Saturday, March 29, 2008

Evidence That the CIA Murdered RFK

by Len Hart, the Existentialist Cowboy

A new BBC documentary supports the conclusion that the CIA planned and executed the assassination of Robert Kennedy. The new video and photographic evidence -- the result of a three year long investigation --"puts three senior CIA operatives" at the scene of the murder.
Three of these men have been positively identified as senior officers who worked together in 1963 at JMWAVE, the CIA's Miami base for its Secret War on Castro.

David Morales was Chief of Operations and once told friends: "I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in Los Angeles when we got the little bastard."

Gordon Campbell was Chief of Maritime Operations and George Joannides was Chief of Psychological Warfare Operations.

Joannides was called out of retirement in 1978 to act as the CIA liaison to the Congressional investigation into the JFK assassination. Now, we see him at the Ambassador Hotel the night a second Kennedy is assassinated.

--CIA role in Kennedy killing
As with the 1963 murder of JFK in Dallas, lingering questions dog the official theories. Powder burns indicated that three shots had been fired from very close range from 0 to 1-1/2 inches though no witness could place Sirhan closer than three feet. Sirhan's gun held only eight bullets but a total of ten were recovered. Three were found in Kennedy. Two were lodged in a pantry door frame. One was found in an airspace. Presumably four more were found elsewhere. Significantly, four bullets 'touched' Kennedy to include the three that were recovered --lodged --in his back. At no time was Sirhan ever behind RFK.
Inexcusably, the door frames were burned, the Los Angeles Police Dept. claimed no bullets were found lodged in the "bullet holes", and two expended bullets (inexplicably dug out of wood) were soon found in the front seat of Sirhan's car. The LAPD then destroyed their records of the tests that had been done on the "bullet holes" in the doorframe.

--Facts about the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination
Found on the Ron Paul forum:
When the hypnotized patsy, Sirhan Sirhan, opened fire on Robert Kennedy from the front, a CIA agent fired the kill shot at close range into the back of Kennedy's head.

The same agent who coordinated the operation and was at the scene, was later brought out of retirement to "handle" the congressional investigation into the assassination.

All 3 members of the assassination team are now dead, but many of those connected to them still hold high offices in government.
The BBC report by Shane O'Sullivane reveals that CIA operatives and four unidentified associates were at the Ambassador Hotel, Los Angeles the night of June 5, 1968, moments before and after the murder. It was broadcast on BBC Newsnight.
The CIA had no domestic jurisdiction and some of the officers were based in South-East Asia at the time, with no reason to be in Los Angeles.

Kennedy had just won the California Democratic primary on an anti-War ticket and was set to challenge Nixon for the White House when he was shot in a kitchen pantry.

A 24-year-old Palestinian, Sirhan Sirhan, was arrested as the lone assassin and notebooks at his house seemed to incriminate him.

However, even under hypnosis, he has never been able to remember the shooting and defence psychiatrists concluded he was in a trance at the time.

Witnesses placed Sirhan's gun several feet in front of Kennedy but the autopsy showed the fatal shot came from one inch behind.

--CIA role in Kennedy killing
It is not surprising that the CIA would be implicated in the murder of RFK. It is tragic that the same scrutiny was not forthcoming sooner --when it might have done some good. It is tragic that the murder of JFK was not likewise scrutinized. It is tragic that the investigation of this murder was left in the hands of an incompetent Los Angeles Police Department about which there is no adjective to describe the utter incompetence given this case. Earlier there was no adjective to describe the criminal neglect given the murder of JFK in Dallas!

The world's number one terrorist organization, the CIA has committed heinous acts of terrorism abroad, murdering critics of US foreign and domestic policies and has done it on behalf of an increasingly tiny, privileged American elite. This tiny elite of some one percent owns more than the combined wealth of 95% of the entire population. [See: the L-Curve] On behalf of this tiny, privileged base, the CIA has placed itself above law and supervision. The CIA's war on the world has claimed an estimated 12 million to 20 million victims, far more than the best estimates attributed to Adolph Hitler's 'Holocaust' of World War II.

The RFK assassination was, like the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent figures, a political murder committed by operatives and agents of the US government (including, but limited to, the CIA and FBI), in conjunction with local police (operating as CIA cutouts), and intelligence-connected organized crime figures and mercenaries.

There is overwhelming evidence that the RFK murder was a CIA operation involving the Los Angeles Police Department.

More proof continues to emerge, including this fresh piece of evidence uncovered by BBC investigator Shane O’Sullivan. Conducting research for his own film on the RFK assassination, O’Sullivan has identified and corroborated the presence and identities of three former CIA operatives at the crime scene:

Michael Ruppert, former Los Angeles Police detective, author, journalist and editor of From The Wilderness, conducted his own investigation of the RFK assassination, tapping into inside contacts deep within the LAPD. His investigation definitively proves that the assassination was a CIA operation, and names some of the perpetrators:

--Commentary, Online Journal
There's more
Forty years after Democratic rising star Robert F. Kennedy was killed at a Los Angeles hotel during his presidential run, new evidence suggests the man serving a life sentence for his murder did not fire the shots that killed the charismatic senator.

Forensic scientists met at a conference in Connecticut this week to discuss their independent findings that cast serious doubt on the Kennedy assassination. Sirhan Sirhan is serving a life sentence in Kennedy's death, but the conference presenters argue he could not have fired the fatal shot that killed Kennedy.

One investigator, Dr. Robert Joling, has studied the Kennedy assassination for nearly four decades. He determined the fatal shot came from behind Kennedy, while Sirhan was four to six feet in front of the senator and never got close enough to shoot him from behind, an NBC affiliate reports.

Analysis by another forensics engineer, Philip Van Praag, of a Canadian journalists tape recording, known as the Pruszynski recording, determined that 13 shots were fired while Kennedy was killed, although Sirhan's gun only held eight bullets, according to the NBC reporter. This suggests that a second shooter was involved in the assassination.

Van Praag's analysis led him to conclude that a second gun that was fired matched a type owned by one of the security guards in Kennedy's entourage.

"When that security guard was asked about owning that gun at first he admitted, 'Yes I owned that kind of gun but I got rid of it two months before the assassination.'" correspondent Amy Parmenter said on MSNBC Wednesday. "It turns out upon further investigation, in fact, he did not get rid of that gun until five months after the shooting. Of course, you can see going with this. ... That security guard, was in fact behind Senator Kennedy when the fatal shot was fired."

--New evidence suggests second shooter killed RFK, David Edwards and Nick Juliano

Given the rash of recent outrages by taser happy thug cops and given the incompetent handling of 911 where there is probable cause to arrest the arch criminals Bush and Cheney, one is hard pressed to find an institution of government that is legitimate or competent! I have proposed abolishing the CIA, indeed, smashing it into "a thousand pieces"! Abolish the CIA before the CIA abolish what little remains of America. Alas, America, you will fall of your own corruption and rot. No nation that condones the slaughter of its brightest and best will long survive! The enemy is not in Iraq, nor anywhere in the world but those of our own creation. The enemy is within. The enemy is among the traitors that make up the CIA.

