Click on field (title) above to see video; Or, on source link below.
AND THE THIRD ANGEL FOLLOWED THEM, SAYING WITH A LOUD VOICE, IF ANY MAN WORSHIP THE BEAST AND HIS IMAGE, AND RECEIVE HIS MARK IN HIS FOREHEAD, OR IN HIS HAND. *** REVELATION 14:9
Monday, February 16, 2009
Presidents' Day Discovery - George Washington - Free Mason
Click on field (title) above to see video; Or, on source link below.
George Washington's Farewell Address
In 1792, Washington was prepared to retire after one term as the President of the United States. To that end, Washington, with James Madison, wrote a farewell address to the public of the United States of America. Faced with the unanimous desire for him to remain in office from his Cabinet, Washington agreed to stand for another term. In 1796, Washington refused a third term. Starting with his 1792 draft, Washington rewrote the text to better fit the problems that were emerging in the new political landscape. He had much help from Alexander Hamilton, and some passages do sound like Hamilton's writing, but all the key ideas were those of Washington.
Full Text of Washington's Farewell Address from Avalon Project, Yale Univ. Law School.
The Stimulus, George Washington and Hypocrisy
Op-Ed Contributor
By Betsy Ross
Yesterday, Barack Obama called the new trillion dollar spending package created primarily by him and the Democratic Congress as a rescue for the U.S. economy, "a milestone."
Yes, this IS truly a milestone, but not the type that I think Mr. Obama is referring to. Rather a definite milestone in the total disregard it appears that the members of Congress and this new Administration, as with the old, accord the American people and their Bill of Rights protections. And while the Republicans are distancing themselves from this spending package with the exception of the three stooges - Specter, Snow and Collins - not one stood up for the Constitution, nor any of the others called for impeachment of those who sponsored this bill due to cronyism and apparently, "political correctness." I wonder how "politically correct" the founder's would be if faced with a fellow Congressman or Senator that proposed such outrageous spending and legislation? Somehow, I don't think Mr. Washington, Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Madison, or Mr. Henry would have stood there simply wringing their hands.
So when you hear those Washington politicos backbiting after bill passages as this one and that other fraud upon the public committed last September, just know that they all then go to lunch in the executive dining rooms, and vote their own salaries and perks while drinking those martinis. The fact that bill passed by such a small margin just goes to show there was some heavy backroom dealings as to which of those Republicans were going to take the heat this time for betraying the Constitution and the American people. Similar to how closely that September 700 Billion Bank Bailout vote passed by a mere two votes which was also protested loudly by the citizenry. Instead of a lack of bipartisanship now going on in Washington, you actually can rest assured that it is bipartisanship that is actually the biggest problem - bipartisan treason and a clear merging of the two "corporate" parties which have outlived their usefulness at this point into one. The "Global Socialist Party."
You would think a Pennsylvania Senator would be familiar with our Constitution, but alas no such luck, since a massive portion of that legislation had nothing to do with "stimulating" anything but the state coffers in also bypassing the state citizens stuck with the tab and fallout, and any job creation included was in the public sector primarily and private/public partnerships with global and national technology firms such as Microsoft which will most likely result in job losses for a great many Americans in the long term. A great deal of the monies also was earmarked for "refurbishing" federal buildings and decorating the National Mall. We wouldn't want those federal employees that we are paying to be working in less than optimal, state of the art, facilities now would we?
While the only real benefits given to the citizens were tax breaks on first home purchases, there was no relief for those who have already lost theirs, with now bad credit and no hope of purchasing another even if they wanted to sign the loan shark loans those banks continue to market, which was actually the real "relief" needed in salvaging the mortgage crisis, better regulation and oversight, and a return to fixed priced lending policies.
The other "gimme" to Americans was a small increase in the way of deductionable college tuition costs. While those tuitions continue to rise at a record pace, huge amounts also went to colleges and universities, apparently, in order to upgrade their technology so as to afford your kids and mine the "opportunity" to work on the national health care database inputting your medical records as a part of their "educations."
A new "job creation" work-study program of the federal government, with the parents or the students actually paying now to work for the government. This must be along the lines of the "get involved" volunteerism Obama also ran on. Private citizens not only donating their time, but now paying for the privilege of working for the public sector. While paying tuition, your kids will be then used to create the database for the government in exchange for those grant monies in order to violate your civil rights, while getting college course credit in the process after forking over that $10,000 or more per year in tuition. Paying for your own eventual privacy invasion and abuse, as it were, courtesy of U.S.A., Inc.
At a time when the baby boomers are aging, and who by and large had less children than the World War II generation, the most funding went to higher level education? Even at lower levels, our classrooms are shrinking if nothing else due to the shear number of parents who are now home schooling their children at record rates. Money has been thrown at education before to no avail. Yet it appears the message still has not sunk in. The computer and calculator generation lack critical thinking skills. Bring back phonics and long division. The greatest geniousness in history had little formal education. So there must be another agenda again here, in re-educating our youth and adult population to the global mindset as opposed to that which was taught in prior generations, since it must appear in Washington that the media itself is not having the desired result as quickly in this attempt at mass propaganda.
While it is interesting to note that while the very vocal liberal coalition that backed Obama so voraciously during his election campaign after six long years of bashing the Bush Administration (which, granted, deserved to be bashed due to it's numerous Constitutional transgressions), they and the liberal media Obama supporters have actually started to defend this national health care database and Civil Rights violation as just what this country needs to provide new technology jobs, progress and in order to "compete in the global community." If you have any doubts at how far this country has fallen, such a term smacks of inferiority, and not the great nation the founder's created.
The same liberal wing that uses "global speak" on both sides of the aisle also want to stifle now free speech in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine since their savior is now in office. Notice how this also was a topic at the Saddleback Church forum of the two globalists candidates during the campaign for the presidency. "Political correctness" and "civility" are merely terms for distortions of the truth to make it socially acceptable. There was a bumper sticker I saw the other day that said it all: "Political correctness is dependent and thrives on factual incorrectness."
While this bill is now ready for Mr. Obama to sign into law tomorrow, let me remind you that this is the president that up to date still refuses to produce a valid birth certificate under the clear terms of the Constitution demonstrating that he even fits the minimal qualifications in order to hold the highest office in the land. Violating your privacy as private citizens as a Constitutional lawyer it would appear jives with his "interpretations" of it, as must also Bush's ideas of executive immunity. The first official act of this administration has been to violate your civil rights far greater than even the Patriot Act, if that is possible. Orwell, the Marxist, didn't even go this far in his novel of Big Brother. The only "change" that has occurred is the speed with which this country is now descending into communism, as point of fact.
The media is now focusing again on trivialities such as "partisanship," and the drama while Congressional members are busy in makeup getting ready for their appearances this weekend and all next week rehashing their treason.
So the next time you are denied a needed medical treatment, or find yourself eventually denied or fired from employment due to a chronic condition diagnosed in childhood due to the open endedness in which that provision is worded, or the 600,000 agencies initially that are to be given access to the most personal information any citizen can have - ask yourself where the ACLU was during this American civil liberties violation BEFORE the bill was signed.
Most likely licking their lips in the Senate dining room, since they also were successful in lobbying many years ago for a federal statute that provides for their attorney's fees in any civil rights action also at the American citizens expense. The Global Socialist Party, that spreads its membership across both sides of the aisle, has even socialized legal fee awards.
