ring of power

[ericg]

How the World Can Stop Bush

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review

What would be the consequences of a US or Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear energy sites?

At the 2006 Perdana Global Peace Forum, Australian medical scientist Dr. Helen Caldicott provided an authoritative analysis of the devastating impact on human life that would result from the radiation release from such an attack.

Dr. Caldicott described the catastrophic deaths that would result from a conventional attack on nuclear facilities and the long-term increase in cancer deaths from the radiation release.

Should the attack be made with nuclear weapons--as some of Bush's criminally insane neoconservative advisers advocate--the populations of many countries would suffer for generations from radioactive particles in air, water, and food chains. Deaths would number in the many millions.

Such an attack justified in the name of "American security" and "American hegemony" would constitute the rawest form of evil the world has ever seen, far surpassing in evil the atrocities of the Nazi and Communist regimes.

Dr. Caldicott detailed the horrible long-term consequences for the Iraqi population from the US military's current use of depleted uranium in explosive ammunition used in Iraq. Caldicott explained that "depleted" does not mean depleted of radiation. She explained that each time such ammunition is used, radioactive particles are released in the air and are absorbed into people's lungs. We are yet to see the horrific civilian casualty rate of the American invasion--or the true casualty rate among US troops.

Dr. Caldicott expressed bewilderment why the rest of the world does not stand up to the US and force a halt to its crimes against humanity.

One man heard her--Vladimir Putin, President of Russia.

On February 10 at the 43rd Munich Security Conference, President Putin told the world's assembled political leaders that the US was trying to establish a "uni-polar world," which he defined as "one single center of power, one single center of force and one single master."

This goal, Putin said, was a "formula for disaster."

"The United States," Putin said, truthfully, "has overstepped its borders in all spheres" and "has imposed itself on other states."

The Russian leader declared: "We see no kind of restraint--a hyper-inflated use of force."

To avoid catastrophe, Putin said a reconsideration of the entire existing architecture of global security was necessary.

Putin's words of truth fell on many deaf ears. US Senator John McCain, America's most idiotic and dangerous "leader" after Bush and Cheney, equated Putin's legitimate criticism of the US with "confrontation."

America's new puppets--the states of central and Eastern Europe and the secretary general of NATO, no longer a treaty for the defense of Europe but a military force enlisted in America's quest for empire--lined up with McCain's argument that Russia was in fundamental conflict "with the core values of Euro-Atlantic democracies."

Even the BBC's defense and security correspondent, Rob Watson, jumped on the American propaganda bandwagon, tagging Putin's speech a revival of the cold war.

No delegate at the security conference stood up to state the obvious fact that it is not Russia that is invading countries under pretexts as false as Hitler's and setting up weapons systems on foreign soil in order to achieve military hegemony.

The reception given to Putin's words made it clear to Russia, China, and every country not bribed, threatened or purchased into participation in America's drive for world hegemony that the US has no interest whatsoever in peace. Intelligent people realize that American claims to be a moral and democratic force are mere pretense behind which hides a policy of military aggression.

The US, Putin said, has gone "from one conflict to another without achieving a fully-fledged solution to any of them."

Putin has repeatedly stressed Russia's peaceful intentions and desire to focus on its economy and to avoid a new arms race. In his speech on the 60th anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany, Putin said: "I am convinced that there is no alternative to our friendship and our fraternity. With our closest neighbors and all countries of the world, Russia is prepared to build a kind of relationship which is not only based on lessons of the past but is also directed into a shared future."

In his 2006 state of the nation speech, Putin noted that America's military budget is 25 times larger than Russia's. He compared the Bush Regime to a wolf who eats whom he wants without listening. Putin is being demonized by US propagandists, because he insists upon Russia being a politically and economically independent state.

The Bush Regime has taken the US outside the boundaries of international law and is acting unilaterally, falsely declaring American military aggression to be "defensive" and in the interests of peace. Much of the world realizes the hypocrisy and danger in the Bush Regime's justification of the unbridled use of US military power, but no countries except other nuclear powers can challenge American aggression, and then only at the risk of all life on earth.

The solution is nonmilitary challenge.

The Bush Regime's ability to wage war is dependent upon foreign financing. The Regime's wars are financed with red ink, which means the hundreds of billions of dollars must be borrowed. As American consumers are spending more than they earn on consumption, the money cannot be borrowed from Americans.

The US is totally dependent upon foreigners to finance its budget and trade deficits. By financing these deficits, foreign governments are complicit in the Bush Regime's military aggressions and war crimes. The Bush Regime's two largest lenders are China and Japan. It is ironic that Japan, the only nation to experience nuclear attack by the US, is banker to the Bush Regime as it prepares a possible nuclear attack on Iran.

If the rest of the world would simply stop purchasing US Treasuries, and instead dump their surplus dollars into the foreign exchange market, the Bush Regime would be overwhelmed with economic crisis and unable to wage war. The arrogant hubris associated with the "sole superpower" myth would burst like the bubble it is.

The collapse of the dollar would also end the US government's ability to subvert other countries by purchasing their leaders to do America's will.

The demise of the US dollar is only a question of time. It would save the world from war and devastation if the dollar is brought to its demise before the Bush Regime launches its planned attack on Iran.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com


" ... the irresponsible powers of Israel have worked out secret plans regarding a rocket and air-force attack against the atomic facilities in Iran." Ptaah, October 15th, published November 29th, 2006

"Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper said." January 7, 2007

[ericg]

November 10th, the biggest fundraiser of the year was held for Democratic Presidential Candidates in Iowa.

However, Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Former Senator Mike Gravel, both Democratic Candidates, were excluded from this event.