Friday, March 28, 2008

A Lie Called 911: Why A Federal Grand Jury Must Indict Bush and Cheney

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

It's time to drive a stake through the heart of an evil beast --Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. We are expected to believe that 19 Arab hijackers brought down the twin towers and damaged the Pentagon by flying hijacked airliners into them. Proof that the story is a lie is, at the same time, probable cause to indict Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and others in this criminal administration for the crimes of mass murder and treason.

Moreover, there is now evidence that 'flight manifests' were 'revised' --after the fact --to shore up the holes in Bush's official conspiracy theory. What is found on pro-government websites may be called "official' but they are not! They are, however, easily proven to be lies.

FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI had no evidence to link the 19 'Muslim men' who have apparently disappeared --neither on the autopsy list or the original 'official flight manifests'. In speech to the Common Wealth Club in San Francisco on April 19, 2003, Mueller stated that the purported hijackers 'left no paper trial'. "In our investigation", he said: "we have not uncovered a single piece of paper - either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere - that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot."

As many as nine 'hijackers' survived 911. Nevertheless, a pro-'official conspiracy' web site has posted what it calls "official manifest images" in which all alledged hijackers are listed in place on the flights in question. The very name of the page is misleading: 'official manifest images". The list provided in fancy graphics is represented as 'official' but it is most certainly not official.
Astute observers noticed right away that there were no Arabic sounding names on any of the flight manifests of the planes that "crashed" Sept 11. A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is.

I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list of the people on Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. You are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion, the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.

When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines were pretty meticulous about getting an accurate head count before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me that FIVE Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons.

No Arabs On Flight 77, Thomas R. Olmsted, MD, 6-23-3

An 'official flight manifest' differs from what pro-government sites are now calling "official manifest images" in that there were not then nor now Arab names on the list. Rather, Olmsted's passenger list matches precisely what had been originally reported and is still reported by CNN. There is not a single Arab name on the list. The list had obviously not yet been revised by pro-Bush revisionists.

That bears repeating: the original flight manifests did not and do not include the name of a single Arab hijacker.

Here is the 'official list' of Hijacking suspects from the FBI website:
Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami
Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.
Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi
[Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.]

Alleged hijackers on Flight 77 - Nawaf Al-Hazmi , Khalid Al-Midhar
As an aside, I think it interesting that a hijacking 'suspect' should 'protest his innocence'. If he were guilty, he would be dead, incapable of protest! Being alive, however, is compelling evidence that he is not only innocent, but that Bush's official conspiracy theory is a pack of lies just as were his allegations of WMD in Iraq.

Several mainstream media have reported 'living hijackers'. Pro-government conspiracy theorists cannot explain the fact that numerous 'hijackers', found on the FBI's list of suspects, are still alive and giving interviews. [See: BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well] The BBC story includes quotes from 'dead' hijackers. That would be impossible if you subscribe to the propaganda and mis-information that has been put forward by a marginal, pro-government site called: 911 Myths...reading between the lies. This is the site responsible for a 'fancy graphic' listing 'Arab Suspects' that never showed up on 'official flight manifests' released in response to a formal FOIA request, delivered to Dr. Olmsted [previously cited]. The list, an 'official flight manifest' provided Dr. Olmsted, conforms to the list that was posted and represented as official by CNN. There is not a single Arab name on the list.

CNN has likewise posted a list of suspects based upon an 'official list' of 'hijackers' provided by the FBI. The name Hani Hanjour shows up on the FBI list of suspects, but, inconsistently, he is missing from the 'official flight manifests' that were released to Dr. Olmsted, the same list that is still reported by CNN.

Now official conspiracy theorists have faith that Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon where the lives of all on board were lost! Significantly, Hani Hanjour is not listed on the 'official passenger manifest' of Flight 77. The Washington Post reported that he didn't make the flight because he may not have had a ticket. [ See: Washington Post, 9/16/01]

Not only is Hanjour, critical to the government's official conspiracy theory, not on the list of passengers on Flight 77, he is not on the 'official autopsy' list. If he did not get 'autopsied' there is an excellent chance that he still lives.
"A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable."

--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
The best explanation: Hani Hanjour is still alive. If Hanjour is alive, he could not have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon, unless government theorists would like to posit that he bailed out seconds before 'his' 757 crashed into the Pentagon. That's ludicrous, of course, but in every instance the Bush theories are ludicrous, transparent lies.

It is not only Hanjour who throws a monkey wrench into the government's theory. It is every other 'Arab' who is said to have helped the hijack plot but whose names do not show up on the official list of passengers. [False identities mislead FBI]; CNN: Original Flight Manifest, Flight 77; [BBC: Hijack 'suspects' alive and well]

A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist is! It's also a nail in the coffin that contains Bush's official 911 lie. An official Autopsy List of Flight 77, obtained in Dr. Olmsted's FOIA request, is admissible in court. It should come as no surprise that none of names listed by the FBI as hijacking suspects appears on the list.

Autopsy List Flight 77 (below)

ambrose, paul
betruyen, eneh
booth, mary jane
brown, bernard
calley, suzanne
caswell, william
charlebois, david
clark, sarah
cotto, masia
debeuneure, james
dickens, rodney
dillar, deddie
droz, chuck
edwards, barbara

falkenberg, zoe
ferguson, james
flagg, darlene
gabriel, richard

grayian, hallstanley
heidenberger, michelle
jack, bryan
jacoby, steven
judge, ann
keller, chandler

kennedy, yvonne
khan, norma
kincaid, karen
lee, dong
lewis, jennifer
lewis, kenneth
may, renee

mencha, cadora
newton, christopher
olson, barbara
ornedo, ruben
penninger, robert
ploger, robert

ploger, zandra
raines, lisa
reuben, todd
sammartino, john
simmons, diane
simmons, george
sopper, mari-rae
speisman, robert
steuerle, norma
taylor, hilda
taylor, leonard
teagues, andra
whittington, leslie
yamnicky, john
yancey, vicki
yangs, huyin
zheng, yuguag

If there were no Arabs on the pathologists list, then there is absolutely no reason to believe that there were 'Arabs' on the flight. Additionally, there is no evidence to indicate that any 'Arab' remains were among those interred. "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" If there are no Arabs on the flight, it is Bush/Cheney whom you must indict!

Certainly, we would not expect to see the names of living hijackers --Hani Hanjour, for example --among those autopsied. Hani Hanjour in particular is crucial to Bush's official conspiracy theory. He is said to have piloted Flight 77. He could not have done so without getting on board, without dying, without showing up on an 'official autopsy list', without being interred somewhere. There is no evidence that he did any of those things.

