair Perry and James Leininger are such good buddies they went sailing together in the Bahamas last spring. Also, Perry's insurance commissioner has filed two amicus briefs for State Farm. His predecessor gets paid more than $200,000 to lobby for State Farm. There's more in this snake's nest of interlocking interests, but I wouldn't want to bore you.

Based on experience here in Texas, I can already tell you how this all comes out. Not only will Wendy Gramm and State Farm win the case, but the Republican legislature will then try to take away everyone's right to sue over anything like it, and you won't even know what happens after that because it will all be in sealed records. And anybody who objects gets accused of aiding the terrorists. Don't say I didn't warn you.


Go to 5540
http://www.savethemales.ca/000482.html
Zionism: A Conspiracy Against Jews
By Henry Makow Ph.D.
June 27, 2004

In 1935 the steamer "Tel Aviv" made its maiden voyage from Nazi Germany to Haifa with Hebrew letters on its bow and a Nazi flag fluttering from its mast. The Captain of the Zionist-owned ship was a member of the Nazi Party. A passenger described the spectacle as a "metaphysical absurdity."

Actually it made perfect sense.

The ship transported German Jews who had taken advantage of the "Haavara" program, which allowed them to exchange their money for its value in Germany products in Palestine. As a result, the fledgling Jewish colony received about 70,000 highly educated German Jews and 140 million Reichmarks worth of German industrial equipment. This laid the foundation of Israel's infrastructure.

The arrangement also boosted the Nazi economy at a time when Jews worldwide were boycotting German products. (My main source is "The Secret Contacts" by Klaus Polkehn a prominent German journalist. It is included in Olivia O'Grady's The Beasts of the Apocalyse, 2001, 421-447.)

Why retell this story of Zionist-Nazi cooperation now?

Because "Jewish" leaders have been exploiting their "lesser brethren" for a long time, and are doing so today. Ordinary Jews pay the price and this price could rise.

In my opinion, Zionism is a movement to deceive Jews into advancing the objectives of British imperialism. (See, "The Jewish Conspiracy is British Imperialism") Zionists who have built their lives on a false premise naturally will reject this view.

Specifically, Jews helped the British-Jewish elite colonize the oil-rich Middle East under the pretext of Jews needing a national home. Despite the appearance of neutrality, the British (and Americans) financed, trained and equipped the Jews. (John Coleman, Diplomacy by Deception p. 107.)

The "British" are really the London-based international banking cartel associated with names like Rothschild and Rockefeller. It doesn't answer to any government. Its goal is to colonize the world and everyone in it. Jews are a means to this end.

As seen in Iraq, Zionists (a.k.a Neocons) play a major role in the colonization of the Middle East. The important thing to remember is that Israel is the creation of this cartel; both Israel and the US are its tools.

Iraq is only a phase in the emerging New World Order, which represents a continuation of the goals of "British" imperialism. John Kerry will take up in Iraq where George Bush leaves off. Democracy is a charade.


NAZIS MADE-TO-MEASURE FOR ZIONISM


In 1925, Germany's 500,000 Jews were overwhelmingly indifferent or actively hostile to Zionism. The German Zionist movement had only 9000 members.

The "Central Union of Germans of the Jewish Faith " represented most German Jews and favored active participation in German life. Its main focus was combating anti-Semitism.

Zionists, on the other hand, welcomed the Nazis' anti Semitic policies. Like the Nazis, they believed in race-based national character and destiny. Like the Nazis, they believed Jews had no future in Germany.

The Zionists did not protest Nazi persecution such as the removal of 2000 Jewish scholars and scientists from German universities in 1933. The Nazis rewarded this "restraint" by allowing the Zionists to go about their work unhindered. All other Jewish and anti fascist organizations were disbanded and their leaders imprisoned.

The Nazis required all Jews to join the Zionist-led "Reich Union" whose goal was emigration. Jews were to be converted to Zionism at any cost. The Zionists were able to publish books and newspapers critical of the Nazis so long as the audience was restricted to Jews.

The cooperation extended to political and economic spheres. Adolph Eichmann set up agricultural training camps in Austria to prepare young Jews for Kibbutz life. He visited Palestine and conferred with Zionist leaders who confessed their true expansionist goals. There was even talk of a strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and Jewish Palestine. His report is in Himmler's Archives.

[For more on Zionist-Nazi cooperation, see online Lenni Brenner "Zionism in the Age of Dictators" Also, Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis (2002)]

The cooperation may have extended to the Jewish Holocaust and explain why most Jews passively accepted their fate. In his book, "The Holocaust Victims Accuse" Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld claims that Zionist- led Jewish Councils ("Judenrats") collaborated with the Nazis and deceived non Zionist Jews. See my "Zionism: Compulsory Suicide for Jews."

Europe's non-Zionist Jews were worth more dead than alive to Zionists and their financial sponsors. The Holocaust provided a political and moral rationale for the establishment of the Jewish state.