This bill is no more than the 2009 Lawyer's Employment Act - and those are the jobs that were mostly created and stimulated. Between this and the Patriot Act, the legal profession in this country, and our courts, will be the major industries within less than a decade. The judicial branch just scored a coup, who is also lobbying for judicial salary increases through its PAC organization, the American Bar Association.
Most of the new graduates out of those universities now so generously funded will either be lawyers, data processors, or in the hospitality field, while we continue to watch our durable goods and manufacturing base shipped off to China and India, and the America of the baby boomer's generation turned into a tourist attraction for foreigners. Or working for the government and U.S.A., Inc. The CEO mentality now is what is "governing" our federal government, and our country and its assets being sold off bit by bit. Including its very own citizens. The risk/loss assessment has already been done. Global Socialists 1, Americans 0.
How ironic that such legislation should be signed into law on the day which was meant to honor that first President, George Washington - the one that practiced the policies and beliefs of non-interventionism in both foreign and domestic policy. Who fought the East India Tea Company and their "corporate" control over their former government. Who watched his own troops freezing at Valley Forge that winter long ago in order to secure those liberties and freedoms from the governmental tyranny and abuse that Congress and this Administration have so arrogantly ignored in saddling the entire U.S. population for the gains of primarily the "corporate" federal and state coffers again without even a minimum of accountability nor "transparency," and their selected private "corporate" subjects - Silicon Valley, Microsoft, construction and higher education (in spite of dwindling enrollments). The federal government's now Big Four sovereign subjects.
I guess that illegal amnesty will be next up on the block, so whatever construction jobs that were created in the process can now are handed out to the foreigners. Remember, they cancelled the "buy American" provisions that would have required also Americans and American labor for government contractor recipients under this package. It was former Republican Global Socialists responsible for the removal of that provision.
So you see, there are no longer Republicans or Democratic. Those former labels no longer fit. The liberal Democrats are now big government Communists, and the former Republicans are big business globalists - thus, the Global Socialist Party has officially been formed, and as also demonstrated during the Bush Administration. Remember, we voted the Democrats over Republicans in 2006. The war is still continuing with no mention of an end in sight due to this "crisis," when quite a few billion could have been saved and used starting next month in simply ending the war.
I think someone with more computer savvy than I do needs to begin the formal recognition now in Wiki.
Linda Gehring
xlgg530@earthlink.net
Comment on this story, by email comment@newsblaze.com
Halliburton Settlement Leaves Unsettling Questions
Halliburton Settlement Leaves Unsettling Questions
By Scott Horton
The Justice Department’s long-standing probe of corruption in connection with Halliburton’s Nigerian contracts—a matter of obvious and acute concern to Vice President Dick Cheney—was rushed to a final settlement just before the arrival of the new Obama team at Justice. Under the settlement Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR are paying $579 million in fines. The New York Times opines today:
…there are a lot of unanswered questions about Halliburton’s practices in Iraq, with numerous complaints of overpricing and ineptitude. Its corporate conduct in the Nigerian scheme is hardly encouraging and should compel tighter scrutiny of its Iraq failures. Across a decade, KBR and Halliburton paid $180 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to secure $6 billion in contracts for building natural gas processing equipment. Under the settlement with federal authorities, Halliburton will pay most of the penalties, with KBR, its subsidiary during the bribery scheme, pleading guilty to hiring international bagmen to regularly grease Nigerian officials with million-dollar satchels of cash. A former KBR executive who deemed bribery a worthwhile cost of doing business now faces prison time.
That’s true. But put aside Iraq for a moment—there are no shortage of “unanswered questions” about the circumstances of this settlement. Consider the timing and circumstances. We start with a Justice Department which is now itself under strong suspicion of having been politically directed from the White House, with a special prosecutor already appointed and indictments now anticipated. In violation of normal procedures, Alberto Gonzales authorized Vice President Cheney and his staff to deal directly with Justice Department officials on matters of interest to them. We have every reason to ask whether this included the very Halliburton deal that the Bush team pushed through Justice before the new tenants arrived.
Why would Cheney care? For one thing, the corrupt dealings that are the focus of the deal occurred almost entirely between 1995–2000, while Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton. For another, Halliburton tapped Cheney, who had no corporate managerial expertise, principally because of his expertise in government relations and because of his established track record in dealing not only with the U.S. government, but with governments around the world. The thought was that Cheney’s black book would help the company develop its rapidly expanding government contracts business. In other words, the multi-billion dollar Nigerian LNG deals were exactly the sort of thing that Cheney was expected to harvest for Halliburton. For a third, as my colleague Ken Silverstein notes, the man at the heart of the $160 million in corrupt payments, Jack Stanley, was hand-picked by Dick Cheney and had a direct report to him. Moreover, can you imagine a CEO under any circumstances simply not knowing about $160 million in grease payments made in connection with sensitive contract negotiations in Nigeria, a country long ranked at the bottom of Transparency International’s corruption lists?
Dick Cheney has long had very good reason to fear a prosecutor’s knock at the door. It might be his clear role in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame. It might be his authorship of the Bush Administration’s torture policy and his advocacy of warrantless surveillance of tens of millions of Americans. Or it might just be something quite mundane, namely, his role in securing a $2.2 billion contract to build a liquefied natural gas plant in Nigeria by making $160 million in corrupt payments to or for the benefit of government officials.
In any event, the Obama Administration are chumps if they sit back and accept the deal the Bush Justice Department concluded for the benefit of Dick Cheney. The whole matter needs to be reopened and examined independently. Let’s hope they consider Patrick Fitzgerald for the job.
Blackwater Is Dead! Long Live ... Xe?
By Zachary Roth - February 13, 2009, 5:06PM
Blackwater Worldwide, the contractor that emerged over the last few years as Exhibit A for ugly Americans in Iraq, has decided that the best response is to ... change its name.
And check out the name they picked: "Xe." (Apparently it's pronounced like the letter 'Z.' Raising the question: Why not just call it "Z"?)
They've also renamed Blackwater Lodge & Training Center, the subsidiary that does much of their controversial overseas operations. It's now the "U.S. Training Center Inc." (Which doesn't exactly mesh with "Xe," but whatever.)
According to the Associated Press, Blackwater (or should we say "Xe"?) president Gary Jackson said in a memo to employees, announcing the changes, that they reflect a shift in the company's focus away from private security and toward operating training facilities around the world.
You can see how "Xe" would be the obvious name to reflect such a shift.
It's not hard to guess why Blackwater (or wait, Xe) wants to get out of the private security business. In 2007, Blackwater guards opened fire in a Baghdad square, killing 17 Iraqis. Five ex-Blackwater guards were charged with voluntary manslaughter and are awaiting trial.
And recently, thanks largely to that incident and other cases where Blackwater has been accused of using excessive force, the Iraqi government declined to renew the company's contract to operate in the country. Soon after, the State Department announced that, in any case, it wouldn't renew Blackwater's contract to operate in Iraq.
No word yet on whether Iraq and State will reconsider now that that the company is called "Xe."
Open Letter to Dr. Joseph Stiglitz and Challenge to Debate, February 5, 2009
Note: Dr. Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University, former chairman of President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, former chief economist for the World Bank, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.
Dear Dr. Stiglitz:
I have just finished reading your article published on Alternet.org entitled, “Is the Entire Bailout Strategy Flawed? Let’s Rethink This Before It’s Too Late.” http://www.alternet.org/story/124166/
With all due respect, I believe you have missed the point of what is going on within the U.S. economy, which causes your proposed solutions to be similarly flawed.