If, however, Bush's story were true, everyone 'said' to have been on the flight --including Hanjour and the other 'Arabs" --would have died. They most certainly would not have escaped the pathologists list; they most certainly would not be giving interviews, they most certainly would not be 'protesting their innocence'.

Clearly, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al conspired to pull off what the Project for the New American Century had called 'some catastrophic and catalyzing event'.
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor" (51)

--Project for the New American Century

It requires astounding gullibility, perhaps stupidity, to believe that wars against Afghanistan and Iraq did not follow from the PNAC policy subscribed to by both Bush and Cheney. Both wars have, in fact, benefited primarily Dick Cheney's Halliburton, the oil industry in general, and the panoply of military/industrial complex contractors --black shirted goons, professional murderers, Blackwater! This complex constitutes America's Praetorian Guard, the industrialization of war for the benefit of the very, very few. Mussolini would have called this 'fascism'. And so it is!

On the very day, the very moment that Dick Cheney was supervising an exercise in which terrorists would attack the Pentagon and WTC, a rag tag gang of 'terrorists', we are expected to believe, would do precisely that!
Several different war game exercises were in play on the day of the attack. The limited public information on these exercises shows that they simulated the following events:
  • Hijackings
  • Attacks on buildings using aircraft as missiles
  • Attacks using toxic or infectious substances
These events are all elements of the actual attack, which involved four alleged hijackings, three jetliner crashes into buildings, and the toxic calamity at Ground Zero
in the wake of the World Trade Center's destruction.

--Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01
In the absence of any 'official' document or 'official flight manifest' or 'autopsy list', there is simply NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any hijacker was on board Flight 77. If, indeed, they had gotten on board and all was just a mistake, is it really likely that only Arab names would fail to make the lists? Are we also to believe that there no Arabs were autopsied because the pathologist could somehow tell just by looking at the charred remains which were 'turrsts' and which were not? Absurd!

Dick Cheney had the opportunity and the means by which such a crime could be pulled off. He was in command of the US armed forces that day. A small band of some 19 Arabs, by contrast, challenged to fly Cessnas, had no means by which they would or could coordinate the strikes, and, most certainly could not have gotten on board any flight without showing up on 'real' or 'official flight manifests'. The names show up now on lists prepared after the fact for the purpose of shoring up Bush's fatally flawed cover story. Anyone can make a list of any set of names at any time and label them in any way. But that does not make it so!

Dick Cheney was, in fact, supervising exercises that 'gamed' the very crime that should now be investigated by a Federal Grand jury. The logical and commonsense conclusion is that Dick Cheney was making real the NEOCON dream --a catalyzing event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Cheney would benefit personally from such an event. His partners at Halliburton and elsewhere in the Military/Industrial complex would enrich themselves with a war agenda to include wars against Afghanistan and later --upon the pretext that Saddam had WMD and ties to 'al Qaeda' --the war against Iraq.

Even the co-chairs of the 911 Commission have disowned their report. It is time now that Dick Cheney be compelled to testify before a Federal Grand Jury convened to consider charges of mass murder and treason.

And because many bona fide bloggers have experienced what may be called 'script pushers', the following story may be of interest.
Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit or Hire Bloggers'

By Noah Shachtman EmailMarch 31, 2008 | 1:11:05 PMCategories: Info War


A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."

Since the start of the Iraq war, there's been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs -- and the service members who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops' time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.

Lt. Commander Marc Boyd, a U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman, says the report was merely an academic exercise. "The comments are not 'actionable', merely thought provoking," he tells Danger Room. "The views expressed in the article publication are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, USSOCOM [Special Operations Command], or the Joint Special Operations University."

--Military Report: Secretly 'Recruit or Hire Bloggers' | Danger Room from
Certainly, script pushing is characterized by GOP/right wing/'Rovian' adhering to a 'script'. Their Achilles heel is, interestingly, obstinacy in the face of facts and reason, especially when the position taken is an 'official one'. It's a dead give away that someone is shiling for a politician or for the Bush administration. I am flattered that they think me a threat! It will only re-double my efforts to get Bush indicted and behind bars awaiting a sentence that he will have richly deserved.

Additional resources

Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009




Add to Google

Add to Google

Add Cowboy Videos to Google

Add to Google

Download DivX

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

The Probable Cause to Charge Dick Cheney With Mass Murder, Terrorism, and High Treason

Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

There is probable cause to indict Dick Cheney for the crime of supervising the events of 911, a capital crime consisting of high treason and mass murder. Both Bush and Condoleeza Rice would state that they could not have foreseen the crashing of airliners into buildings. In fact, just such a 'scenario' was the basis for security when Bush attended the G8 Summit in Italy, July 23, 2001 [See: "Italy: Bush Targeted at G8." New York Newsday 19 Sept 2001, unsigned; "Extremists 'Planned Genoa Attack on Bush'", BBC News, 27 Sept 2001]. Secondly, Dick Cheney supervised precisely that scenario on the very day that it happened in fact --a highly improbable coincidence' that would repeat later in Britain on 7/7. Cheney supervised what are called 'exercises' within a bunker --the Presidential Emergency Operations Center --located under the White House. There is damning testimony against Cheney from former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta who contradicts 9/11 Commission Report’s Account of Dick Cheney’s timetable.

That's not all. Cheney had already been put in charge of a 'domestic terrorism study group'[See: 911 Coincidences], a clever cover from which to commit high treason and mass murder.
That morning, three F-16 fighter jets assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from Washington, were involved in another training mission over 200 miles away in North Carolina. They only arrived back at Andrews some time after the Pentagon was hit.32 Furthermore, a drill was planned for 9 a.m. based around a corporate jet plane crashing into a building. The exercise was to be conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office, just outside Washington, which draws its staff from the CIA and military. 33

Pioneering 9/11 researcher and former LAPD narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert has investigated these military exercises for himself. He says they are what caused the failure to intercept the hijacked planes:

The wargames will tie Bush and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld directly into a complete paralysis of fighter response on 9/11. I have gone directly to many NORAD, DoD, NRO, and other sources and questioned them. I have knocked on many doors and I have even obtained some documents. I have obtained an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD, which confirmed that on the day of 9/11 the Joint Chiefs (Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner. That is just the tip of what I have uncovered. 34
Speaking at the prestigious Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, he elaborated:
In some cases false blips were deliberately inserted onto FAA and military radar screens and they were present during (at least) the first attacks. This effectively paralyzed fighter response because, with only eight fighters available in the region, there were as many as 22 possible hijackings taking place. Other exercises, specifically Northern Vigilance had pulled significant fighter resources away from the northeast US – just before 9/11 – into northern Canada and Alaska. In addition, a close reading of key news stories published in the spring of 2004 revealed for the first time that some of these drills were “live-fly” exercises where actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control – were simulating the behavior of hijacked airliners in real life. All of this as the real attacks began. 35

--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and 9/11
Since those events, the Bush administration has worked overtly, assiduously to quash and interfere with every effort to investigate fully the events of 911. Only the guilty try to cover up their crimes.
If the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated or at least deliberately allowed by the Bush- Cheney administration and the Pentagon, then the motivation to cover up this murderous and treasonous act would be unlimited. No expenditure of time and money would be considered too great."