The 'reason' given by the Iowa Democratic Party was that Kucinich had "no full-time staff in Iowa, no office and not enough visits".

However in 2003, Ambassador Mosley Brown was invited to this same Fundraiser, and he had made the same number of visits to Iowa as Congressman Kucinich. Mosley was invited in 2003, but Dennis was not in 2007.

Telephone, email and fax complaints about Dennis and Mike being excluded from that event!

Nancy Pelosi
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-0100
EMAIL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact

Iowa Democratic Party
5661 Fleur Dr, Des Moines, IA 50321
PHONE: 515-244-7292
FAX: 515-244-5051
WEBSITE: www.iowademocrats.org
EMAIL: iadem@iowademocrats.org

[ericg]

Lobbying Stalls Generic Drug Legislation
Go to Original

Washington - Legislation aimed at speeding the availability of cheaper generic drugs has stalled in Congress in the face of major lobbying by the drug industry.

The Senate bill would ban most settlements known as "reverse payments," in which a brand-name company pays a generic manufacturer to delay the introduction of the generic drug. The Federal Trade Commission, which has called on Congress to take action, says such settlements could cost American consumers billions of dollars.

An Associated Press review of lobbying reports, from July 1, 2006, through June 30, 2007, found that $38.8 million was spent by at least a dozen generic and brand-name companies and their trade associations on issues including the Senate legislation. The lobbying reports do not specify how much of that money was directed at the reverse payment bill, and they are not required by law to do so.

More than half of those expenses were piled up by the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, which represents brand-name drug companies. PhRMA spent $19.5 million in the 12-month period ending June 30 on in-house lobbying expenses, an increase of about $3 million over the previous 12-month period.

And the Generic Pharmaceutical Association reported lobbying expenses of around $420,000 for the first six months of this year. It did not report lobbying on the bill in its year-ending 2006 report. The remaining $19 million was spent by a variety of drug companies, including Bayer Corp., Schering-Plough, Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA.

"Lobbyists have a lot of influence in Washington," said the bill's sponsor, Sen. Herb Kohl, who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights. "If we can just get this to a vote, it will be pretty hard for people to vote against it. A vote against this is a vote against consumers."

Kohl, D-Wis., also chairs the Senate Special Committee on Aging, where he has pushed for generic drugs as a way for seniors to save money on their medications. Generic drugs are 30 to 80 percent cheaper than brand-name drugs, according to the Generic Pharmaceutical Association.

Kohl has offered the reverse payment legislation for the past two sessions of Congress. This year, House supporters introduced a similar bill, which remains in committee. Neither bill has come up for a vote, although the Senate bill did make it through the Judiciary Committee a few months ago.

In May, Kohl tried to get a vote on the Senate floor under a procedure known as unanimous consent, but Republicans objected. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and others involved with the legislation wanted more time to work on it.

Kyl asked the Justice Department's antitrust division for its views on the bill and is waiting for a response, said Kyl spokesman Andrew Wilder. The antitrust division declined to comment.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has expressed concerns about Kohl's bill. Hatch issued a statement saying he voted to move the bill through committee this year "with the reservation that we find a balanced solution, one that bars anticompetitive settlements without jeopardizing the very kind of settlements that are critical to consumers and taxpayers."

"We haven't reached that balance yet, so it's understandable this bill has not moved forward," Hatch said.

In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which established procedures to encourage generic companies to challenge patents before their expiration. In recent years, generic companies have increasingly resolved such challenges through settlements in which the generics receive cash or lucrative licensing and marketing agreements.

The drug companies are required to file their settlements with the FTC. Two federal appeals court rulings in 2005 upholding the legality of reverse payments have made it more difficult for the agency to block them.

In one of those cases, Barr Laboratories Inc. abandoned its successful challenge to AstraZeneca PLC's patent for the breast cancer drug tamoxifen. In exchange, Barr received a $21 million payment and entered an agreement with AstraZeneca under which Barr sold tamoxifen provided by AstraZeneca.

Consumers filed a lawsuit. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal judge who had concluded that the agreement did not violate federal antitrust laws. In June, the Supreme Court refused to take up an appeal.

A plaintiff in that case, Helen Donega of North Adams, Mass., said she was saving only about 5 percent off the brand-name price when she purchased the Barr generic tamoxifen in 1998 and 1999. Donega, who had insurance through Medicare but no drug coverage, said she had to pay between $85 and $90 a month for the drug.

She eventually bought tamoxifen in Canada for about one-10th of the price she was paying in the U.S.

Donega, 75, who had a mastectomy and has been cancer-free for several years, said she was amazed when she learned of the deal between Barr and AstraZeneca, which sold tamoxifen under the brand name Nolvadex. AstraZeneca's patent on the drug has since expired.

"I must have been naive. I thought the government was on our side," she said. "No, the government isn't on our side. Big PhRMA is powerful and has a lot of money. That's whose side they're on."

AstraZeneca spent just under $2.4 million in lobbying expenses over the 12-month period ending July 1 on issues including the reverse payment bill.

In an e-mail statement, AstraZeneca spokesman Tony Jewell said the settlement with Barr Laboratories was meant to resolve a patent dispute, not to delay the generic tamoxifen.

Barr spent $660,000 in the same 12-month period. At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this year, Barr Chairman and CEO Bruce L. Downey said the company settled the case with AstraZeneca because it thought it would lose its patent challenge on appeal.

"We took payment, we took a license, and we entered the market early with tamoxifen," he said. "And over the course of our license, we saved consumers about $300 million on that product."

Not all patent litigation settlements between generic and brand name companies involve payments, and Kohl's bill bans only those where the generic company receives something of value. The legislation would allow, for example, a deal in which the two sides merely compromise on the date that a generic can enter the market. And Kohl recently agreed to add a provision that would exempt some reverse payment settlements if the FTC determines they would benefit consumers.

