Chickens of Our Own Making by Cindy Sheehan

The Real Cindy Sheehan

by Cindy Sheehan
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
March 15, 2008

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

— Reverend Jeremiah Wright; Sept. 16th 2001

White America refuses to study, reflect, and learn a lesson from history…

— Malcom X in “Chickens Coming Home to Roost”

Malcolm X’s story is familiar to many people here in America. Denzel Washington played him brilliantly in the eponymous movie. Malcolm X never backed down from a challenge or from the truth. In his speech after the horrible assassination of Pres. John Kennedy, he rightly said that, “White America refuses to study, reflect and learn lessons from history.” Apparently, some people in black America aren’t so good at learning from the past, either.

Senator Barack Obama is being credited by many with being the candidate of “change and hope.” For the life of me, I would love to believe this. I would love to believe that anyone who is still involved in the race for the White House (that is rarely won by the most honest, sharpest, or best candidate) will bring hope and healing to our broken nation that desperately needs it. After almost eight years of ruinous BushCo, and really since April 30, 1789 when George Washington took his first oath of office, our country has been ruled by white men who have been several cuts above our third president named George, but who more often than not have been disastrous, also.

Barack Obama has denounced the above remarks of his mentor and pastor, Rev. Wright saying: “I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies.” Let’s parse the Rev’s statement.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

Yes, on December 7th, 1941 (another day that will live in infamy), a US Naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was attacked by Japan. On that day, 2338 American service personnel were tragically killed, but there was little of what our Pentagon calls “collateral damage,” civilians killed. As a matter of fact, during WWII, Japan killed very few American civilians. However, the US military command in the Pacific killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians in aerial bombings and with the use of the new WMD; H-bombs. General Curtis LeMay informed future Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara (who was under LeMay during WWII), that if the US had lost they would have been tried as “war criminals.” The loss of innocent life in Japan was numbered in the hundred of thousands and I don’t hear Senator Obama denouncing those acts of cowardice.

We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans.

I think there is little dispute that Israel (which I assume is what Obama refers to when he says “allies”) receives approximately three billion dollars in aid from the U.S. each year and have brutally oppressed and occupied Palestinian lands for decades. In a one week’s period this month, Israel killed over 300 Palestinians and was “shocked” when 8 Jewish seminary students were killed in return. I hate and reject all loss of innocent life no matter what is the color, religion or nation of origin. I think Senator Obama may buy into the neocon lie that somehow Israeli or American lives are more precious than Arab lives or black lives. Not only has the US supported state-sanctioned terrorism in such places as Palestine and South Africa, but we are committing some more of our own in Iraq and Afghanistan.

…and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Yes, with arrogant American exceptionalism, we were indignant when almost 3000 of our brothers and sisters were killed on 9-11. We were indignant and we were stunned, shocked and sorrowed. But instead of searching our collective souls and reflecting about why they “hate us” so much, our insane president (backed by a bloodthirsty gang of racist opportunists) set off on a mission to send more chickens out into the world that will be a helluva bitch when they come home to roost.

Senator Obama also denounced any remarks that “disparaged our great country.” Hmm…does he denounce remarks that his own wife made about being proud to be an American for the first time in her “adult life?” I wish I could be proud of a nation that tortures people and imprisons them without basic legal rights. I wish I could be proud of a nation that has a sitting president that has been responsible for killing almost a million innocent Iraqi people in a misadventure that was based on lies and is for profit. I wish I could be proud of a nation that rapes its poor people to feed the already rich in a demented reverse Robin Hood affect. I wish I could be proud of a country where over a million children are homeless and hungry every night. I wish I could be proud of a nation that left our black brothers and sisters hanging off of their roofs after Katrina. The list can go on and on. Senator Obama needs to denounce me, because the policies of our government do not make me proud and oftentimes endlessly disgust me.

As a nation, we need to pull together and denounce the policies of our government, which were the cause of 9/11. We need to apologize for the gory excesses of BushCo and we must learn how to conserve and cut-back on our own consumeristic orgies to give the rest of the world some creature comforts that are basic human rights. We need to call our “chickens” back home to peacefully roost before they roost again in violence.

I sit here behind my computer screen in solidarity with Rev. Wright. Not only do I not denounce him, but I support him in telling the truth. I wish Senator Obama would recall how he once stood for truth. A desk in the oval office that has been corrupted by years of calumny is not worth selling ones soul for.

We need to “study, reflect and learn” from our history that has been violent, but where elected officials mostly fed the carnage for imperial conquest and corporate profit. The next step is “change.” True change; not more of nationalistic “same old, same old.” with a different name.