Professor David Ray Griffin [4]

--The True Story of 9/11: Part IV
The Bush administration and accomplices in other government offices would have you believe an absurd coincidence theory that on the very day, the very moment that Dick Cheney was supervising an exercise in which terrorists would attack the Pentagon and WTC, a rag tag gang of 'terrorists' would do precisely that!

Our 'government' thus declared war on the people of the United States and wages it! As Che would have put it: the peace is already considered to be broken. Thomas Jefferson would have already declared 'our' independence of a cabal that has, in effect, already destroyed the 'legitimate' government of the United States.
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

--Article III, US Constitution
The word treason covers the more egregious acts of betrayal or disloyalty to a sovereign or nation. Under the US Constitution and, in Britain by common law, sovereignty resides with the people themselves. What had been called the "United States" simply does not exist anymore. It was, in fact, overthrown in Bush's coup d'etat, and since that time systematically subverted and dismantled by Bush and his gang of treasonous usurpers. Accomplices who must certainly stand trial with Bush and Cheney will include Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, and various Pentagon brass.

The biggest threats to 'our way of life' are the governments presumably elected to preserve them. Bush, primarily, lied while taking the oath of office! He placed his hand on a black book and, with a smirk, he swore to protect, defend and uphold the Constitution. It was all a lie! He never intended to 'preserve' the Constitution; and, rather than protecting it, he has worked to undo it. Bush is the Constitution's worst enemy. Thus, his occupancy of the White House is illegitimate. Eschewing his sworn and sacred oath, he waged war on the US Constitution just as surely as he has waged war upon the sovereign people of the United States!
When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands.) And if he opens his fingers then —— he needn't hope to find himself again. Some men are capable of this, but I’d be loath to think your father one of them."

--Sir Thomas More, Portrayed by Paul Scofield, A Man For All Seasons

When the time came for Bush to lie under oath yet a second time, the Constitution had already been gutted, the rule of law scrapped, the very bases of American Democracy trashed! Bush had already cursed the only meaningful restraint on his power grab. “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed in the presence of witnesses to his treason. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Likewise, Great Britain, under Tony Blair, became a police state. Anyone, anywhere at any time can be arrested upon mere 'suspicion', a ludicrous standard without precedent in English common law! The right of privacy in the world's most surveilled state is practically non-existent. This Texan, by birth, has ties to England. I mourn the loss of freedom there as I have deplored the wasteland Bush made of Texas. Under Bush, Texas became a notorious gulag state, a polluted, unhealthy chemical dump, an educational waste land, and, in downtown Houston, a corporate office park of pretense, obscene income disparities, and corporate fraud, rated number one as a place to do business. Few remember the Alamo but everyone must surely remember remember Enron --a symbol of US descent into official fraud and fascism. Thanks to Bush and his protege, Rod Paige, Texas is dead last in education, number one in the number of people executed! Among the 50 U.S. states, Texas ranks, in the nation:

  • 46th in children living in poverty in 2005 (1 in 5 Texas children lives below the poverty line).
  • 47th in per capita spending by the state mental health agency in 2003.
  • 47th in dollars spent per child by the state child abuse and neglect agency in 2004.
  • 48th (in a three-way tie for last place) in teen pregnancy rate in 2003.
  • 49th in percentage of adults with a high school diploma in 2005 (1 in 3 children does not graduate).
  • 49th in percentage of children with health insurance in 2005 (1 in 5 children is uninsured).

    Yet Texas is 27th in per capita income: SHAMEFUL.
  • If you think you have any say about 'government', forget it! Until the governments of the US and Great Britain are returned to their rightful sovereigns --the people --the Orwellian Big Brother that has been created in both countries will only spread like the cancer it is.
    On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions. You probably think you know what happened that day. But you don’t.

    The ... all » police have, from the onset of their investigation, chosen to withhold from the public almost every bit of evidence they claim to have and have provably lied about several aspects of the London Bombings.

    The mainstream news has willfully spread false, unsubstantiated and unverifiable information, while choosing to completely ignore the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the official story.

    The government has finally, after a year, presented us with their official ‘narrative’ concerning the event. Within hours it was shown to contain numerous errors, a fact since admitted by the Home Secretary John Reid. They have continuously rejected calls for a full, independent public inquiry. Tony Blair himself described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’. What don’t they want us to find out?
    If 7/7 happened the way they say it did why would there be any discrepancies? Why would there be any uncertainty about the movements of these men? Why would there be any contradictions, confusions, inconsistencies in the official story? There wouldn't be! On the contrary. There were be copious amounts of information ...[made available to the public] We are being deceived!

    --Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombing
    The argument that the British government cannot refute is one that I have applied to Bush's 'official conspiracy theory' of 911. If anything said by Bush at any time about anything is in any way true, then why did Bush oppose the creation of the 911 commission? Why did the Bush administration interfere consistently with the 911 commission? Why was 911 forensic evidence destroyed? Why did Bush lie about his own activities on 911? Why was Dick Cheney supervising a 'scenario' that gamed precisely what, in fact, really happened? What are the odds that this incredible and absolutely amazing event would occur for real? Wasn't Dick Cheney, then, in a perfect position to have supervised the act of high treason and mass murder that we now call --911? How coincidental was it that the British Government was, like Dick Cheney earlier, gaming the subway bombings on the very day that they happened in fact?

    The only logical conclusion is this: there is 'probable cause' that the British Government --like Dick Cheney --conspired to wage war upon its own people and have subsequently done so. The British Government has, therefore, broken the peace! Having broken the peace, the social contract, the government itself, is and continues to be illegitimate! I might remind that when King Charles I presumed to put himself above the parliament, he got his head chopped off for his efforts! What punishment then, by precedent, is due those, not even 'royalty', who have conspired under the cover of 'government' itself to perpetrate the crimes of mass murder upon an innocent and unsuspecting population? One day, there must be justice. As I recall, there is still to be found at the Tower of London a blood-stained wooden block!

    BBC: The Power of Nightmares,
    "Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA!"