WHO WAS HITLER?

In 1919, Hitler was an Intelligence Officer with the German Army assigned to spy on the tiny German Labor Party. He became its leader. Max Warburg, brother of Paul Warburg, founder of the US Federal Reserve, was the chief of German Intelligence. Both were executives of the I.G. Farben conglomerate. There is no record of when Hitler stopped working for these Illuminati figures. (See also Be Afraid: The New World Order's Fascist Pedigree )

Hitler was sponsored by the banker oligarchy, and may have been their pawn.
Certainly the Nazis received millions of dollars from New York and London. See "Hitler Didn't Want World War."

Ernst ("Putzi") Hanfstaengl was close to both the bankers and Hitler and funneled money to the Nazis during their formative years. See also Antony Sutton "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" Chapter Eight

But when Hitler began to print his own money, he may have alienated these sponsors. See "Rothschild Conducts Red Symphony"

The bottom line is that both Nazism and Zionism were sponsored by the same banking cartel and had complementary goals. The rise of anti Semitism in Europe served to create the State of Israel, which President Assad of Syria described as a "dagger in the heart of the Arab nations."

Think about it. Hitler could have just confiscated all the Jewish wealth. Instead he used the "Haavara Program" to help establish the State of Israel. According to Polkehn, Hitler personally guaranteed this program in the face of opposition. It lasted until the beginning of the war.

This cartel, which controls the world today, has no compunction about using Jews (or anyone) as a means to an end.


THE BANKSTER AGENDA

All money is created in the form of debt to the privately owned banking cartel.

Imagine if you could create money out of thin air. Imagine you have the credit cards of all the nations in your pocket.

Your first impulse is to lend money to your nominees so they can buy most of the world's real wealth for you.

Your second impulse is to establish a totalitarian system ("world government" "globalization") to prevent any nation from challenging this system or defaulting on their "debt" to you.

To make nations accept "world government," you need to weaken them by having them fight among themselves, run up huge debts for armaments (which you will sell them), kill off the cream of their manhood, and become demoralized and decadent.

You accomplish this through your ownership of politicians and the press and your control of MI-6, CIA, Mossad who carry out terror and assassinations for you. This is the real history of the last 300 years.

"World government" is really about using debt to enslave us; it is an international loan collection agency. Naturally they shroud this with talk about tolerance, human rights, fighting poverty and preventing war.

A quote from a 1924 edition of the American Banker's Association Digest sums up what is currently happening. Keep this in mind when you vote.

"When, through the process of law, the common people lose their homes, they will become more docile and more easily governed through the strong arm of government applied by a central power of wealth under leading financiers. These truths are well known among our principal men who are now engaged in forming imperialism to govern the world. By dividing the voter through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting for questions of no importance. "

Now consider the words of an Illuminati defector, Svali.

"The conflict in the Middle East is only to the advantage of the Illuminists. They HATE Israel, and hope one day to see it destroyed, and are biding their time. One of the olive branches offered by the UN when it takes over is that they will prevent war in the Middle East, and this will be greeted with joy by many.
At the same time, the Illuminati covertly supply guns and funds to BOTH sides to keep the conflict fuelled. They are very duplicitous people...These people love the game of chess, and see warfare between nations as creating an order out of chaos."

In a personal email, she added:

"I have always wondered this, though, why some of the highest ranking financial families in the group (Baron Rothschild of France is one of the 13 European lords, or "kings" that run the group in Europe, and sits on the World Council) are Jewish, yet the group espouses hatred of their own race."

CONCLUSION

Ben Hecht said that reading the daily news to understand current events is like telling the time by looking at the second hand. You have to look at the decade and century hands to see what is really going on in the world.

The Rothschild-Rockefeller banking cartel is behind most political (and cultural) trends and its goal is to destroy the nation state, true democracy, religion, culture, marriage and family, in order to degrade humanity to animal status in advance of totalitarianism.

In the "war on terror," they have created a boogeyman to justify a system of repression to be used when they call in their "loans."

I was once a Zionist who believed Jews needed a homeland because of anti Semitism. I realize now that, like most of history, this view was mostly contrived. Anti Semitism is caused because many Jews serve (consciously or unconsciously) the bankers' harmful agenda. Zionism, Communism and Feminism are a few examples.

Most Jews are now totally identified with Israel, which is a tool of the Rothschilds' demented megalomania. If past is preface, this cannot end well for Jews or anyone.


Go to 5539
http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/14624_eyes.html
New 'office eye' disease develops from computer and TV screens
11/23/2004 15:08
Tears provide the natural protection and care for eyes: they moisturize the eye surface and prevent infections

A new term has recently appeared in ophthalmology - 'the office eye.' Candidate for medical sciences, a specialist for the institute of eye diseases of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Tatiana Safonova, clarified the essence of the new term and talked about the ways to prevent the development of eye diseases for office workers.