Cindy Sheehan for Congress

see

Obama Interview + Obama’s Pastor Problems + Sharpton compares Obama’s Pastor to Billy Graham

Seeds in the City – Cuba (video; 2003)

Dandelion Salad

journeymanpictures on July 23, 2007

June 2003

This is the remarkable story of how the people of Havana have pulled themselves back from the brink of disaster.

Faced with food shortages and widespread hunger, city dwellers began growing food on rooftops and in front of office buildings. “It was a very spontaneous movement. People started to grow things on every available place”, states one resident. Now, there are thousands of urban farms and more than a million tons of food is produced within the city.

Put young children on DNA list, urge UK police

Dandelion Salad

by Mark Townsend and Anushka Asthana
The Observer
Sunday March 16 2008

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

‘If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

…continued

h/t: CLG

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

National Security & Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51 (2007)

Dandelion Salad

Previously posted. ~ Lo

by George Bush
www.whitehouse.gov

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 9, 2007

NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/NSPD 51

HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE/HSPD-20

Subject: National Continuity Policy

Purpose
(1) This directive establishes a comprehensive national policy on the continuity of Federal Government structures and operations and a single National Continuity Coordinator responsible for coordinating the development and implementation of Federal continuity policies. This policy establishes “National Essential Functions,” prescribes continuity requirements for all executive departments and agencies, and provides guidance for State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector organizations in order to ensure a comprehensive and integrated national continuity program that will enhance the credibility of our national security posture and enable a more rapid and effective response to and recovery from a national emergency.

Definitions

(2) In this directive:

(a) “Category” refers to the categories of executive departments and agencies listed in Annex A to this directive;

(b) “Catastrophic Emergency” means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;

(c) “Continuity of Government,” or “COG,” means a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency;

(d) “Continuity of Operations,” or “COOP,” means an effort within individual executive departments and agencies to ensure that Primary Mission-Essential Functions continue to be performed during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies;

(e) “Enduring Constitutional Government,” or “ECG,” means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government to execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;

(f) “Executive Departments and Agencies” means the executive departments enumerated in 5 U.S.C. 101, independent establishments as defined by 5 U.S.C. 104(1), Government corporations as defined by 5 U.S.C. 103(1), and the United States Postal Service;

(g) “Government Functions” means the collective functions of the heads of executive departments and agencies as defined by statute, regulation, presidential direction, or other legal authority, and the functions of the legislative and judicial branches;

(h) “National Essential Functions,” or “NEFs,” means that subset of Government Functions that are necessary to lead and sustain the Nation during a catastrophic emergency and that, therefore, must be supported through COOP and COG capabilities; and

(i) “Primary Mission Essential Functions,” or “PMEFs,” means those Government Functions that must be performed in order to support or implement the performance of NEFs before, during, and in the aftermath of an emergency.

Policy

(3) It is the policy of the United States to maintain a comprehensive and effective continuity capability composed of Continuity of Operations and Continuity of Government programs in order to ensure the preservation of our form of government under the Constitution and the continuing performance of National Essential Functions under all conditions.

Implementation Actions

(4) Continuity requirements shall be incorporated into daily operations of all executive departments and agencies. As a result of the asymmetric threat environment, adequate warning of potential emergencies that could pose a significant risk to the homeland might not be available, and therefore all continuity planning shall be based on the assumption that no such warning will be received. Emphasis will be placed upon geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to increase survivability and maintain uninterrupted Government Functions. Risk management principles shall be applied to ensure that appropriate operational readiness decisions are based on the probability of an attack or other incident and its consequences.

(5) The following NEFs are the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions:

(a) Ensuring the continued functioning of our form of government under the Constitution, including the functioning of the three separate branches of government;

(b) Providing leadership visible to the Nation and the world and maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people;

(c) Defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and preventing or interdicting attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(d) Maintaining and fostering effective relationships with foreign nations;

(e) Protecting against threats to the homeland and bringing to justice perpetrators of crimes or attacks against the United States or its people, property, or interests;

(f) Providing rapid and effective response to and recovery from the domestic consequences of an attack or other incident;

(g) Protecting and stabilizing the Nation’s economy and ensuring public confidence in its financial systems; and

(h) Providing for critical Federal Government services that address the national health, safety, and welfare needs of the United States.

(6) The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination.

(7) For continuity purposes, each executive department and agency is assigned to a category in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities in support of the Federal Government’s ability to sustain the NEFs. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall serve as the President’s lead agent for coordinating overall continuity operations and activities of executive departments and agencies, and in such role shall perform the responsibilities set forth for the Secretary in sections 10 and 16 of this directive.