The FTC has called on Congress to pass legislation to crack down on the reverse payment settlements, although it hasn't endorsed any specific bill.

"Such settlements restrict competition at the expense of consumers, whose access to lower-priced generic drugs is delayed, sometimes for many years," FTC Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras said in testimony before a House task force in September.

Generic and brand name drug companies argue that a ban would be counterproductive. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said in a statement that pharmaceutical research companies invest billions of dollars developing new medicines, and that patent rights help the companies recoup those investments and fund new research.

Jake Hanson, a lobbyist for Barr Laboratories, said that the settlements are sometimes necessary when a generic company considers all the ramifications behind a patent challenge.

"Sometimes as you're moving through discovery and different levels of a court case, you realize that it may not be a slam dunk," Hanson said.

[ericg]

Crisis in the U.S.: “Plan B”?
by Richard C. Cook
Go To Original


Strange events are taking place in the U.S.
By August 2007, a lot of very smart people were reading the tea leaves, convinced that the upper echelons of the U.S. government had their own hidden reasons for forecasting an event even more heinous than the attacks of September 11, 2001.

President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, and Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff had been hinting that another 9/11 could be coming.

Figures from the U.S. military had also projected a 9/11-type event. On April 23, 2006, for instance, the Washington Post published a statement by an unnamed Pentagon source that, “Another attack could create both a justification and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets.”

9/11 was a turning point in history, and not just because it provided a pretext for the Bush administration to use off-the-shelf plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. The 9/11 Commission criticized the government for failing to do enough to act on danger signs that attacks may have been afoot. But a movement has formed which argues that the reality was worse—that 9/11 was an inside job staged to further the geopolitical ambitions of an elite seeking to use U.S. military power to advance its own imperialistic agenda.

What is indisputable is that from the 2000 presidential election through the 9/11 attacks and their aftermath, what New York Times columnist Paul Krugman termed a “revolutionary power” took control of the U.S. government.

Krugman’s statement, contained in the introduction to his 2005 book The Great Unraveling, has not been taken seriously enough. George W. Bush had lost the popular vote to Al Gore but was named to office by a Supreme Court that rubber-stamped what Greg Palast and others have proven was an extended process of electoral fraud in Florida. The subsequent actions and policies of the Bush/Cheney administration have been in accord with its dubious beginnings.

From the emergence of the Neocons as an ideological power base dominant over U.S. foreign policy, to destruction wreaked on the Bill of Rights by illegal surveillance of citizens, to the senseless creation of the bureaucratically monstrous Department of Homeland Security and passage of the Patriot Acts, to the initiation of “wars of choice” leading to the devastation of two nations and the killing or displacement of perhaps a million Middle Eastern non-combatants, to violation of international treaties and conventions against wars of aggression and torture of prisoners, to presiding over an economy ruined by the continued export of manufacturing jobs and the creation and deflation of the housing bubble, to the wrecking of the federal budget by over a trillion dollars of wartime expenditure, to the abandonment of the city of New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina, to tax cuts for the most wealthy while the income of the middle class has drastically eroded, and to threats to start another war, this time against Iran, based on deceptions similar to those which preceded the Iraq invasion, the Bush/Cheney administration has brought the U.S. to the brink of catastrophe.

What is now being asked is whether there was a plan that was to take place in September-October 2007 whereby the rest of the job would have been done. Speculation was that a nuclear device was to have been detonated in a U.S. city, perhaps one of the six attached to cruise missiles that were “inadvertently” carried by the Air Force B-52 bomber that flew from South Dakota to Louisiana just before Labor Day.

Check this link from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette for the official explanation of the incident:
http://www2.arkansasonline.com/news/...ear-weapons-f/.

According to the Air Force’s report, the missiles were being mothballed due to “a treaty,” but ground personnel at Minot Air Force Base “grabbed the wrong ones” and loaded missiles with nuclear warheads by mistake.

Some have argued that these nukes were secretly bound for Iran to prepare for a nuclear attack on that country. But would such a Keystone Cops routine have been necessary to prepare for military action as a contingency to implement a possible decision coming from the highest political levels?

Suppose, on the other hand, that one of the nukes was targeted for a false-flag domestic attack, perhaps a city like Portland, Oregon, where military exercises simulating a major terrorist incident had been scheduled and where residents actually were warning each other to leave town.

Was the attack to trigger an economic collapse, leading as a side-effect to a payoff of billions of dollars for the placers of the “bin Laden bets” that were reportedly made in the financial markets anticipating a fifty percent decline in stock prices? Of course such an attack would be blamed on foreign terrorists. The trail of the explosion would be found to lead to Iran, resulting in war against that nation. Would the Constitution then have been suspended and martial law declared? Would citizens have been rounded up and herded into prison camps?

Such a scenario seems unfathomable, horrendous, even incredible. But it still may have been in character for a regime whose actions have led the world to view the U.S. as the greatest existing threat to peace. Rumors about such possible events have been churning on the internet for months.

But the rumors have not been confined to “conspiracy theorists.” Regarding President Bush’s commitment to the sanctity of constitutional processes, Congressman John Olver expressed the prevailing view in government circles when he told twenty of his constituents at a private meeting in Massachusetts on July 5, 2007, that he could not support a movement to impeach Bush. According to an attendee, the reason the Congressman gave was that, “The President would declare a national emergency, institute martial law, and suspend the 2008 elections.”

Therefore we might ask if it is true, as some sources have alleged, that the reason these events have not taken place was that there was a revolt by the U.S. military, which refused to carry out the false-flag attack that may have been intended?