    ''In determining what is probable cause . . . [w]e are concerned only with the question whether the affiant had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit . . . for the belief that the law was being violated on the premises to be searched; and if the apparent facts set out in the affidavit are such that a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe that there was a commission of the offense charged, there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant.'' 95
    Probable cause is to be determined according to ''the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.'' 96
    Warrants are favored in the law and utilization of them will not be thwarted by a hypertechnical reading of the sup porting affidavit and supporting testimony.
    For the same reason, reviewing courts will accept evidence of a less ''judicially competent or persuasive character than would have justified an officer in acting on his own without a warrant.'' 98
    Courts will sustain the determination of probable cause so long as ''there was substantial basis for [the magistrate] to conclude that'' there was probable cause. 99

    --Findlaw, Probable Cause



    Such comments will be deleted! Any questions? If you have a point or a case to make, make it! Otherwise, peddle your GOP and/or right wing 'labels', shill scripts and personal attacks elsewhere!

    They are no longer welcome here!

    Additional resources
    If the CIA/Mossad hired terrorists used an extreme surplus of thermite or thermate for the welding of the steel columns of the building structure, it is well conceivable that this surplus burned for weeks. Is there any other material useful in controlled demolition, other than thermite (or thermate), that would continue burning for weeks despite all trials to extinguish the fire with water????? Thermite is not a simple "fire" depending on exogeneous oxygen. Any combustion would stop within hours, if there was no oxygen available. This is the reason, why a fire can be extinguished with sand. In contrary, if one covered a thermite reaction with tons and tons of sand, the reaction would not stop. And the reaction could not be extinguished by pouring water onto the reaction partners. It is well conceivable that the extra thermite, mixed and polluted with other material, "burned" slowly and more moderately for weeks.

    Thermite or Thermate was suspected due to molten metal seen streaming down the outer walls of WTC before the controlled demolition. Kerosene or JET FUEL only goes to 1759 Degrees F, and only in ideal burn conditions, not underground without oxygen.

    This is why the underground fires in ground zero point to thermite or thermate (which is, may I illuminate you, a variation of thermite). And the results of a chemical analysis proved beyond doubt that thermite (or the variation thermate) was present. It is pure nonsense if you pretend to assume, the results of a professional chemical analysis might mirror some sulphate (!!) from "drywall".

    The underground fires, burning for weeks are a reality. Photos and witnesses (firemen) prove that. So, do you really assume that it was the jet fuel that kept burning for weeks???!! Or a paper basket?? Or some newspapers and wooden desks?? The stubbornness which you "Official Story Theorists" exhibit against learning the facts is indicating that they know very well where the smoking gun is to be found!


    Dr. chemist, university lecturer.

    --3-7-8, More Proof Thermite/ThermateUsed To Drop WTC

    Thursday, March 20, 2008

    Paul Scofield: A Man For All Seasons

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    The greatest Shakespearean actor "of his generation" is dead at the age of 86. For another generation, Paul Scofield would become the living embodiment of a saint --Sir Thomas More, who is known to us in the painting by Holbein and more immediately in a portrayal of him in the motion picture --A Man For All Seasons.

    More --more accurately Scofield's portrayal of More --has never been more important. We live in an age, not unlike that of Henry VIII. It is an age in which not only allegiances are tested but what it means to be human. This film changed my life.
    When a man takes an oath, Meg, he’s holding his own self in his own hands. Like water. (He cups his hands.) And if he opens his fingers then —— he needn't hope to find himself again. Some men are capable of this, but I’d be loath to think your father one of them."

    --Sir Thomas More, Portrayed by Paul Scofield, A Man For All Seasons

    It sounds trite to write of Scofield that he brought the words of screenwriter Robert Bolt to life. He was More, a man who chose to die rather than to lie to himself and live.

    Scenes from A Man For All Seasons Starring Paul Scofield

    Paul Scofield, the British stage legend often hailed as the greatest Shakespearean actor of his generation and an Oscar winner for his soaring performance in 1966's A Man for All Seasons, has died. He was 86.

    His agent, Rosalind Chatto, told reporters Scofield passed away peacefully Wednesday in a hospital near his home in southern England. He was suffering from leukemia and had been ill for some time.

    Scofield was considered one of the giants of the British theater during its post-World War II heyday, playing virtually every major Shakespearean role and conquering both the West End and Broadway with his authoritative presence, weather-beaten countenance and low, rumbling voice.

    But it wasn't until he originated the part of rebellious Tudor statesman Sir Thomas More in the 1960 London stage production of Robert Bolt's A Man for All Seasons that Scofield finally earned the international fame he so richly deserved. He reprised the role a year later along the Great White Way, nabbing a Tony for his efforts.

    Four years later, director Fred Zinneman brought the thesp back for the film version, which garnered six Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Director, and a Best Actor Oscar for Scofield.

    --Oscar Winner Paul Scofield Dies, Josh Grossberg

    More defended the obedience to "`s law, not God`s". That makes More a secular humanist
    Roper: So now you`d give the Devil benefit of law!

    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get at the Devil?

    Roper: I`d cut down every law in England to do that.

    More: Oh! (advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you --where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country’s planted thick with laws --man's laws, not God's [emphasis mine]--and if you cut them down --and you’re just the man to do it --d`you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I`d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety`s sake.
    Of course, the dialogue above was written by Robert Bolt, a writer of genius. But his words were graced by Scofield.
    It is enough to say that Scofield's work will live on. He will have become as he was in life -- A Man For All Seasons. Adieu, Paul.

    Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership, Global Issues, Updated: January 02, 2009




    Add to Google

    Add to Google

    Add Cowboy Videos to Google

    Add to Google

    Download DivX

    Wednesday, March 19, 2008

    Darrow, Darwin, and Dayton

    by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

    Darwinism is correct. Social Darwinism is utter bunkum. Not surprisingly, the American right-wing despises Darwinism but, inexplicably, embraces Social Darwinism with messianic ferver.

    Social Darwinism is at the very root of an impending economic collapse but it won't be the best or brightest who emerge unscathed on the other side! Social Darwinism is the survival of the most ruthless. Real Darwinism is reviled because it disproves the lies the rich tell themselves to help them sleep at night.

    The right wing benefits when issues are obscured and when enough dust is kicked up by "intelligent design" to obscure the real issues and various strawmen to boot.

    Social Darwinism does not follow from "Darwinism".  Worse, it attributes to Darwin positions Darwin never took. The term "survival of the fittest" was never used by Darwin. It has been variously attributed, but Hofstadter traces the phrase to 19th Century American robber barons, rail road men making fortunes connecting one coast with another.
    Railroad executive Chauncy Depew asserted that the guests of the great dinners and public banquets of New York City represented the survival of the fittest of all who came in search of fortune. They were the ones with superior abilities. Likewise railroad magnate James J. Hill defended the railroad companies by saying their fortunes were determined according to the law of survival of the fittest.
             —Hofstadter, Richard; 1959; Social Darwinism in American Thought, Braziller; New York.