(8) The National Continuity Coordinator, in consultation with the heads of appropriate executive departments and agencies, will lead the development of a National Continuity Implementation Plan (Plan), which shall include prioritized goals and objectives, a concept of operations, performance metrics by which to measure continuity readiness, procedures for continuity and incident management activities, and clear direction to executive department and agency continuity coordinators, as well as guidance to promote interoperability of Federal Government continuity programs and procedures with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate. The Plan shall be submitted to the President for approval not later than 90 days after the date of this directive.

(9) Recognizing that each branch of the Federal Government is responsible for its own continuity programs, an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall ensure that the executive branch’s COOP and COG policies in support of ECG efforts are appropriately coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning Federal Government.

(10) Federal Government COOP, COG, and ECG plans and operations shall be appropriately integrated with the emergency plans and capabilities of State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to promote interoperability and to prevent redundancies and conflicting lines of authority. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall coordinate the integration of Federal continuity plans and operations with State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.

(11) Continuity requirements for the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and executive departments and agencies shall include the following:

(a) The continuation of the performance of PMEFs during any emergency must be for a period up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed, and the capability to be fully operational at alternate sites as soon as possible after the occurrence of an emergency, but not later than 12 hours after COOP activation;

(b) Succession orders and pre-planned devolution of authorities that ensure the emergency delegation of authority must be planned and documented in advance in accordance with applicable law;

(c) Vital resources, facilities, and records must be safeguarded, and official access to them must be provided;

(d) Provision must be made for the acquisition of the resources necessary for continuity operations on an emergency basis;

(e) Provision must be made for the availability and redundancy of critical communications capabilities at alternate sites in order to support connectivity between and among key government leadership, internal elements, other executive departments and agencies, critical partners, and the public;

(f) Provision must be made for reconstitution capabilities that allow for recovery from a catastrophic emergency and resumption of normal operations; and

(g) Provision must be made for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel capable of relocating to alternate facilities to support the continuation of the performance of PMEFs.

(12) In order to provide a coordinated response to escalating threat levels or actual emergencies, the Continuity of Government Readiness Conditions (COGCON) system establishes executive branch continuity program readiness levels, focusing on possible threats to the National Capital Region. The President will determine and issue the COGCON Level. Executive departments and agencies shall comply with the requirements and assigned responsibilities under the COGCON program. During COOP activation, executive departments and agencies shall report their readiness status to the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Secretary’s designee.

(13) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall:

(a) Conduct an annual assessment of executive department and agency continuity funding requests and performance data that are submitted by executive departments and agencies as part of the annual budget request process, in order to monitor progress in the implementation of the Plan and the execution of continuity budgets;

(b) In coordination with the National Continuity Coordinator, issue annual continuity planning guidance for the development of continuity budget requests; and

(c) Ensure that heads of executive departments and agencies prioritize budget resources for continuity capabilities, consistent with this directive.

(14) The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy shall:

(a) Define and issue minimum requirements for continuity communications for executive departments and agencies, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President;

(b) Establish requirements for, and monitor the development, implementation, and maintenance of, a comprehensive communications architecture to integrate continuity components, in consultation with the APHS/CT, the APNSA, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief of Staff to the President; and

(c) Review quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities, as prepared pursuant to section 16(d) of this directive or otherwise, and report the results and recommended remedial actions to the National Continuity Coordinator.

(15) An official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President shall:

(a) Advise the President, the Chief of Staff to the President, the APHS/CT, and the APNSA on COGCON operational execution options; and

(b) Consult with the Secretary of Homeland Security in order to ensure synchronization and integration of continuity activities among the four categories of executive departments and agencies.

(16) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall:

(a) Coordinate the implementation, execution, and assessment of continuity operations and activities;

(b) Develop and promulgate Federal Continuity Directives in order to establish continuity planning requirements for executive departments and agencies;

(c) Conduct biennial assessments of individual department and agency continuity capabilities as prescribed by the Plan and report the results to the President through the APHS/CT;

(d) Conduct quarterly and annual assessments of continuity communications capabilities in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(e) Develop, lead, and conduct a Federal continuity training and exercise program, which shall be incorporated into the National Exercise Program developed pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 of December 17, 2003 (“National Preparedness”), in consultation with an official designated by the Chief of Staff to the President;

(f) Develop and promulgate continuity planning guidance to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators;

(g) Make available continuity planning and exercise funding, in the form of grants as provided by law, to State, local, territorial, and tribal governments, and private sector critical infrastructure owners and operators; and

(h) As Executive Agent of the National Communications System, develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive continuity communications architecture.

(17) The Director of National Intelligence, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall produce a biennial assessment of the foreign and domestic threats to the Nation’s continuity of government.

(18) The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide secure, integrated, Continuity of Government communications to the President, the Vice President, and, at a minimum, Category I executive departments and agencies.