What then has happened differently which indicates that events may have altered or postponed such a sinister denouement to the nightmare of the last seven years?

What has happened appears to be that the U.S. establishment has decided to move to “Plan B.” This may be defined as a decision that the sway of the Bush/Cheney regime must end and that some semblance of normality should be restored, at least in appearance, by making Hillary Clinton the next President.

Of course part and parcel of any Hillary Clinton presidency would be the presence and participation of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. We may rightly speak of “the Clintons” as a unit in this context.

The signs that Hillary Clinton is the President-designee have been appearing in droves. These include her rise in the polls, especially in Iowa, the emergence of an anti-Bush surge in the mega-media, especially on MSNBC, and the appointment of Democrats with ties to the Clintons at the Defense and Treasury Departments. Other signs include the emergence of a campaign by certain well-connected websites to keep tabs on pro-Neocon news commentators and offensives being launched against some particularly obnoxious right-wing media figures such as Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.

The way Hillary Clinton is being portrayed in the mega-media is of decisive importance, because media-owning conglomerates such as GE, Viacom, and Disney serve the interests of the establishment, not the public. Nothing makes it to the airwaves without the approval of the financial interests which control these giants. Also decisive was the appearance of Hillary and Bill on the cover of the October 6 edition of The Economist, long the keystone publication of the Anglo-American international financial empire.

The Washington Post, another establishment house organ, has noted that Hillary herself is couching her election in terms of “when, not if.” The theme she is projecting is that of an anointed insider calling for “national unity.” For this she is being duly attacked by her competitors, most notably John Edwards.

The best example of how the mega-media is telegraphing establishment intent was Chris Mathews’ lead story on Hardball on Monday night, November 5, which displayed MSNBC’s “Power Rankings” for presidential candidates. The segment began with an adulatory profile of Hillary’s campaign. Mathews then set a record for premature declaration of victory by predicting her as “the most likely winner of the Democratic nomination and presidential election” a full year before the election is even to take place.

Mathews repeated his judgment several times in what was obviously rehearsed language, even as the members of his three-person panel of commentators were trying in vain to raise objections, including the view that Hillary might not even win the Iowa caucuses or the New Hampshire primary. Mathews repeatedly overrode his own experts with his insistence that Hillary was the MSMBC pick.

Oh yes, we will have the formality of a presidential election. Doubtless some fur will fly, because Hillary will always be the Clinton the right-wing most loves to hate. So we won’t see a coronation.

It is certain, however, that the current regime will exact a price for accepting at least temporary defeat. So far the price seems to be agreement by Hillary Clinton that the conquest of Iraq is a fait accompli, that the building of the Baghdad supersize embassy will continue, that permanent military bases in Iraq will be maintained a lá Korea, and that the option of an attack on Iran will remain “on the table.”

She has not raised her voice against any of this. The vehicle by which Clinton signed on to a possible attack on Iran was her vote in favor of the Senate resolution naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist sponsor. Perhaps there is also an understanding between the Clintons and the Bush/Cheney camp that the latter will not be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.

No matter who becomes president in 2008, that person will be left with a nation in disarray. This includes a foreign policy that has been sacrificed to militaristic interests, the rise of a militant Russia now allied with China through the Shanghai Cooperative Organization, and a Latin America in open revolt against U.S. domination. Even maintaining a post-Bush foreign policy will be a challenge, given Condoleezza Rice’s legacy of a State Department whose morale is in shreds due to a vicious Neocon takeover of the foreign service that will persist for a generation or more.

Meanwhile, the U.S. economy is a wreck, with out-of-control debt, the housing collapse in full flower, continued erosion of manufacturing jobs, a sinking dollar, a crumbling physical infrastructure, soaring oil and food prices, out-of-control illegal immigration, and hordes of well-heeled foreigners buying U.S. assets with rapidly depreciating dollars.

The economy is in much worse shape today than when Bill Clinton took over from George H. W. Bush in 1992. It will be a miracle if the next president is able to keep the U.S. from sinking into a depression. The only qualification to this assessment lies with the large companies heavily invested in the growing Chinese economy—GM, GE, IBM, etc. But a majority of the stock of these and other corporations is owned by financial institutions, while the trickle-down effect of dividends will provide only a fraction of the purchasing power needed to keep the U.S. economy afloat.

While the views of the American public still seem to register to a slight degree, the Democrats have failed to respond to their restoration by the electorate to power in Congress by ending the Iraq War. But by their votes in 2006 and by consistently giving George W. Bush such low ratings in the polls, Americans have delivered a message. So have the many internet sites covering the real news of the war and the economy.

As well have the two maverick presidential candidates, Ron Paul the Republican and Dennis Kucinich the Democrat, who have been saying things not heard in the supine world of American politics for a long time. Things like getting rid of the inept handling of credit by the Federal Reserve and stopping the war in Iraq by exiting right now, without any more lies or excuses.

But it is by no means certain that there is much immediate hope of salvaging the nation from the current debacle. The interests of millions of Americans have been severely damaged by the financial and political malfeasance that has gone on for so long. Abroad, the deaths or ruin of large numbers of people in the Middle East must be accounted for. That region is now less stable than ever, as the situation in Pakistan shows. A negotiated two-state settlement between Israel and the Palestinians seems a distant dream. Finally, sane multilateral systems for sharing of the world’s resources among nations or dealing with global warming are nowhere in sight. And a nuclear holocaust involving the U.S. vs. Russia and possibly China is a growing danger.