Tears provide the natural protection and care for eyes: they moisturize the eye surface and prevent infections. The chemical structure of human tears is rather complicated: they consist of protein, adipose and carbohydrate compounds. There are three layers of the tear fluid: a thin adipose surface layer, which prevents evaporation, the middle layer, which moistens the eye, and the internal layer - the additional or the mucous layer, which keeps the two other layers on the surface of an eye.

A certain disorder or the absence of one of the two layers results in an illness known as the dry eye syndrome. A lack of tears creates the feeling of dryness and irritation in the eyes, giving an impression of having a foreign body in them at times. Sometimes people suffer from photophobia, itching and even pain. Scanty tears lead to eye fatigue at reading, watching TV or working at a computer.

Only one reason can be considered natural at this point: the teardrops secretion decreases with age. If the tear balance is disturbed at a young or a middle age, it means the implication of the following risk factors:

1. The hormone balance disorder. Eye doctors of the whole world have proved that hormones influence the chemical structure and the amount of tears. That is why, all states of human body connected with an altering level of hormones, a menopause, for example, may lead to eye discomfort.

2. Dry air in offices or apartments equipped with heating or air conditioning devices. Warm and humid air is more comfortable for the eyes. That is why, a lot of women, whose eyes suffer from tear disorders try to avoid saunas.

3. Sensitive eyes have a painful reaction to dirty air - dust or cigarette smoke.

4. Computer monitors and TV screens dry eyes as well. Eye doctors have made up a new definition to designate such an ailment - an office, or a monitor eye disease.

5. Wearing improperly selected contacts. There are a lot of eye clinics in large cities, where pseudo-specialists are happy to consult their customers without any doctors at all. In addition, one may order contacts on the Internet now.

6. The tear structure may also change due to certain medications, especially birth control pills, sleeping pills and blood pressure drugs.

One should avoid staying in dirty premises for long; it is recommended to moisten the air in offices and apartments. Short breaks every 20 or 30 minutes are recommended for those, who spend most of their time in front of TV or computer screens.

If a dry eye syndrome appeared, it will not vanish at once. Sometimes it might take years for the eyes to retrieve the normal secretion of tears. That is why, doctors recommend using eye drops, or artificial tears, for those individuals, who complain of first displays of eye dryness. Artificial tears are capable of making up the deficit of natural tears; they wet the cornea and protect the eyes from external actions.

The modern pharmaceutical industry offers a variety of tear replacement products. Artificial tears are divided into two groups, which basically provide short-term and long-term care. If eye drops don't help, one should consult a doctor, because the ailment has most likely damaged the conjunctiva and the cornea.


Go to 5538
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2004/11/29/57309.html
US dollar loses its power

02:24 2004-11-29
Foreign exchange markets felt the impact of China's growing economic muscle this week when a report claiming the country's central bank had sold US Treasuries helped push the euro to all-time highs, underscoring market sensitivity about a possible yuan revaluation.

Forex markets saw the euro climb to 1.3329 dollars in early European trading Friday after a report in the China Business News quoting Yu Yongding, a member of the monetary policy committee under the central bank.

"Undoubtedly it was a major cause of the dollars selling across the board," said Callum Henderson, head of forex operations at Standard Chartered bank in Singapore, says Channel News Asia.

According to the Bloomberg, the dollar may drop for an eighth week and set a record low against the euro after the world's major central banks signaled they will allow the currency to extend its slide, a Bloomberg survey indicates.

Sixty-eight percent of the 59 strategists, investors and traders polled on Nov. 26 from Tokyo to New York advised selling the dollar against the euro. Participants also predicted the U.S. currency will weaken against the yen, British pound, Swiss franc and Australian dollar.

The dollar has lost as much as 3 cents against the euro since Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Nov. 19 that foreigners will tire of financing the record U.S. current account deficit. He was joined on Nov. 25 by Bank of England Chief Economist Charles Bean, who said in a speech in Colchester, England, that international investors are unlikely to keep buying American assets indefinitely, triggering a "possibly substantial" drop in the dollar.

European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet is speaking on European economic integration on Monday and addressing the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on Tuesday.

Last Friday, Trichet once again spoke out against the euro's rally, saying that "recent moves on the exchange markets between the dollar and the euro are unwelcome."

European officials have been attempting to talk the euro down, but with little success thus far. Similarly, Japanese officials will likely engage in "jawboning" efforts to slow the appreciation of the yen this week. Verbal activity, but no active intervention in currency markets, is the likeliest response from Japanese officials to strength in the yen, Mazanec said.

"At this point in time, going long yen doesn't seem to be much of a losing cause," he said. "The fear factor is not there."

Despite the yen's move to multi-year highs, the Bank of Japan, which intervenes on behalf of the government, hasn't been seen in currency markets. In fact, Japan hasn't intervened since the first quarter, reports Yahoo News.


Use your Go Back and Go Forward commands to get to where you were in a previous file.