The purposes of this letter are to delineate my objections to what you have written, to bring our differences before the public, and to challenge you to a debate when I visit New York City on February 27-March 1, 2009.
You state that, “America’s recession is moving into its second year, with the situation only worsening.” But you then say, “The hope that President Obama will be able to get us out of the mess is tempered by the reality that throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at the banks has failed to restore them to health, or even to resuscitate the flow of lending.”
You thereby imply that the economic crisis is due to problems within the financial sector and that it would be a good thing to “resuscitate the flow of lending” without challenging why that lending became such a huge factor in our economy.
I say: The problem does not lie with the financial sector except that the debt-based monetary system acts as a parasite on the producing economy, resulting in the vast overhang of debt that can never be repaid. “Resuscitating the flow of lending” will do no good, because the collapse of consumer purchasing power due to job outsourcing and income stagnation has made it impossible for people to pay their debts. Most of this debt now needs to be written off and our producing economy restored as our chief source of wealth.
You say of the government’s bailout actions late last year: “Then there was the hope that if the government stood ready to help the banks with enough money — and enough was a lot — confidence would be restored, and with the restoration of confidence, asset prices would increase and lending would be restored.”
I say: In making this observation you may be correct, but you fail to challenge the policy whereby asset price inflation, in the absence of real economic growth, has become an ersatz economic driver. Throughout your writings you have ignored the fact that the government and the banking system have deliberately created financial bubbles to shore up the economy, engender profits, and maintain tax revenues. This is what the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan did in collusion with the Bush administration to create a recovery when the Dot.com bubble was collapsing in 2000-2001. None of your proposals would revitalize the producing economy or restore consumer income. You seem to be mainly trying to re-inflate the asset-financial bubble in your own way.
You say: “The underlying problem is simple: Even in the heyday of finance, there was a huge gap between private rewards and social returns. The bank managers have taken home huge paychecks, even though, over the past five years, the net profits of many of the banks have (in total) been negative. And the social returns have even been less — the financial sector is supposed to allocate capital and manage risk, and it did neither well. Our economy is paying the price for these failures — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.”
I say: It is true that bank manager salaries and bonuses are obscene, but the way you characterize “social returns” is shortsighted. You speak of bank profitability falling short even though, since the financial deregulation of the 1980s and 1990s, the banks have become the nation’s chief growth industry, with profits as late as 2006 of over $500 billion. Further, the financial sector doesn’t really “allocate capital.” What it does is skim the cream off the top of the producing economy by financing consumption and facilitating the most irresponsible types of speculation in the real estate, equity, hedge fund, and derivative markets. For example, up to 97 percent of futures contracts comes from bank loans irrespective of whether such lending has any benefit for consumers or producers. The banks allocate capital primarily for their own benefit, which I believe you recognize, but we now need to find alternatives to a monetary system based on bank-created debt, not just try to get it running again while ignoring the disasters that have befallen working men and women and their families.
You say, in regard to the ongoing government actions: “But even were we to do all this — with uncertain risks to our future national debt — there is still no assurance of a resumption of lending. For the reality is we are in a recession, and risks are high in a recession. Having been burned once, many bankers are staying away from the fire.”
Again, you speak favorably of a “resumption of lending” as resolving the problem. I say: “What you are proposing is simply to shore up our debt-based monetary system without addressing the facts that our manufacturing jobs have been exported to China and other low-cost labor markets, our automobile industry is collapsing due to the failure of consumer demand, wages and salaries have stagnated for two decades, workers have not shared in productivity increases, and the total societal debt load on a GDP of $14 trillion is now approaching $70 trillion. These are the problems that must be addressed, not getting the banks to lend again when people can’t pay off the debts they already have.
You say: “What’s the alternative? Sweden (and several other countries) have shown that there is an alternative — the government takes over those banks that cannot assemble enough capital through private sources to survive without government assistance…Inevitably, American taxpayers are going to pick up much of the tab for the banks’ failures. The question facing us is, to what extent do we participate in the upside return?”
I say: “Having the government run the banks instead of the private sector will not restore the economic fundamentals of a weak economy. Availability of bank credit does not by itself lead to greater production of goods and services. What it should do is make the liquidity available for the production-consumption cycle to work smoothly. The idea that a deregulated financial sector should be given precedence over all the other economic sectors is the essence of the supply-side, trickle-down philosophy that began during the Reagan years and has catastrophically failed.
You say: “Eventually, America’s economy will recover. Eventually, our financial sector will be functioning — and profitable — once again, though hopefully, it will focus its attention more on doing what it is supposed to do.”
I say: Please tell us exactly HOW America’s economy will recover. Will it recover after real unemployment, including “discouraged workers” hits 20 percent, which it is likely to do over the next few months? Will it recover after millions of more people have their homes foreclosed? Will it recover after the automobile industry dies? What exactly is your prescription? If you don’t have one, I would ask you to consider what I am proposing in my paper: “A Bailout for the People: Dividend Economics and the Basic Income Guarantee.” In that paper I put forth what I am calling the “Cook Plan.” This consists of a $1,000 a month payment per capita made by the government through a system of vouchers for necessities that are then deposited in a new series of local community savings banks that would lend at one percent interest for small business, local manufacturing, and family farming. The vouchers would be a dividend, distributed as each citizens’ fair share of our amazing productive economy without recourse to government taxation or debt. The dividend would provide income security, eliminate poverty, and result in a renaissance of local and regional economic activity, and it would start to act immediately, not “eventually.”
On Friday, February 27, 2009, I will be in your hometown of New York City presenting the “Cook Plan” at the 8th Congress of the U.S. Basic Income Guarantee Network and the Annual Convention of the Eastern Economic Association. That evening I will present the program at a Town Hall meeting in connection with President Obama’s series of citizens’ forums at Nola Studio B, 244 West 54th St., 11th floor in Manhattan, at 8 p.m.
On the evening of Saturday, February 28, I am free, and would be glad to meet you to debate these ideas at a location of your choosing.
Respectfully,
Richard C. Cook
An American Foreign Legion: Is the US Military Now an Imperial Police Force?
A leaner, meaner, higher tech force - that was what George W. Bush and his Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to transform the American military into. Instead, they came close to turning it into a foreign legion. Foreign as in being constantly deployed overseas on imperial errands; foreign as in being ever more reliant on private military contractors; foreign as in being increasingly segregated from the elites that profit most from its actions, yet serve the least in its ranks.
Now would be a good time for President Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to begin to reclaim that military for its proper purpose: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now would be a good time to ask exactly why, and for whom, our troops are currently fighting and dying in the urban jungles of Iraq and the hostile hills of Afghanistan.
A few fortnights and forever ago, in the Bush years, our "expeditionary" military came remarkably close to resembling an updated version of the French Foreign Legion in the ways it was conceived and used by those in power - and even, to some extent, in its makeup.
For the metropolitan French elite of an earlier era, the Foreign Legion - best known to Americans from countless old action films - was an assemblage of military adventurers and rootless romantics, volunteers willing to man an army fighting colonial wars in far-flung places. Those wars served the narrow interests of people who weren't particularly concerned about the fate of the legion itself.
It's easy enough to imagine one of them saying, à la Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the legion you have, not the legion you might want or wish to have." Such a blithe statement would have been uncontroversial back then, since the French Foreign Legion was - well - so foreign. Its members, recruited worldwide, but especially from French colonial possessions, were considered expendable, a fate captured in its grim, sardonic motto: "You joined the Legion to die. The Legion will send you where you can die!"