Further, the U.S. economy can’t simply be “fixed.” It is too far gone for that. The elite began their takedown of the economy during the 1970s and show no signs of being able to reverse course. It started with the removal of the gold-peg to the dollar in 1971 and continued with the explosion of U.S. currency on the international scene due to the petrodollar, soaring trade and fiscal deficits, action to permanently mortgage us to military-backed dependence on imported Middle Eastern oil, a permanent tilt in favor of Israel vs. the Islamic world, and, finally, the galloping 1970s inflation.

These events led to the Fed-induced crash of 1979-83 which left us with today’s travesty of a “service” economy. Now in 2007 the Fed is trying to engineer a “soft landing” of an economy trapped in unsustainable debt and collapsing bubbles, at least until the 2008 election. But everyone knows a crash is coming, particularly as China and other nations dump the plummeting dollar as their reserve currency.

So what are the Clintons and their government-in-waiting planning? You would think they had something in mind. But maybe not. During the 1990s, Bill Clinton acted in full accord with the globalists’ agenda by continuing with the Reagan/Bush I privatization of the economy, with downsizing of government, and with promotion of the dot.com bubble that ended with the 2000 market crash. Unfortunately, it will not be as simple to engineer a repeat performance of even the ephemeral prosperity of the 1990s when what is lacking today is a real economic driver.

The grievous condition of the U.S. is reflected in an epidemic of mental and emotional illness and a rising violent crime rate. It is reflected in a USA Today poll, where 72 percent of Americans say the nation is moving in the wrong direction (74 percent in a Washington Post/ABC News poll). And who knows what disasters global warming has in store?

To face all this will require a decisive reorientation of U.S. governance. There is little in the history of the Clintons, their opportunistic style, and their passivity to the financier elite that justifies this much optimism. The financial controllers today exert more power over the U.S. economy and the nation’s politics than at any time in history. They are not giving up this power. In fact, Hillary is their “safest” choice among the Democrats in maintaining control.

Perhaps we may want to indulge in a sigh of relief at how much worse things could have been—or may still be—if Bush/Cheney unleash even more disasters. But stay tuned. The next four years are likely to be decisive—particularly because the plan to elevate Hillary Clinton may be a trap by which she is left holding the bag for an economic collapse that would make it much easier than at present for the Neocon storm troopers to rush back in.

What is absolutely certain is that the people of the world do not want war, regardless of their religion, race, or nationality. The people of the world want economic fairness. The people of the world want to live by honest labor, not bank credit. And the people of the world want an environment that is clean and safe for future generations. The only people who do not appear to want these things have been those who are currently in charge of the U.S. government.

The question now is what are the American people willing to do to assure that what is truly in the best interests of the nation will prevail? Will they continue to be manipulated by the fear which has been the basis of the Bush/Cheney mode of governance? Will they continue to act as obedient puppets as it becomes harder and harder to earn a living and raise a family in an economy throttled by debt and a declining standard of living? Will they simply vote for whom they are told to support by the media and the pollsters? Or will some decide that enough is enough and resolve to take America back in 2008?

But even if they do, can they succeed?

While Hillary Clinton is likely the designated Democratic nominee, Rudy Giuliani leads the polls for the Republicans. Giuliani, with his own group of Neocon advisers and his militant outbursts promising more war, is the ideological godson of Bush/Cheney.

Whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes, it is likely obvious to them that to allow a character like Giuliani to step in while so many raw nerves are exposed among the American populace could lead to a premature explosion. Especially since Giuliani spent most of his adult life as a prosecutor putting people in jail. It’s hardly a time in the nation’s life when what is needed as head of state is an expert at slamming people into detention.

So what if Giuliani actually threatens to defeat Hillary while the establishment has decided to support her, perhaps just to buy time?

The establishment is taking precautions. It seems to be doing so by starting to promote a plan that could see Ron Paul running as a third-party candidate. You can see this unfolding, for instance, in his favorable treatment on CNN’s “Situation Room.” And could Dr. Paul really have begun suddenly to raise enormous amounts of campaign cash without someone in the establishment giving a green light?

Ron Paul as a candidate would obviously generate enormous excitement. But he could end up playing the same role as Ross Perot in the 1992 election, where Perot allowed disgruntled voters to let off steam while drawing enough votes to allow Bill Clinton to defeat George H.W. Bush.

One way or the other, the fix is on.

Finally, we should note that the “revolutionary power” Paul Krugman refers to is not just the Bush/Cheney/Neocon regime. They are only the most visible recent manifestation.

The true “revolutionary power” is much less visible but may reasonably be identified with the higher echelons of the “financier elite” and “establishment” referred to throughout this article. The underlying agenda of this group seems to be to destroy the U.S. as the world’s greatest industrial democracy, turn it into a province of a globalist system under their control, and use its land and population as muscle for world monetary and military dominance.

Can anything be done? Of course. The underlying problem is that the power and wealth acquired by the U.S. after World War II has eroded—has perhaps been squandered—as the rest of the world has grown up. Certainly, if the right people were in charge the U.S. could accept the inevitable, rebuild its failed domestic economy on democratic principles, and assume its rightful place as one of several major world powers, with the responsibility this would entail. Instead, we have been trying to hold onto what has slipped away by a continued resort to financial aggression combined with force of arms, rather than altruistic action based on enlightened ideals.

It’s a failed mission. What has happened to America in the last decade is turning into the greatest tragedy of modern history.

And what can ordinary people do while all this is unfolding? The best advice seems to be not to try to hoard paper assets, which the elite are able easily to manipulate or devalue. It’s to get out of debt, hone our manual skills, invest in a small business, grow our own food, stay positive, help others, work hard, eschew the consumption lifestyle, pray and meditate, be sober, and learn to think for ourselves. We might try to work within the political system if we can and want to, but should not count on easy successes, because, as the man said, “It’s a hard rain’s gonna fall.”