    These were most certainly the "robber barons" who wished to be photographed wearing laurel wreaths, pretending to be emperors. Elsewhere, the term is attributed to Herbert Spencer who inspired a generation of radicalized, latter-day robber barons. Few of them evinced the "...quality of mercy" so immortalized with but a few words by Shakespeare --'The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven". By contrast ...
    [Herbert] Spencer said that diseases "are among the penalties Nature has attached to ignorance and imbecility, and should not, therefore, be tampered with." He even faulted private organizations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children because they encouraged legislation.
    Social Darwinism and American Laissez-faire Capitalism
    A fallacious corollary to "Social Darwinism" is often phrased this way: the rich are rich because they are better, work harder and are more intelligent. George W. Bush put it more crudely: “The poor are poor because they are lazy!” In the same vein, the conservative economist Joseph A. Schumpeter likened recessions to a "cold douche". One wonders: who is "douched" and how? More importantly: who decides who gets 'douched'? Recently, who decided that New Orleans would be left to its fate and the goons of Blackwater?

    Currently, the nation faces economic calamity. However fallaciously, you can be sure that the right wing will not only benefit from the misfortunes of millions, they will try to figure out a way to blame them. It's the right wing way.

    Spencer believed that because society was evolving, government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. It didn't matter to Spencer that government is but a function, indeed, a creation of society and responsible to it. Seen in that light, efforts by privilege to blame the poor for their own rapacious and often dishonest or incompetent behaviors are absurd. Nevertheless, American capitalism remains greatly influenced by Spencer. The 'model' is still found in textbooks for Economics 101. It describes an ideal of American capitalism --“rational man” making rational decisions in a free and --presumably --rational market. But, in practice, economic decisions may or may not be rational and the free market exists only hypothetically.

    The market has been anything but rational and often manipulated by those who have the power to do so. Enron, before its collapse, is just one prominent example. Because the 'theories' of Spencer and, earlier, Adam Smith, often stress the 'practical', it is forgotten that Spencer and Smith were, themselves, 'theorists'. Every model we make of the world of sense experience is 'theoretical' by definition. The word "theory" is either misunderstood by the right wing or deliberately perverted for the propaganda value.

    The word 'theory' is wrongly used as a pejorative. The right wing is inconsistent. 'Theories' from Spencer and, more recently, Milton Friedman or Arthur Laffer are conveniently embraced while 'theories' from everyone else are called 'mere theory'. Last time I checked, 'right wing theories' were still 'theories' though most often and in reality they are simply frauds, lies, scams and 'white collar heists'.

    Having waged war on the word "theory", the right wing likes to couple it with another word similarly victimized by right wing propaganda. That word is "conspiracy" --a perfectly good word, in fact, a legal term about which there is a venerable body of case law, thousands of SCOTUS decisions and some 400 years of common law. Given techniques perfected by Herr Goebbels for Adolph Hitler, the combination of "conspiracy" and "theory" is lethal. Nevertheless, the loss of these words to an adult vocabulary cripples the thought process itself, indeed, intellectual endeavor of any sort.

    It must be noted that every great scientist was or is a theorist. Einstein was a "theorist" and so was Newton. Too much is made of 'right' and 'wrong'. It is a mistake to conclude, for example, that Einstein 'replaced' Newton. In fact, Einstein rests upon Newton's shoulders. Einstein is Newton seen from another angle. Einstein may be thought of as the hypothesis that Newton himself refused to make. [See: The Man Who Changed the Universe] Einstein does not refute Newton, he enlarges upon both Newton and Galileo. Galileo's equations describing the acceleration of falling bodies anticipates the very curvature of space-time.

    Einstein has been confirmed no more times than Darwin; Newton is close enough for mundane applications or "government work" and Einstein will one day help us navigate the galaxy. Significantly, neither "theory" has been challenged in court —though both theories may very well be replaced one day by a "theory of everything", a TOE. Only theories not liked by the right wing wind up in court, an absurd place to settle questions of science in any case. Law courts are inadequate to decide questions better resolved by observation and experiment, not rhetoric, motion, case law. See: Darrow, Darwin & Dayton, the video at the end of this article.

    There is a political agenda and a constituency behind the campaign of attacks on Darwinism. This constituency supports Intelligent Design for the same reasons the great rail road robber barons found support in the work of Herbert Spencer. The continued economic superiority of an entire class depends upon the widespread public acceptance of religious and/or ideological views which justify the existence of 'superior status'. Hitler, likewise, found in pseudo-science and mythology much justification for his anti-semitic crusades, his campaign of genocides, his wars of naked aggression.

    Theories are often never of a final form —nor should they be! Unlike ideology, real science is self-correcting as new facts emerge from research. Darwin's theories were not only confirmed by Mendel, they accommodated Mendel which, in turn, strengthened Darwin. The science of genetics and the discovery of "mutations" confirm Darwin beyond any reasonable doubt. Every cowboy knows the truth of Darwin if he's never heard of him: "Never kill a slow roach; you just improve the breed!" As succinct a description of natural selection as I've ever heard. Likewise, every farmer who has bred for specific traits knows the truth of Darwin.

    Future discoveries, like those of Mendel, may modify our views of Darwin, but will not discount them. Our view of Einstein is already modified but he is confirmed in many ways, notably at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

    Light, indeed, bends around stars and other 'gravity lenses', time slows at near light speeds, space-time is a four dimensional continuum. More to the point, no one has ever sued because Einstein's theories were at odds with a particular dogma or a political agenda. The right wing's disingenuous position is analogous to that of the Pope who forced Galileo to recant. I was critical of Ron Paul because his economic thinking was stuck in 19th Century mud. The "greater" right wing, however, is stuck in the 17th.

    It is certain that no future discovery will confirm "intelligent design"! Theories explain "facts" but facts can often confirm good theories, Over the years facts have tended to confirm both Darwin and Einstein.

    Doggerel is beyond confirmation of any kind. A.J.Ayer defined 'meaning' itself as that property of a 'sentence' that makes it subject to empirical confirmation. The theoretical core of ID is not meaningful and most certainly not of a type that would have been recognized by the philosophers upon whom Western Civilization is based.

    Intelligent design is of a religious nature and people have a right to believe it. Treating Intelligent design as science is dishonest. As science, ID raises more questions than it explains. Most obviously: who designed the designer? ID assumes a designer to 'explain' creation but cites 'creation' to prove the existence of a designer. This is the classic circulus en probando fallacy.

    People are free to believe fallacies, but they must not be free to impose them upon other people —especially at tax payer expense! A fact, for example, is the equation describing the acceleration of falling objects; examples of theory are both the Newtonian and the Einsteinian view of "gravitation" —seen differently by both. The entire science of genetics confirms Darwin who, interestingly, did not have the benefit of Mendel's research when he wrote Origin of the Species and the The Descent of Man. It was Mendel's research that described the very mechanism by which Darwin’s “traits” are passed on to succeeding generations. Accurate predictions are, in themselves, evidence in support of theories. [See: Evolution in Action, Julian Huxley]

    Critics of Darwin have said that no one has yet produced an entirely new specie by selection. But they have indeed done just that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Related to ancient grasses, wheat is clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection". Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass. But it didn't and isn't.