Looking back on the last eight years, what's remarkable is the degree to which Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration treated the U.S. military in a similarly dismissive manner. Bullying his generals and ignoring their concerns, the Secretary of Defense even dismissed the vulnerability of the troops in Iraq, who, in the early years, motored about in inadequately armored Humvees and other thin-skinned vehicles.
Last year, Vice President Dick Cheney offered another Legionnaire-worthy version of such dismissiveness. Informed that most Americans no longer supported the war in Iraq, he infamously and succinctly countered, "So?" - as if the U.S. military weren't the American people's instrument, but his own private army, fed and supplied by private contractor KBR, the former Halliburton subsidiary whose former CEO was the very same Dick Cheney.
Fond of posing in flight suits, leather jackets, and related pseudo-military gear, President Bush might, on the other hand, have seemed overly invested in the military. Certainly, his tough war talk resonated within conservative circles, and he visibly relished speaking before masses of hooah-ing soldiers. Too often, however, Bush simply used them as patriotic props, while his administration did its best to hide their deaths from public view.
In that way, he and his top officials made our troops into foreigners, in part by making their ultimate sacrifice, their deaths, as foreign to us as was humanly possible. Put another way, his administration made the very idea of national "sacrifice" - by anyone but our troops - foreign to most Americans. In response to the 9/11 attacks, Americans were, as the President famously suggested only 16 days after the attacks, to show their grit by visiting Disney World and shopping till they dropped. Military service instills (and thrives on) an ethic of sacrifice that was, for more than seven years, consciously disavowed domestically.
As the Obama administration begins to deploy U.S. troops back to the Iraq or Afghan war zones for their fourth or fifth tours of duty, I remain amazed at the silent complicity of my country. Why have we been so quiet? Is it because the Bush administration was, in fact, successful in sending our military down the path to foreign legion-hood? Is the fate of our troops no longer of much importance to most Americans?
Diversity is now our societal byword. But how about more class diversity in our military? How about a combat regiment of rich young volunteers from uptown Manhattan? (After all, some of their great-grandfathers probably fought with New York's famed "Silk Stocking" regiment in World War I.) How about more Ivy League recruits like George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy, who respectively piloted a dive bomber and a PT boat in World War II? Heck, why not a few prominent Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart, who piloted heavy bombers in the flak-filled skies of Europe in that same war?
Caught in the shock and awe of 9/11, we allowed our military to be transformed into a neocon imperial police force. Now, approaching our eighth year in Afghanistan and sixth year in Iraq, what exactly is that force defending? Before President Obama acts to double the number of American boots-on-the-ground in Afghanistan - before even more of our troops are sucked deeper into yet another quagmire - shouldn't we ask this question with renewed urgency? Shouldn't we wonder just why, despite all the reverent words about "our troops," we really seem to care so little about sending them back into the wilderness again and again?
Where indeed is the outcry?
The French Foreign Legionnaires knew better than to expect such an outcry: The elites for whom they fought didn't give a damn about what happened to them. Our military may not yet be a foreign legion - but don't fool yourself, it's getting there.
--------
William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), taught for six years at the Air Force Academy. He currently teaches at the Pennsylvania College of Technology. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of "Hindenburg: Icon of German Militarism" (Potomac Press, 2005), among other works. He may be reached at wastore@pct.edu.
The report of the Fortieth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene
CX 4/20.2 CL 2009/1 - FH
TO: Codex Contact Points Interested International Organizations
FROM: Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF THE REPORT OF THE FORTIETH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON FOOD HYGIENE (ALINORM 09/32/13)
The report of the Fortieth Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) is attached. It will be considered by the Thirty second Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, (Rome, Italy, 29 June – 4 July 2009).
A. MATTERS FOR ADOPTION BY THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION:
1. Microbiological Criteria for Powdered Follow-up Formulae and Formulae for Special Medical Purposes for Young Children (Annex II to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Powdered Formulae for Infants and Young Children (CAC/RCP 66-2008) at Step 5/8 (ALINORM 09/32/13 paras 45-47 and Appendix III);
2. Proposed Draft Microbiological Criteria for Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Foods at Step 5/8 (ALINORM 09/32/13 para. 69 and Appendix II)
Governments and interested international organizations are invited to comment on the above texts and should do so in writing, preferably by e-mail to Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy : codex@fao.org or fax: +39 06 570.54593), before 1 April 2009.
B. REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND INFORMATION
1. Proposed Draft Guidelines for the Control of Campylobacter and Salmonella spp. in Chicken Meat (ALINORM 09/32/13, paras 71 – 92)
The Committee had considered the above Proposed Draft Guidelines (for details of consideration see paras 71 - 92). The Committee agreed to request additional information, as outlined in paragraph 85 of this ALINORM.
Governments and interested international organizations are invited to provide this additional information as outlined in paragraph 84 and should do so in writing, preferably by e-mail to: Dr Sarah CAHILL, JEMRA Secretariat, Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization, of the United Nations, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy, Fax: 39-06-5705-4593, email: jemra@fao.org with copies to: Ms Judi Lee, Principal Advisor (Risk Management), New Zealand Food Safety Authority, South Tower, 86 Jervois Quay, P O Box 2835 Wellington 6001, New Zealand, email: judi.lee@nzfsa.govt.nz or fax: +64 4 894 2643 and Mr Lars Plym Forshell, Assistant Chief Veterinary Officer, National Food Administration, Box 622, SE-751 26 Uppsala, Sweden, email: iapl@siv.se or fax: +46 18 10 58 48, and to the Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy : codex@fao.org or fax: +39 06 570.54593), before 27 February 2009.
2. Proposed Draft Annex on Leafy Green Vegetables Including Leafy Herbs to the Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003) (ALINORM 09/32/13, paras 93 – 103)
The Committee had considered the above proposed draft Annex (for details of consideration see paras 93- 103). The Committee agreed to request additional information on large and small-scale operations, as outlined in paragraph 101 of this ALINORM.
Governments and interested international organizations are invited to provide this additional information as outlined in paragraph 100 and should do so in writing, preferably by e-mail to: Ms Amy GREEN, Policy Analyst, FDA/CFSAN, 1500 Paint Branch Parkway, College Park, MD, 20740, Fax: 301 436 2651, email: amy.green@fda.hhs.gov with a copy to Secretary, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy : codex@fao.org or fax: +39 06 570.54593), before 27 February 2009.
Source: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Circular_letters/CXCL2009/cl09_01e.pdf
P.S. What is Codex Alimentarius?
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The main purposes of this Programme are protecting health of the consumers and ensuring fair trade practices in the food trade, and promoting coordination of all food standards work undertaken by international governmental and non-governmental organizations.
TAKE A LOOK-Venezuela's Chavez wins vote on re-election
A polarized Venezuela celebrated and deplored on Monday
socialist President Hugo Chavez's referendum victory that allows
him to run for re-election in an OPEC nation facing plummeting oil
income. Chavez, who has been in power for 10 years and vows to rule
for decades, promised to repay the clear backing in Sunday's vote
from his mainly poor supporters by combating their No. 1 concern
-- crime that has given Venezuela one of the world's highest
murder rates. To read stories om the referendum, double-click on the
brackets.