Richard C. Cook is a retired federal analyst, whose career included service with the U.S. Civil Service Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Carter White House, and NASA, followed by twenty-one years with the U.S. Treasury Department. His articles on economics, politics, and space policy have appeared on numerous websites. He is the author of Challenger Revealed: An Insider’s Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, called by one reviewer, “the most important spaceflight book of the last twenty years.” His website is at www.richardccook.com.

[ericg]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtUOFzc5bcY

[ericg]

9/11 T-r-u-t-h: BBC on the run

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

Since July 2007 British scientist, member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice and RINF science correspondent, John A. Blacker, has been in an ongoing battle with the BBC over their lie infested hit piece programme ‘9/11: The Conspiracy Files’, which aired in February 2007 and was designed to present an unfair view of the 9/11 truth movement and prominent researchers. Mr Blacker is currently in ‘pre-action protocol’ with the BBC, meaning they have to try and settle the argument out of court.

In this latest update, Mr Blacker has been informed of a scheduled meeting, due to take place in October which has now been pushed back further to late November. This is the third time the BBC has bought more time by delaying the meeting. A clear sign they are struggling to piece together a legal case to defend their actions.

With the BBC desperately on the run, I am making available the latest letter Mr Blacker has sent them, in which he pin points even more of the faults contained in the programme and demands an apology for their blatant lies as their hit piece is a complete disrespect to the truth and an insult to all who died on 9/11.

Please take the time to read the letter published below. As stated many months ago, RINF Alternative News will not allow this issue to be dropped and we’ve only just begun the battle to see justice prevail and the BBC admit it is guilty of mass public deception in a court of law.

Pre action for damages without prejudice.

Thursday, 08 November 2007

Dear Chairman,

Thank you for your letter dated 31 October 2007 and the 6 section Cover notes for appeal of which accompanied said.

Firstly I request and Expect each and every member of the decision panel to disclose their affiliations such as to “Common Purpose” “Masons” etc, etc and to forward said disclosure to the Chair. I am a member of AE911 truth, STJ911 truth and also ST911 truth, I am not currently a member of any political party & I am 1 of three professional partners of Physical Systems, Lancaster England & a qualified Physicist & Mechanical Engineer.

I shall be going through the folder you sent in order stating from section 1 and making my comments & observations as I proceed if I may, as this is the first opportunity I have been given to these information resources in their current format.

SECTION 1

(1) The Item

The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the WWW.

YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE.

If the documentary was not biases — WHY not one?

Take for example the evidence of Fire CAPTAIN KARIN DESHORE who states on page 15 of the official report given to official government 911 investigators quote:

“SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTER THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH
COMING OUT INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH THEN
THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE
BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE THE
POPPING SOUND AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS
INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF
THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE THESE
POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER
GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE
BUILDING”

What sort of research did the BBC team do? How can a documentary ignore such clear damming evidence?

WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL PROCESS OF SELECTING INFORMATION TO PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC?

What checks and balances ensured impartiality & the delivery of FACTUAL & accurate information worthy of a BBC Documentary & BBC viewers ?????

Alex Jones stated that he was filmed for many many hours and forwarded documentary proof upon proof to the BBC documentary team, yet all of that proof was ignored in favour of what was shown – why? What selection criteria was used, if not to deliberately select out everything which was conclusive in favour of what was actually shown – which was nothing more than Hearsay, Opinion & NEGATIVE Stereotyping of truth members.

High witnesses, actual Fire fighters and actual police were ignored by the BBC crew in favour of 3rd hand 3rd rate information. Why? Where is the journalistic integrity in this so called documentary?

Prof Jim Fetzer states the BBC team recorded many hours with him yet showed next to nothing of what he explained were the key science issues of the truth movement & the key evidence – why – what has the BBC got to hide – perhaps the FACTS???

Why was all of this key evidence censored?

(2.1)

The truth movement

A point which is missing, is the fact NO actual Physics was mentioned either to back the official government (Physically Impossible) lies, or more importantly, to explain why so many informed “intelligent” professional people do not believe the government lies because the official story simply defies the laws of physics.

1 There was not enough energy in the “collapse sequence” to turn the 300,000 tonnes of concrete and all of the floor panels to DUST – by a factor of at least 10.

2 3 buildings came to ground at near freefall; hence the undamaged, heaviest and strongest lower floors offered near zero resistance which was consistent with falling through clear AIR only.

3 Falling bodies never take the path of greatest resistance, EVER, always the path of least resistance only! (without exception)

4 A 757 simply can not fit through a 20 foot hole at the Pentagon – the program did not show the hole prior to collapse at the Pentagon, but misled the public into thinking the Jet had caused the damage after collapse. (TOTAL DECEIT)

I will stick to just 4 points here, however there are more, please see the actual correspondence from myself re key omissions of key & important points.

The Collapse of the twin towers.

There was not a single mention that NIST, who were hired by the US government to explain why the towers came to ground – did not cover the actual collapse sequence AT ALL.

The NIST report’s title was:

“Final report on the collapse of the world trade centre towers.”

Yet the official report did not actually even mention the “collapse” of the world trade centre towers or anything to do with building 007 (demolition 003).

In summary MANY pieces of KEY DAMMING information were deliberately and methodically left out or deliberately & methodically removed from the documentary during editing because they were far too conclusive, and far too damaging to the official government lies peddled by this BBC documentary. Instead of reporting the bread & butter truth issues the program was bulked out with nonsense from a science fiction writer and some really dodgy reporting from “Popular Mechanics” et al who gave not one slither of proof to the statements they made.

NOT a single first hand account was shown or mentioned – why? What process lead to no first hand accounts being selected or deemed worthy to be included or reported on in what was supposed to be a factual documentary?