    Social Darwinism has harmed mankind. It rationalizes and justifies the perpetual and deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society. The GOP will support this as a matter of policy so long as someone like Ronald Reagan can, nevertheless, make them "feel good about themselves". It is bad enough that this callous disregard for human life is fallaciously and insidiously associated with Darwin. That it is also a bald-face lie, a misstatement of Darwin, is unconscionable. We have thus reduced the philosophical basis for the American right wing to a single line from one of the world's great writers, Charles Dickens, whose character, Scrooge, epitomizes the American right wing:
    "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."
    —Scrooge, A Christmas Carol

    Monday, March 17, 2008

    How the GOP Will Benefit From Impending Economic Collapse

    Republicans benefit from the fact that recessions are class conscious, affecting worse those who can least afford them. An era of highly leveraged US economic expansion and empire is about to come crashing down and swept away. Count on the GOP to make out like bandits.

    It seems like ages ago, the US was at peace, there was a budget surplus, the economy was growing, and the unemployment rate was very low. But not everyone was happy. There was an entire group of people who harbor not good, but ill will; an entire class wished for bad times and got it.

    Until now, China had an interest in keeping the US ponzi scheme propped up --they sold billions to US citizens via Wal-Mart, the economic Kudzu that ate America. But since a Chinese sub popped up undetected in the middle of the US fifth fleet, it has been apparent that the honeymoon is over. China now leads the world in dumping dollars. Everywhere, it seems, it has become a habit.

    If this were mere recession staring back at us from a fun house mirror, it might be shrugged off. After all, the GOP has always loved recessions and benefited from them. A clue is found in the work of conservative Austrian-born economist Joseph Schumpeter who regaled his Harvard students in the mid-1930s with a pithy observation about how economic depressions actually benefit certain social and economic classes.
    Chentleman, [sic ] you are vorried about the depression. You should not be. For capitalism, a depression is a good cold douche.

    --Joseph Schumpeter, Economist, Harvard University Lecture, circa 1930s

    A pattern emerged with the ascension of Ronald Reagan: the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Unfair tax cuts have a lot to do with that, but, also, the nature of recessions themselves. Everyone who is not an initiate into the cult of gopperism gets douched. The administrations of Reagan, Bush and Bush are like lab experiments that prove the hypothesis: GOP policies are designed to benefit an increatingly tiny elite or, as Bush called it, "my base."

    This is no mere recession but complete collapse. Mephistophes has come knocking.
    As feared, foreign bond holders have begun to exercise a collective vote of no confidence in the devaluation policies of the US government. The Federal Reserve faces a potential veto of its rescue measures.

    Asian, Mid East and European investors stood aside at last week's auction of 10-year US Treasury notes. "It was a disaster," said Ray Attrill from 4castweb. "We may be close to the point where the uglier consequences of benign neglect towards the currency are revealed."

    The share of foreign buyers ("indirect bidders") plummeted to 5.8pc, from an average 25pc over the last eight weeks. On the Richter Scale of unfolding dramas, this matches the death of Bear Stearns.

    Rightly or wrongly, a view has taken hold that Washington is cynically debasing the coinage, hoping to export its day of reckoning through beggar-thy-neighbour policies.

    --Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, Foreign investors veto Fed rescue, UK Telegraph

    Bush, meanwhile, seems unconcerned, perhaps, like Nero, fiddling as Rome burns. Then again, the GOP 'class' has always benefited from US recessions, depressions, and other economic catastrophes.
    1. Recessions, though not caused by declining stock markets, are always accompanied and often predicted by a plunging stock market. Republicans sell out at the peak, taking their profits. Enough selling will trigger the plunge; less knowledgeable investors begin to follow suit from fear but too late. Last man out loses.

    2. Having taken their profits on the upside, a depressed market is but an opportunity for the rich Republican to get back in at lower prices. Guess who sells at the lower price: the poor schmuck who is 180 degrees out of phase and can only dream of being a rich Republican. In reality, those he aspires to join are exploiting him.
    3. Very knowledgeable investors make money "selling short", buying "put options". These investors get peak prices for stocks even as the price declines. Illegal insider information is executed with "calls" and "puts." The perpetrators of 911, for example, made millions, possibly billions, selling short the stocks of UA and AA. I defy anyone to come up with an 'innocent' explanation. The recipients of those profits had guilty foreknowledge of 911. The name 'Buzz' Krongard comes in connection with a known terrorist organization: the CIA.

      Now --a planned financial meltdown might have presented the same opportunities. Historically, 'elites' have always emerged richer, stronger from recessions.

      On the other side of Ronald Reagan's recession of some two years, the rich had gotten richer while the middle class was all but wiped out. The ill-effects of that recession are still seen in the decline of middle class neighborhoods, the permanent loss of manufacturing base and the jobs it created.The profits and volume were most certainly outside norms, proof that those executing the options had precise foreknowledge of the attacks. Those making those profits had "guilty knowledge" of the attacks; they were at the very heart of a murderous conspiracy.
    4. Unemployment always goes up in a recession. At the end of a longer recession, companies have the luxury of hiring from a larger labor pool at lower wages and/or salaries. Some companies --citing hard times --may reduce benefits, cut vacation or sick time.

      Big business must hate good times; it is only during times of full employment that workers have any leverage at all. Offhand I can think of only two times in history that have come close: the Clinton years, and, interestingly, Europe after the Black Death. The labor supply had been depleted by plague. Employers were often forced to accede to worker demands for better conditions, money, a place to live! Serfs had been freed and it marked the beginning of the end for Feudalism and set the stage for 'corporate feudalism', an age in which we still labor and suffer.
    5. Admittedly, many businesses go belly-up during recessions. While lip service is given to 'free markets' and Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', die hard robber barons hate the 'free market'. They prefer 'monopoly' when they can create one and 'oligopoly' when they can't. Free competition among many sellers is the last thing they want. Recessions are welcomed. It's the 'cold douche', a ruthless flush, so beloved by Schumpeter and the robber barons of American capitalism.
    6. Don't expect recessions to bring down prices. More often, higher prices are the light that is seen at the end of the long, dark tunnel. In other words, those businesses fortunate enough to survive a 'downturn' are in the enviable position of raising prices on the other side. Higher prices benefit businesses that manage, even with government help, to stay in business during a recession. So much for laissez-faire capitalism.

      Those fortunate businesses now make more money per unit produced and will do so with fewer employees. The world is not so kind to everyone else, primarily smaller businesses and entrepreneurs, freelancers, and worker bees.

      Prices, we learned in Economics 101, are determined by supply and demand. If the demand is such that the market is quite willing to pay any price for it (prescription drugs, gasoline, certain rents) then demand is said to be inelastic.