MAIN STORIES
> Polarized Venezuela cheers, deplores Chavez win [ID:nN16297398]
> ANALYSIS-Chavez helped by vote as economy bites [ID:nN15286117]
> ANALYSIS-Venezuela econ woes cast pall on vote [ID:nN16299877]
FACTBOXES
> Basic facts about Venezuela's Hugo Chavez [ID:nN15373858]
> Facts about Venezuela's oil industry [ID:nN09517544]
> Main events in Chavez's decade [ID:nN16302511]
> Social projects win Chavez support [ID:nN10426386]
> Venezuela's Chavez's policies 10 years on [ID:nN02463494]
French, British Nuclear Submarines Collided in Atlantic Ocean

Feb. 16 (Bloomberg) -- French and British nuclear missile submarines collided earlier this month in the Atlantic, the French military said. No one was injured.
“They entered briefly into contact at very low speed,” the French Defence Ministry said in a statement. “Neither their missions nor their nuclear safety were affected.”
The French military said Feb. 6 that Le Triomphant, part of France’s submarine-based nuclear deterrent fleet, had collided with an unidentified object and had returned to its home port of Brest under its own power. French military spokesmen at the time declined to give further details.
The London-based Sun newspaper reported today that Le Triomphant had collided with HMS Vanguard. The French statement didn’t give the name of the British submarine, just saying that both vessels were on routine patrols in the Atlantic.
“It is MOD policy not to comment on submarine operational matters, but we can confirm that the U.K.’s deterrent capability was unaffected at all times and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety,” the U.K.’s Ministry of Defence said in a statement today.
Last Updated: February 16, 2009 08:12 EST
.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right
GWB pushed and prodded for a $700+ Billion, Stimulus Package to avert "riots in the streets", as he called it.
BHO has pursued and forced through a $700+ Billion, Stimulus Package to avoid "a catastrophe".
Two wrongs don't make a right!
That's what I've always heard, and can testify that the saying is true.
Can this also apply to fiscal matters? When it's the tax payer's that will have to pay the debt.
Since when does spending money accomplish an increase in wealth?
Two wrongs don't make a right!
President Obama campaign slogan was change.
Well, so far ain't nothing changed but the day, and the people.
Everything else remains the same. 100 days right?
So far, it's the same M.O. spend 'till we drop.
As Bush said to do after 911: "Spend so the economy doesn't suffer",
Let it be business as usual. Well, from where I sit things are on an even keel: Business as usual! No change. Just a whole of changes.
Two wrongs don't make a right!
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
The more political rhetoric I hear, the less I believe it.
No change. Just people going through changes.
....Losing jobs, losing homes, losing their patience, losing hope, and most of all losing their wealth.
700+ Billion Dollars at a time. Two wrongs don't make a right!
Even though the used car salesmen have lost favor, and lost their shirts. The Hard Sell is back in style.
When's the next Bill? Three wrongs could make a right?
We wrestle against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world
Dominionism
DOMINIONISM
(A.K.A. CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM,DOMINION THEOLOGY, AND THEONOMY)
History:
Dominionism, Dominion Theology, Christian Reconstructionism, Theocratic Dominionism, and Theonomy are not denominations or faith groups. Rather, they are interrelated beliefs which are followed by members of a wide range of Christian denominations. They have no connection at all to Reconstructionist Judaism, which is a liberal group within Judaism.
Generally speaking:
Dominionism & Dominion Theology are derived from Genesis 1:26 of the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament):
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (NIV)
Most Christians interpret this verse as meaning that God gave mankind dominion over the animal kingdom. Dominion theologians believe that that this verse commands Christians to bring all societies, around the world, under the rule of the Word of God.
Theonomy (Greek for "God's Law") includes the concept that "God’s revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, are absolute in the sense of being nonarbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations)." 6,7 Thus, each of the 613 laws given to Moses and recorded in the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the Hebrew Scriptures) are binding on people of all nations, cultures, and religions forever, except for those laws which have been specifically rescinded or modified by further revelation.
Christian Reconstructionism arose out of conservative Presbyterianism in the early 1970's. Followers believe "that every area dominated by sin must be 'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible." 1
The term Reconstructionism has been used to refer to various combinations of the preceding three terms. This type of confusion is common in the field of religion. Many theological terms such as Christian, Fundamentalist, Occult, New Age, Reconstructionism, Unitarian etc. have been assigned so many different interpretations by different groups in different eras that they are almost meaningless.
Its most common form, Dominionism, represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought. Its followers, called Dominionists, are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to achieve this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order. One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the "Kingdom of God" in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God's word will bring about this conversion. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them.
All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly Fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming Evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed. At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who have advocated the execution of all Wiccans. Ralph Reed, the executive director of the conservative public policy group the Christian Coalition has criticized Reconstructionism as "an authoritarian ideology that threatens the most basic civil liberties of a free and democratic society."
Leading writers in the movement are:
Greg L. Bahnsen of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.
David Chilton. He adopted hyper-preterism, (a.k.a. full or complete perterism) a particular belief about end time events. He was basically ostracized from the Christian Reconstruction camp afterwards.
Gary DeMar.
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Gary North of the Institute for Christian Economics. He is a prolific author.
Larry Pratt: head of the Gun Owners of America and English First, a group opposed to non-English speaking immigrants and bilingual education. Author of "Armed People Victorious" which documents Guatemalan and Philippine militias and para-military death squads. He was campaign co-chair of the Buchanan presidential campaign in 1996.
John Quade.
Rousas John Rushdoony of the Chalcedon Foundation is often considered the founder of Christian Reconstructionism. Author of Institutes of Biblical Law.
Rev. Andrew Sandlin.
Beliefs:
According to Gary DeMar, a popular Reconstructionist author, the foundation of Reconstructionism is a unique combination of three Biblical doctrines:
Regeneration of the individual, through an intimate relationship with Christ
Individuals guiding their lives closely by following a specified subset of Biblical laws
Promoting of the world-wide Kingdom of God. 2
Specific beliefs include
A rejection of Antinomianism: the belief that salvation is obtained totally through faith and not through performing good works and living a moral life
Presuppositionalism: the acceptance on faith that the Bible is true. They do not attempt to prove that God exists or that the Bible is true.
Inerrancy: the belief that the Bible, as originally written, is totally free of error.
Postmillennialism: the belief that Christ will not return to earth until much of the world has converted to Christianity. This will not take place for some considerable time; it will not be a painless transition. Most Fundamentalists and other Evangelists hold to a different view. They are Premillenialists and believe that all (or almost all) of the preconditions of Christ's return have been met. They expect Jesus' second coming to occur very soon.
The 613 laws contained in the Hebrew Scriptures' Mosaic Code can be divided into two classes: moral and ceremonial. Christians are not required to follow the ceremonial laws, because Jesus has liberated them from that responsibility. However, all persons must follow those moral laws which were not specifically modified or cancelled by further revelation --generally in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). In contrast:
Non-reconstructionist Christians generally divide these laws into three classes: moral, civil and ceremonial law, and generally believe that most Old Testament laws are no longer binding on Christians.
Jews generally believe that the Mosaic Code is binding only on Jews.
The moral laws given by God to the ancient Israelites reflect of God's character, which is unchangeable. Most of the laws are intended for all nations, cultures, societies, religions and all eras, including the present time. However, there are a few laws, in such areas as personal safety and sanitation, which are no longer applicable because of changes in architecture and sewage disposal. These do not need to be obeyed.