SECTION 002 correction:

A second version of the letter dated 07/072007 was sent to the BBC via email to replace the one with hand written maths, this second version had typo corrections and also clearer printed maths which was better suited to publication online for the whole world to see.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/s...deception/776/

SECTION 3

The original letter was intended to pursue action for damages and apology.
The response by the BBC was very positive as can be seen from the reply letters and it was at this point felt that whilst the documentary was a piece of yellow journalism designed to discredit the truth movement, it was perhaps not necessarily targeting and singling out any would be qualified scientist who was prepared to take a closer look at the evidence in detail, although it certainly did not encourage closer scrutiny as any fair and balanced documentary (considering all the evidence there is) should promote.

NOTE: What is the point of a BBC documentary if it does not promote learning and further research into the subject matter, as opposed to just reinforcing the “Physically Impossible” government lies?

As such after this point the Apology (for total public deception) and hopefully another program incorporating the actual key evidence and the actual first hand High witness testimony, would suffice.

May I complement the team on what was visually, an excellent piece, the problem lies with the integrity of other aspects of the program as stated in correspondence, including this.

SECTIONS 4.

Fine

SECTION 5.

On page 2.

“If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon ….. why was the hole in the exterior wall apparently so small?”

Whilst this script was being spoken, Images of the damage at the pentagon was being flashed, the problem is, it shows the damage AFTER collapse, as being the actual damaged caused by the Jet impact. Only a knowledgeable person would know the image shown was “After Collapse” some 20 minutes later, and was not the damage caused by the jet impact as the sequence implies.

If only the 20 ft hole and the pre collapse images had been shown then this would have been honest journalism. As a result of confusing the viewer by flashing what was dishonest journalism and having those post collapse images associated with the initial jet impact, which was reinforced by the way in which the viewer was fed words and images together – this is propaganda Yellow Journalism portraying FALSE FACTS DECEPTION by stealth.

On page 2 again,

“Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World Trade Centre?”

How misleading could one short question statement & video combination be? The viewer sees a 47 story steel framed building descending straight down at near freefall of which is not one of the twin towers, it is not called by its name, Building WTC007, and the viewer is not informed the building came to ground on the actual day of 911 into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Seeing as most of the population only know that 2 tall buildings were destroyed on the day of 911, would it not be honest journalism to actually name the building and mention the particular circumstances of which the building came to ground and of which is key to the truth movement perspective at the very least?

Again this is an example of deception by KEY FACT OMMISION.

On Page 12

19:22 into the documentary - the images are not of 5 Alleged Hijackers arriving and checking in at Dulles airport as the commentary suggests, but are in fact 2 young men checking in hundreds of miles from DULLES at 5.45:08 on 9-11-01 in a an alleged link flight.

Why was the misleading CCTV image used to totally deceive the unsuspecting Public viewer in combination with misleading narration? Why was the genuine actual image not shown, if they exist?

On Page 13.

Minutes later the façade of the building collapsed.
The military say there was limited damage to the exterior wall, ……cont
NO mention was made of the no fly zone around the pentagon and how large it is. No mention was made of the two rings of ground to air missile defence. No mention was made of the fact if any unauthorised aircraft reaches the outer zone jets are automatically scrambled to intercept and take under 10 seconds (YES UNDER 10 seconds) from lift-off to reach the Pentagon. No mention that if the unauthorised aircraft reaches the inner zone, regardless of transponder on or off, the missile batteries shoot until the target is destroyed.

These key omissions are clear evidence of deliberate bias in reporting by omitting key information essential for the viewer to make a knowledgeable informed assessment of the Pentagon FACTS.

On Page 14.

21:19 into the documentary an engineer states: “What I usually say is that is Bullshit, but what I’ll say is that it’s just flawed people that have something to dream about to make a name for themselves. It’s absolutely not true.

NOTE: AT no point in this Engineers statement does he once mention a 757 or large JET as hitting the Pentagon. A plane & plane wreckage at the pentagon is not the same as 757 plane wreckage at the Pentagon, indeed, there was an engine and plane wreckage found at the Pentagon.

This part of the documentary has to be one of the most deceitful parts. Pardon the pun.
Firstly the actual question relating to 757 wreckage was never put to the engineer on camera, for all the viewer knows the BBC crew could have asked the Engineer absolutely anything.

And What exactly is “ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE”?

The journalism here is of the lowest possible quality and is clearly “YELLOW” and a deliberate attempt to make members of the truth movement who question the evidence of a 757 at the Pentagon - look ridiculous - and not actually get to the bottom of the saga via irrefutable evidence etc.

A motorcycle fuel tank & bike parts (small engine & wheels) at a crash scene is not evidence of a Wagon has crashed.

EVEN the Engineer did not say he witnessed ANY parts off a 757 or large Jet - to suggest a qualified Engineer would not know the difference between parts off a BIG jet and parts off a small one would be the height of stupidity.

It would be like saying an Engineer would not know the difference between a motorcycle & a wagon engine or Motorcycle & wagon wheel.

So why did the BBC journalists not ask for specifics, such as how large were the parts etc, could the parts have come off a 757 or large jet, were they large enough to fit a 757?
On Page 17.

The pilot Steve O’ Brien not once states he observed a 757, does anyone suppose he would not know a 757? The man is a trained observer who’s job it is to know and identify every type of aircraft without exception, does anyone think he would not state 757 if he had actually observed a 757 at his 12 o clock?

If he was on a routine flight do you suppose a USAF pilot or any other pilot would not know that the Pentagon was in a defended air exclusion zone and off limits to unauthorised non military planes. Why did he not mention this in his video statement?
Does anyone think a 500mph 757 is not the easiest target for a missile defence system to shoot down?