    7. At the expense of over-simplifying, consumer demand is the arbiter of price only in markets characterized by diffuse competition. Recessions militate against a market of this sort, weeding out all but 'privileged' businesses, primarily those with juicy government contracts or GOP cronies in office. Only in the textbook model, is it assumed that the oligopolist's market demand curve becomes less elastic at prices below a certain point. In markets characterized by the continuing decline in the number of 'sellers', it is obvious that there are fewer motivations for oligopolists to reduce prices. In such a market, the oligopolist (an aspiring monopolist) makes more money selling fewer units at higher prices than could be earned selling more units at lower prices. How many people are out of a job makes no difference to the American right wing for whom Scrooge is their abiding inspiration.
    "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons...then let them die and decrease the surplus population."

    It is now time to address the concerns of Scrooge. The American right wing, consulted as they are by slick, suited Madison avenue whiz kids will never call the American gulag of FEMA camps by the names 'work houses' or 'prisons'. By any name, they are presumably open and ready for those who fall through the gaping cracks. A perpetually depressed economy is a good source of slave labor. Who benefits? KBR? Halliburton?

    Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants." Americans are certain to be among them.

    The Military Commissions Act of 2006 governing the treatment of detainees is the culmination of relentless fear-mongering by the Bush administration since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

    Because the bill was adopted with lightning speed, barely anyone noticed that it empowers Bush to declare not just aliens, but also U.S. citizens, "unlawful enemy combatants."

    Bush & Co. has portrayed the bill as a tough way to deal with aliens to protect us against terrorism. Frightened they might lose their majority in Congress in the November elections, the Republicans rammed the bill through Congress with little substantive debate.

    Anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. That includes American citizens.

    The bill also strips habeas corpus rights from detained aliens who have been declared enemy combatants. Congress has the constitutional power to suspend habeas corpus only in times of rebellion or invasion. The habeas-stripping provision in the new bill is unconstitutional and the Supreme Court will likely say so when the issue comes before it.

    Although more insidious, this law follows in the footsteps of other unnecessarily repressive legislation. In times of war and national crisis, the government has targeted immigrants and dissidents.

    --American Prison Camps Are on the Way, Marjorie Cohn, AlterNet.

    There is more on the prospects of work camps, concentration camps, the illegal, unconstitutional war on dissent, and slave labor in America:

    American Concentration Camps

    In Bush's Orwellian dictatorship, a 'terrorist' is anyone Bush decrees a 'terrorist'. As the article points out, US dissidents are always targeted by the right wing. The Bush regime --having set aside habeas corpus --has the right wing's best chance ever of putting away the Bill of Rights for good. Bush has already done so on paper, by decree! "Stop throwing the Constitution up to me," he is reported by two witnesses to have screamed! "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" Americans must dissent or risk being thrown into FEMA work camps forever. Bush believes that disagreement with him is 'treasonous'. I deny his authority to define 'treason' upon his unlawful, unconstitutional decree. His proclamation is, therefore, null and void, still-born bullshit!

    Bush, having made free Americans traitors by illegal decree, Bush is a real traitor to the very foundation of US law: the Constitution. His war of naked aggression against Iraq, resulting as it has in the deaths of millions of civilians, is a capital crime under Geneva, to which the US is a party, affirmed by US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441, and, likewise, the Nuremberg Principles. Let's get on with the trial of George W. Bush for capital crimes.
    "During the late-nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in America, as labor unions organized and gathered power, as socialism grew in popularity among working and other oppressed peoples, industries owned by Rockefeller, Morgan, Harriman, Carnegie, and others, began hiring their own police forces and goon squads to infiltrate labor unions and spy on the political and personal activities of union organizers for the purpose of bringing arrests and convictions and eliminating all socialist activity in the nation. The most notorious example was the Homestead Strike of 1892, when Pinkerton agents killed several people while enforcing the strikebreaking measures of Henry Clay Frick, acting on behalf of Andrew Carnegie."

    --Carolyn Baker, PhD, US Government Targets American Dissent - Part I

    It has been quipped: a conservative is never so miserable as when times are good. Certainly, miserable grinches got what they wished for. The surplus was pissed away in a series of Bush tax cuts benefiting only the very rich. Now, when the US faces the very real prospect of utter collapse, millions will be thrown out of work. What is to be said of an entire class of people who are happiest when others are miserable? I leave that to another article…
    Another “benefit” of a recession is that it purges the excesses of the previous boom, leaving the economy in a healthier state. The Fed's massive easing after the dotcom bubble burst delayed this cleansing process and simply replaced one bubble with another, leaving America's imbalances (inadequate saving, excessive debt and a huge current-account deficit) in place. A recession now would reduce America's trade gap as consumers would at last be forced to trim their spending. Delaying the correction of past excesses by pumping in more money and encouraging more borrowing is likely to make the eventual correction more painful. The policy dilemma facing the Fed may not be a choice of recession or no recession. It may be a choice between a mild recession now and a nastier one later.

    --Does America need a recession?

    But there is, after all, only one thing wrong with the economy: our government! If Republican partisans on the Supreme Court would see fit to allow one, a free and fair election may redress this grievance. If not, then the people will have no choice but to effect the remedies recommended by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, specifically that part about how the people may 'abolish' the government whenever it breaks its covenant.

    The plunging dollar has taken a beating lately on international markets. But at least one wealthy investor may be set to profit from the dollar's decline: Dick Cheney.

    Back in June 2006, Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine reported that Cheney's financial advisers were apparently betting on a rise in inflation and on a decline in the value of the dollar against foreign currencies.

    Cheney and his wife, Lynne, the magazine noted, had between $10 million and $25 million in American Century International Bond (BEGBX). As Kiplinger pointed out, the fund "buys mainly high-quality foreign bonds (predominantly in Europe) and rarely hedges against possible increases in the value of the dollar. Indeed, its prospectus limits dollar exposure to 25 percent of assets and the fund currently has only 6 percent of assets in dollars, according to an American Century spokesman."

    Assuming Cheney still holds the fund, he has done well: BEGBX returned 8.3 percent in 2006 and 9.9 percent in 2007. And if he was counting on a dollar decline, of course, he's done well in that regard, as well: in recent days, the dollar has continued to plunge to new all-time lows against the euro. The dollar has also fallen to 12-year lows against the yen. The weak dollar trend looks set to continue as the Fed continues to slash interest rates.

    Economists have noted that the weak dollar stems from America's titanic fiscal deficits, which have soared as a result of the disastrous Iraq War.

    It's notable that Cheney once claimed that "deficits don't matter." But by banking on a declining dollar, it's clear that even Cheney knows this is bullsh*t and that deficits do indeed matter.

    -- MARC MCDONALD, Is Dick Cheney Set To Profit From Dollar's Drop?



    Add to Technorati Favorites

    , , ,

    Spread the word

    yahoo icerocket pubsub newsvine