The primacy of the Hebrew Scriptures, relative to the Christian Scriptures (New Testament). All of the Hebrew Scriptures' non-ceremonial laws are still in force, unless they have been specifically rescinded or modified by verses in the Christian Scriptures. "Only if we find an explicit abandonment of an Old Testament law in the New Testament, because of the historic fulfillment of the Old Testament shadow, can we legitimately abandon a detail of the Mosaic law." 3 This is largely supported by their interpretation of Matthew 5:17:
"Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (NIV)
Civil laws must be changed to match the Bible's moral rules. That is, anything that is immoral (by their standards) is also to be criminalized.
The only valid legislation, social theory, spiritual beliefs, economic theory are those derived from the Bible
In every aspect of life, there are only two options: God-centered or man-centered; Theonomy or autonomy. Their political goal is to ban the latter, everywhere. Each individual, family, church, government and society must be reconstructed to eliminate sin. Each Christian has the responsibility to contribute to this conversion.
They oppose inter-faith, inter-racial, and same-sex marriages. R.J. Rushdoony wrote about opposition to:
"inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish." 4
Rushdoony's condemnation of inter-racial marriage appears to have been his own and unrelated to the biblical text. It was not shared by other Reconstructionists.
Reconstructionists regard the Gods and Goddesses of all other religions to be "the devil," and their teachings to be false. They would attempt to replace all religions with their version of Christianity. For example, David Chilton wrote about Judaism:
"The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers--the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel." 5
Of course, there exists diversity of opinion within the Reconstructionist movement. Not all followers will necessarily agree with all the above statements of the movement's leaders
Practices:
If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government, there would be many changes:
The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race.
The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband.
It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. Slave owners would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as the slaves lived for at least a day before dying of the beating. 9
Polygyny and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old Testament. However, Reconstructionists generally believe in marriage between one man and one woman only. Any other sexual expression would be a capital crime. Those found guilty of engaging in same-sex, pre-marital or extra-marital sex would be executed.
The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. In theory, this would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians.
Governments would all have balanced budgets.
Income taxes would be eliminated.
The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
Legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for abortions would be charged with murder and executed.
The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E-mails which complained that the movement does not recommend the resumption of human slavery. But we have received many more Emails from Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery would be good for North America.
Joseph Busche and Bill Curry have written a Tennessee Law Book. Their intent was to show that laws to implement various Old Testament laws would sound extremely intrusive today. See: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/tn_law.htm.
Interface with other Fundamentalist Christian groups:
Dominionism differs from more common forms of Fundamentalism in a number of key areas.
Dominionists:
Emphasize the importance of the Hebrew Scriptures vs. the Christian Scriptures.
Believe that all Christians must attempt to reconstruct society along Biblical lines.
Believe that, once they attain power, they will suppress other religions through genocide and mass murder, rather than through proselytizing.
Would require all religious groups to strictly follow the Mosaic law.
Believe that Jesus' second coming is in the far future.
Dominionism thought is finding considerable support among Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations and churches. According to the Public Eye Magazine: "Gary North claims that 'the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.' North describes the 'three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement [as] the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system'." 8
References used for the above essay:
Rev. Andrew Saldlin, "The Creed of Christian Reconstruction," at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html
J. Ligon Duncan, III, "Moses' Law for Modern Government: The Intellectual and Sociological Origins of the Christian Reconstructionist Movement", Premise, Vol II, No. 5, 1995-MAY-27. See: http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html
Gary North, "The Sinai Strategy: Economics and the Ten Commandments," Institute for Christian Economics (1986)
R.J. Rushdoony, "The Institutes of Biblical Law", Craig Press, Nutley, NJ (1973), P. 257.
David Chilton, "The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation", Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, TX (1984), P. 127.
Rev. Andrew Saldlin, "The Creed of Christian Reconstruction," at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html
Greg Bahnsen, "By This Standard," Pages 345-347. Available free at http://www.freebooks.com/
Frederick Clarkson, "Theocratic Dominionism gains influence," The Public Eye Magazine, Volume 8, #1 and 2, 1994-MAR/JUN. Online at: http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre3.html
See Exodus 21:21
Additional resources:
An essay on Dominionism with many links is at: http://abacus.oxy.edu/qrd/www/rrr/recon.html
The Chalcedon Foundation of Dr. R.J. Rushdoony is at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/
The Southern California Center for Christian Studies (founded by the late Dr. G.L. Bahnsen) is at: http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/
The Institute for Christian Economics, (ICE) founded by Dr. Gary North, has many Christian books free for downloading. See: http://www.freebooks.com/
An essay on Christian Reconstructionism with many links is at: http://abacus.oxy.edu/qrd/www/rrr/recon.html
The Chalcedon Foundation of Dr. R.J. Rushdoony is at: http://www.chalcedon.edu/
The Southern California Center for Christian Studies (founded by the late Dr. G.L. Bahnsen) is at: http://www.cleaf.com/~covenant/
The Institute for Christian Economics, (ICE) founded by Dr. Gary North, has many Christian books free for downloading. See: http://www.freebooks.com/
Joseph Conn, "Christians Stoning Teens," at: http://members.aol.com/timgore/teenstone.htm
Books:
G.L. Bahnsen "Theonomy in Christian Ethics"
G.L. Bahnsen "By This Standard"
G.L. Bahnsen "No Other Standard"
David Chilton's "Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators"
Gary DeMar, "Christian Reconstruction: What it Is, What it Isn’t"
George Grant and Mark Horne, "Legislating Immorality: The Homosexual Movement Comes Out Of The Closet." (This book advocates the death penalty for homosexual behavior.)
R.J. Rushdoony "Institutes of Biblical Law"
Copyright 1998 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious ToleranceLatest update: 2005-MAY-18Author: B.A. Robinson
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Obama's Wealth Destruction
Daily Article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Posted on 2/9/2009 12:00:00 AM
President Obama is under the impression that history owes him $1 trillion right now to spend on whatever he wants. His language is strident and full of irritation that anyone would question his right to live out his personal dream of being Franklin Roosevelt to George Bush's Hoover. This, he says, is what the election was all about.
The arrogance reminds me of George Bush after 9-11, who similarly believed that history owed him a gargantuan war in the tradition of FDR. And look how that arrogance led to disgrace and loss, as he unwittingly presided over the destruction of American prosperity while searching for bugbears abroad.
It just goes to show you that the presidency is something like a drug. It makes people lose all connection to reality. Part of the reality that Obama needs to recognize is that the New Deal was a calamity far worse than the initial market downturn that began it. He needs to stop basing his policies on dumbed-down civics texts versions of events and consider the economic logic.
With his rhetoric and policies, he has decided to demonize private enterprise, just as FDR did, as a way to present government as the great savior. Now, think about this. If there is a way out of the recession, it will have to be provided by private enterprise. It will come by new businesses, business expansions, entrepreneurship, new technology, and this will be the source of lasting jobs and prosperity.
You cannot make a country rich by looting taxpayers and paying people to pound nails into siding at public schools! These activities amount to capital consumption. They are not sources of investment. You can say that they are stupid tasks or wonderful tasks, but it is not a matter of ideology as to whether such public projects will make us all wealthier. They will not. They drain the sources of wealth from society. They represent a cost, not a blessing.
That was also true of Bush's dumb stimulus program. He was only bailing out his friends at our expense. The effect was to give a little longer life to institutions that were failing anyway. It's pathetic that the Republicans ever went along with it. You will notice that the scheme didn't actually work.