Why were none of these types of questions put to the pilot as these and many like them had been informed to the BBC crew by Prof Fetzer and Alex Jones?

Is there anybody alive who believes commercial jets are permitted to pull 4 G turns by the onboard fly by wire system?

In conclusion the Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission & deception.

Kind regards

J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems)(Lancaster England)

PS: Why was Prof Judy Wood not asked to explain the 911 physics?

False Flag Section has more related reports

[ericg]

November 12, 2007

Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden's Trend of "Not Voting"

By Kevin Gosztola


It was unnerving to me when I read the news alert on BuzzFlash.com that all four of the Democratic senators who chose to not vote on the recent unacceptable Mukasey confirmation to the post of Attorney General were all running for President of the United States of America. Even more unnerving was the fact that this is a trend that began immediately after each announced he or she would be running in the month of January this year.

All four made the news in January around the same two or three weeks as Democrats who would be running for president in the 2008 election. Hillary Rodham Clinton announced on January 21st. Barack Obama began to organize his campaign formally on January 17th. Chris Dodd made his announcement that he would be running on January 11th. Joe Biden announced formally on January 31st.

It was at this time that these four Democratic senators began to abstain from voting .. measures that would have required them to take clear stances on certain issues. Look at these bills which I will highlight and see what was being voted on here. It is not hard for anyone to see that these men (and woman) were creating profiles in cowardice rather than courage at a time when Americans needed leaders to step up and still do.

The first vote where these senators begin to show up as “not voting” together is on a Kerry Amendment to the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act on January 12th, 2007 and also on a Vitter Amendment to that same act which took place on the same day. All except Barack Obama chose to not vote. (Obama began to formally organize his campaign in January but did not announce he would be running officially until February.)

Four months later, after much ado had been made on getting out of the Iraq war like voters had hoped the 110th Congress would quickly do in their first months in office, the four chose to “not vote” on motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden did not vote. They later on June 14, 2007, chose to “not vote” on a Warner Amendment to the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 which would have allowed for the State of Virginia to petition for authorization to conduct natural gas exploration and drilling activities in the coastal zone of the State. Both “no votes” allowed them to not take a clear stance on immigration and to not take a clear stance on what to do for alternative energy sources in relation to our energy dependence.

The four senators on July 23, 2007, helped defeat Sherrod Brown’s Federal supplemental loan program amendment to the Higher Education Amendments of 2007 by “not voting.”

On Jul 25, 2007, before the situation erupted into massive chaos in Burma resulting in Americans all over noticing the repression in the region wanting to help out like Americans want to help with Darfur, the four chose to not vote on the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003.

While they may be upset that Bush vetoed children’s health care, they certainly were not there every step of the way during the battle because on July 30, 2007, the four Democratic senators chose to not vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007. This was one of the first votes on the measure before finally being vetoed by Bush later on this year. Yet even worse, later on in the heat of the struggle, they chose not to vote on November 1, 2007 too at a time when their voices and support were needed.

On September 5, 2007, the four senators who hope to be president could not be bothered to vote on an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2008. They also the next day on September 6, 2007, could not be bothered to vote on an amendment with a provision that would have struck the provision which increases the limit on the U.S.’s share for UN peacekeeping operations during 2008 from 25 to 27.1 percent. This was an amendment to the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act of 2008. All four registered “no votes” for both amendment votes. The day after they chose to “not vote” on the Higher Education Access Act which would “increase grant amounts to students, improve access to student loans, cut interest rates on student loans, provide for the repayment of parts of the loans through employment or service in areas of national need, and reward colleges for lowering costs to students” thereby helping students pay for college. All of these senators chose to “not vote” for whatever reason.

These four presidential candidates did not want to take a clear cut stance on the war in Iraq, the future of our troops in Iraq, how we should be fiscally handling this war, and what we should do to get out of this quagmire we are in.

Now most recently it is ever apparent that they will register “no votes” in a group so they do not have differences for the media to exploit, for voters to use to choose who to vote for, and for the DLC to worry about. All four chose not to vote on the confirmation of Michael Mukasey to the post of Attorney General because had they voted for or against it they would have a clear cut stance on torture that may or may not hurt their ability to campaign successfully for the presidency. They also chose to "not vote" the one time that Congress successfully overrided a Bush veto.

What’s worse is that you can make the inference or conclusion that these “no votes” are due to their campaigns because John McCain can also be seen registering “no votes” right alongside them.

After uncovering this trend which has been occurring for months now yet has largely gone unnoticed, I predict they will all register “no votes” for the telecommunications bill with amnesty provisions that will soon be voted on. While Dodd may hold true to his word and break from the pack, the other three will make up some excuse to “not vote.”

Ask yourself in lieu of this trend, "Will either of these candidates allow for open government and honest leadership and offer a break from the Bush secrecy and deception we have been forced to accept here in America?"

Not voting does not mean you are against something. If I do not vote in an election, it does not mean I am against something. It means I forfeit my right to have my voice or opinion considered in a democratic society. It means I don’t care and choose not to participate in the system. And by not participating in the system or by manipulating it, this is one sure sign of the problems we will have in the future if either of these senators are elected president in 2008.

Authors Website: myorwelliannightmare.newsvine.com

Authors Bio: Kevin Gosztola lives in Chicago where he is studying to become a documentary filmmaker. When not writing on OpEdNews, he participates in the local campaign in Chicago for Dennis Kucinich for President, the Amnesty International chapter at Columbia, and assists with several political youth groups who face suppression and violation of civil liberties. For example, recently, the incident at Morton West and with three protesters on Oct 27th has led to the organization of weeks of action to raise awareness and money for the victims. Peace.