Well, Obama is doing the same thing, though rewarding a different set of friends. This is not wealth production. This is wealth consumption. Do enough of this nonsense and you can destroy the livelihoods of an entire generation.
Americans are proud of their system of government, but consider what it has given us this time around. We had an outgoing president who thought it was his right to grab as much as he could while leaving. Now we have a new president who thinks that the election entitled him to grab as much as he can, right from the beginning. We get looted by the state coming and going. It all amounts to one massive war on prosperity and freedom.
Particularly culpable here are the official historians who have for generations heralded FDR as the great savior. It is a case study in how a civic lie can appear and fester for decades. The fact is that the New Deal did not work. It prolonged what might have been a troubling two-year downturn into a horrifying blow to world prosperity that ended up in a war that killed countless millions. It was one of the greatest acts of wreckage in world history.
And Obama is inspired by this? He wants to repeat it?
I'm not so cynical about human affairs that I believe that errors must be endlessly repeated. Obama can put a stop to his madness. He needs to know — someone must tell him frankly and openly — that his current path is going to lead not to recovery, but to an extension of suffering, and untold amounts of it.
The biggest threat facing the American economy right now is rarely even discussed. It is the massive buildup of paper bank reserves in the last quarter of 2008. This was Bush's doing. He ordered the Fed to print like mad. Fortunately for us, the banks are still holding on to these reserves. When they start lending again, the result could be hyperinflation of Confederate-dollar proportions.
Hence the priority of the Obama administration should be to first do no evil, and second to find some means for withdrawing those reserves from the banking system before they wash through the economic structure and destroy the dollar. There is still time. He must act. Yes, that will lead to bank failures. That's good! It will lead to business failures. That's good and essential too.
There simply is no choice. If he acts now, he could find that recovery will come before his second term. This is precisely what happened with Reagan. He was fortunate to have advisers who insisted that he let the liquidation happen rather than attempt to fix the recession of 1981–82 with huge new government spending programs.
In any case, the hardest work to do here is intellectual. Obama's head is filled with myths and lies, not only about FDR and the New Deal but also about the government's power to repair the existing economic problems. With this model in his head, he can only do evil. This must change.
Nothing is inevitable. He can turn on a dime. The main message: do not repeat the actions of FDR, lest you destroy what is left of American liberty and prosperity.
White House provides plane to senator for key stimulus vote
After he casts his vote, he will return to Ohio for his mother's funeral early Saturday.
The plane is being provided by the White House, Brown's office said, because the vote is considered "official business," and there are no commercial flights available that would allow him to cast the vote and return to Ohio for his mother's funeral Saturday morning.
A White House official refused to provide a cost estimate for the military plane, but acknowledged "it will be a higher cost than if he were flying commercial."
The official said it is a "small government plane."
"Taking immediate action to save or create 3.5 million jobs and get America's economy moving again is a top priority for Ohio and the nation," said the White House official. "Given that no commercial flights were available that would allow Sen. Brown to make the vote and to attend services memorializing his mother, the administration provided government transportation to ensure that he could do so."
While the final Senate vote on the stimulus plan began at 5:30 p.m. ET, senators are expected to be allowed to vote until after 10:30 p.m., giving Brown enough time to return to the Capitol.
Orbital Collision: Please Pick Up the Nearest Black Courtesy Phone
You’re about to learn how the sausage gets made, and, before we begin, you should know that it’s not pretty.
I don’t know the whole story about Iridium, but it has got to be one of the spookiest tales of them all.
In November 1998, Motorola activated the Iridium communications network, a constellation of low-earth orbit satellites that provides wireless telecom and data services to any location on the planet. The cost to build the system? About $5 billion. By August 1999, unable to sign up enough customers—because of extremely high handset costs and per minute usage fees—Iridium was facing bankruptcy.
(If you know of a more complete account of what happened next, please let me know about it.)
Iridium executive Dan Colussy put together a group of “private investors” to buy the Iridium system. According to Iridium:
In December 2000, a group of private investors led by Dan Colussy organized Iridium Satellite LLC. Iridium Satellite LLC acquired the operating assets of the bankrupt Iridium LLC including the satellite constellation, the terrestrial network, Iridium real property and intellectual capital.
How much did this group of private investors pay for the system that cost about $5 billion to build?
$25 million. That’s a discount of about 99.5% off the build cost.
Who were those private investors who just happened to be at the right place at the right time? I’ll be buggered if I know, but someone, somewhere probably knows.
But guess what happened next.
This is U.S. Department of Defense Press Release Number, 729-00, 26 December 2000:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ANNOUNCES CONTRACT FOR IRIDIUM COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
The Department of Defense, through its Defense Information Systems Agency, last night awarded Iridium Satellite LLC of Arnold, Md., a $72 million contract for 24 months of satellite communications services. This contract would provide unlimited airtime for 20,000 government users over the Iridium satellite network.
The contract includes options which, if exercised, would bring the cumulative value of this contract to $252 million and extend the period of performance to December 2007.
The Department has taken this action because the Iridium system offers state-of-the-art technology. It features on-satellite signal processing and inter-satellite crosslinks allowing satellite-mode service to any open area on earth. It provides mobile, cryptographically secure telephone services to small handsets anywhere on the globe, pole-to-pole, 24 hours a day. The system and its DoD enhancements will provide handheld service currently not available.
Since the Navy has a requirement more than twice as large as the current capability, the Department of Defense needs the capacity Iridium uniquely offers small unit operations in areas without satellite constellation coverage or during periods when various assets are being used in other contingencies. Special Forces operations, combat search and rescue activities and polar communications will also be enhanced. Iridium will provide a unique resource to enhance DoD mobile satellite communications requirements.
“Iridium will not only add to our existing capability, it will provide a commercial alternative to our purely military systems. This may enable real civil/military dual use, keep us closer to the leading edge technologically, and provide a real alternative for the future,” said Dave Oliver, principal deputy undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics).
Iridium Satellite LLC is now purchasing the operating assets of Iridium LLC and its existing subsidiaries, pursuant to a Nov. 22, 2000 order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Under the agreement, Iridium Satellite LLC will purchase all of the existing assets of Iridium LLC, including its constellation of low-orbiting satellites and its satellite control network, and will have Boeing operate the system. The new “bulk rate” service agreement offered and accepted by the Department stands to provide the same critical augmentation capability at substantially cheaper rates.
Early next year, Iridium will offer a classified capability. Classified service will not only be provided for users already registered to the DoD gateway, but will also be extended to new users from DoD, other federal agencies, and selected allied governments.
Woh! Wait a minute. The General Accounting Office tried to investigate, but while those spooky birds continued to fly, a big black National Security blanket fell from above and shut down the GAO with regard to the DoD and Iridium:
The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) is investigating the Department of Defense’s recently signed contract for satellite telephone services from Iridium Satellite LLC. Globalstar LP filed a protest with GAO shortly after the Pentagon announced the agreement with Iridium, because no competition was held for the telecommunications contract. GAO placed a hold on the Iridium contract pending its investigation, but the Pentagon was able to have the hold lifted by citing national security reasons. The GAO investigation has a 100-day limit.
Had enough? We’re just getting started.
This is from USA Today:
When the bankruptcy judge offered one last chance for a buyer to step in, nobody could put together a deal that made all parties happy — except for Dan Colussy, who for the previous 10 years had run United Nuclear, a company that refurbished aircraft and made nuclear reactors for submarines. “Basically, he was retired but viewed it as a shameful waste to see an extremely valuable asset done away with,” says Picasso, who Colussy hired to run Iridium.
So Colussy and a group of investors offered $25 million for a system that cost Motorola and its partners $5 billion to build. That’s one-half cent on the dollar. It’s like picking up a $150,000 Porsche 911 for $750. Or getting a $425-a-night room at the Ritz-Carlton in Laguna Nigel, Calif., for $2.
The last time anybody consummated a deal like that, the French wound up with just $15 million for the Louisiana Purchase, which is probably the underlying reason they’re ticked off at us.
In an odd twist, the new Iridium is 24% owned by an investment firm controlled by Prince Khalid bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman of Saudi Arabia.
The prince used to own a minority chunk of the old Iridium in partnership with the Saudi Binladen Group, the company run by Osama bin Laden’s family. So in a way, some of the money that gave a start to the world’s most notorious terrorist partly funded a communications system helping the U.S. military blast Saddam’s army. Now that’s globalization.
Can you hear me now?
No? Ok, let’s try again.
Alvin B. (”Buzzy”) Krongard, Former Investment Banking and CIA Veteran, Joins Iridium Satellite Board Of Directors:
BETHESDA, Md., Aug. 9 /PRNewswire/ — Iridium Satellite is pleased to announce that Alvin B. (”Buzzy”) Krongard has joined its Board of Directors. Buzzy Krongard is the former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Alex.Brown Incorporated, the nation’s oldest investment banking firm. In addition, Krongard served as Vice Chairman of the Board of Bankers Trust, in addition to holding other financial industry posts. He also served as Counselor to the Director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), then as Executive Director of the CIA from 2001 to 2004.
Iridium, as the only provider of truly global satellite voice and data communications, helps government organizations and businesses around the world communicate where there are no other forms of communication available. Iridium is the only mobile satellite communications service that provides complete pole-to-pole coverage of the earth, making it ideal for remote and backup communications. As such, Iridium has experienced substantial business growth in providing services for mission critical communications, as well as for response to natural and manmade disasters. Iridium is tapping top-level counsel as it expands its Board. The company announced its appointment of Tom Ridge, Former Director of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, to its Board in June.
“Iridium is at a pivotal point in growing its business and expanding its services,” said Dan A. Colussy, CEO and Chairman, Iridium Satellite. “With Buzzy’s deep knowledge base in investment banking and his unmatched experience with the intelligence community, we look forward to his direction as we expand our financial resources and further serve our important customer base.”
…
“I look forward to sharing my investment banking background, as well as my insight into the communications needs of the intelligence community, as an Iridium Board member,” said Mr. Krongard. “I am impressed with the unique aspects of the Iridium network and the power it brings to bear on the Global War On Terrorism (GWOT), homeland defense and other related operations. Iridium has an important customer base to serve and I am pleased to assist.”
Other related operations?
Like, growing tomatoes?
Oh sure. British intelligence had worked out a covert operation that was tasked with teaching the Taliban “farming and irrigation” techniques. Part of this back-to-the-land plan, for the producers of 95% of the global opium supplies, included training the Taliban, “To use secure satellite phones, so they could communicate directly with UK officials.”
Never mind all of that, because all’s well that ends well for “the biggest project failure in history”: Nine-Year Iridium Bankruptcy Saga Over for Motorola:
A judge has finally ruled that Motorola has nothing to pay over the bankruptcy of its Iridium satellite venture in 1999, described as the biggest project failure in history.
The satellites are still in use, with current owner, Iridium Satellite, claiming to have around 250,000 subscribers. A creditors’ committee had been seeking more than $4bn in damages against Motorola, which backed the original Iridium plan to cover the globe with 66 satellites providing phone coverage.
Founded in 1992, Iridium launched its service in 1998, but went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1999, unable to sell enough subscriptions to the expensive service, in the face of competition from GSM mobile-phone services.
Yep, so that’s all I know about Iridium. And now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.
I’m going to bold just one paragraph below about the, “accident.” I’ll let you do the math on the rest.
Via: Wall Street Journal:
A commercial satellite owned by a U.S. company was destroyed in a collision with a defunct Russian military satellite in what NASA said was the first such accident in orbit, raising new concerns about the dangers of space debris.
The crash, which happened Tuesday in low-earth orbit, involved one of the satellites owned by closely held Iridium Satellite LLC and a crippled Russian military satellite that apparently stopped functioning years ago, according to U.S. government and satellite-industry officials.
The collision created two large clouds of debris floating roughly 480 miles above Siberia, and prompted space scientists and engineers to assess the likelihood of further collisions.
The accident could have implications for U.S. space budgets and policy, partly because it comes amid a Pentagon campaign to increase spending on systems to protect U.S. high-tech space hardware by keeping better track of the thousands of pieces of debris and other satellites circling the earth.
As more and more satellites are blasted into orbit, the challenges of keeping them from hitting debris or each other are growing. Military planners also worry about enemies jamming, disabling or potentially even ramming U.S. satellites.
Industry officials say Iridium has identified the Russian craft as a Cosmos series satellite launched in 1993, weighing more than a ton and including an onboard nuclear reactor. A collision could release nuclear residue, though experts have argued for years that the chance of radioactive debris surviving a fall through the atmosphere and reaching inhabited areas is very small.
More than 220 active commercial satellites now orbit the globe, in addition to hundreds of military, spy and scientific satellites. Commercial satellites provide businesses with everything from data and video transmissions to support for automated bank teller systems and consumer navigation devices.
The Russian craft was being monitored by Pentagon organizations that keep track of space debris in order to prevent in-orbit collisions from damaging or destroying both commercial and government satellites. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Pentagon track more than 10,000 pieces of high-speed debris, some no larger than a football.
Cosmos satellites have been designed for various uses, from spy missions to missile-warning systems to secure military communications. They have caused a number of scary incidents over the years, including a 1991 collision between one defunct model and debris from another; a near-collision with the space shuttle the same year; and another that crashed into Canadian wilderness in 1978.
Pentagon officials will face a barrage of questions about how they missed such an impending collision with an intact satellite, according to Tim Farrar, a satellite consultant familiar with Iridium. Commercial satellites are “routinely repositioned to avoid potential collision with smaller pieces of debris,” said Mr. Farrar.
Pentagon brass, satellite industry executives and NASA leaders for years have publicly expressed concern about the dangers of orbital debris. But the odds of a direct hit between satellites were considered so small as to be basically unthinkable. The ground-based and space-based reconnaissance tools available to the Pentagon generally were considered adequate to keep close track of larger objects.
Recently, large U.S. and European operators began reviewing contingency plans to move some telecommunications satellites away from a pair of malfunctioning satellites.
Space collision worries gained momentum in January 2007, when the Chinese government used a relatively simple antisatellite weapon to knock down one of its aged weather satellites.
NASA said there have been four earlier instances of accidental collisions in orbit, generally involving rocket parts and other debris. None involved a full-size satellite.
When satellites reach the end of their useful lives they often are parked in remote orbits where they are unlikely to endanger working satellites. But if a satellite’s onboard computers or other systems fail, or it runs out of battery power, it can be difficult for ground operators to maintain control. Without such orders from the ground, satellites can act unpredictably over months.
Iridium, of Bethesda, Md., uses more than 60 satellites to provide voice and data services for about 300,000 subscribers globally. It said the collision has “minimal impact” on service due to its backup capacity.