(19) Heads of executive departments and agencies shall execute their respective department or agency COOP plans in response to a localized emergency and shall:

(a) Appoint a senior accountable official, at the Assistant Secretary level, as the Continuity Coordinator for the department or agency;

(b) Identify and submit to the National Continuity Coordinator the list of PMEFs for the department or agency and develop continuity plans in support of the NEFs and the continuation of essential functions under all conditions;

(c) Plan, program, and budget for continuity capabilities consistent with this directive;

(d) Plan, conduct, and support annual tests and training, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, in order to evaluate program readiness and ensure adequacy and viability of continuity plans and communications systems; and

(e) Support other continuity requirements, as assigned by category, in accordance with the nature and characteristics of its national security roles and responsibilities

General Provisions

(20) This directive shall be implemented in a manner that is consistent with, and facilitates effective implementation of, provisions of the Constitution concerning succession to the Presidency or the exercise of its powers, and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 (3 U.S.C. 19), with consultation of the Vice President and, as appropriate, others involved. Heads of executive departments and agencies shall ensure that appropriate support is available to the Vice President and others involved as necessary to be prepared at all times to implement those provisions.

(21) This directive:

(a) Shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and the authorities of agencies, or heads of agencies, vested by law, and subject to the availability of appropriations;

(b) Shall not be construed to impair or otherwise affect (i) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budget, administrative, and legislative proposals, or (ii) the authority of the Secretary of Defense over the Department of Defense, including the chain of command for military forces from the President, to the Secretary of Defense, to the commander of military forces, or military command and control procedures; and

(c) Is not intended to, and does not, create any rights or benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(22) Revocation. Presidential Decision Directive 67 of October 21, 1998 (“Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations”), including all Annexes thereto, is hereby revoked.

(23) Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes, attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into and made a part of this directive.

(24) Security. This directive and the information contained herein shall be protected from unauthorized disclosure, provided that, except for Annex A, the Annexes attached to this directive are classified and shall be accorded appropriate handling, consistent with applicable Executive Orders.

GEORGE W. BUSH

see

Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video)

New Evidence in Siegelman Case Points to Republican Cabal

Dandelion Salad

By Sam Stein
AlterNet
Huffington Postf
March 13, 2008

A group of Republicans were seeking to profit from the trial of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman.

A new review of evidence suggests that an aligned group of Republican interests were pressing for — and seeking to profit financially from — the trial of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman on charges of bribery.

According to court documents and official testimony, months before Siegelman was charged, Rob Riley, the son of the state’s governor, expressed confidence that an indictment would occur and that Siegelman’s political financier, Richard Scrushy, would be drawn into case.

Around the same time, moreover, Riley managed to maneuver himself into an extremely profitable position: lead local counsel on a separate, massive civil suit against Scrushy and his company, HealthSouth.

How he received the assignment aroused some suspicion.

Riley had limited experience in securities litigation. And, for critics, his appointment gave of the appearance of legal-political insider trading: the governor’s son, cognizant that Scrushy would be dragged into Siegelman’s case, saw the benefits to be had from the civil suit against Scrushy’s company, and positioned himself to profit.

Riley denied these charges in an interview with the Huffington Post, saying that he had no prior knowledge of Siegelman’s forthcoming indictment and arguing that he had been recruited to come on board the HealthSouth case, not the other way around.

What is agreed upon, however, is that Riley earned big money from his work. Ten months after he signed onto the HealthSouth suit, Siegelman was indicted. Less than a year after that, the former governor was convicted of bribery along with Scrushy. And months later, Health South settled for $445 million one of the largest settlements in securities litigation history.

In the early days of 2005, HealthSouth and Scrushy were in the midst of a long-waged battle over whether the company had “perpetrated an elaborate scheme to deceive HealthSouth’s investors.” The case alleged that the company, and its financial supporters, had “committed deceptive acts whose primary purpose and effect was to create a false appearance” of good financial results and future prospects. There were no connections to Siegelman.

On January 13, Rob Riley, a lawyer for the firm Riley & Jackson P.C. and the son of the state’s governor, was abruptly added as local counsel to the New Mexico State Investment Council, a relatively new plaintiff in the case against HealthSouth. It was an interesting move. Riley, who specialized in medical malpractice law, had little history in complex securities litigation. Co-plaintiffs complained, as they often do, that his presence would simply drive up the cost of the case and cut into the pot of any settlement. But their appeal was denied.

Why did Riley come on board? According to him, it was a product of local stature and a bit of luck.

“A guy in New Mexico said, ‘Hey, we are trying to get involved in this case,'” Riley recalled. “At that point, it was pretty well out in the papers that there had been fraud at HealthSouth. So I felt like it was probably a good case. I didn’t know what chance we had at being lead counsel.”

Another official with knowledge of the case said Riley was chosen primarily for his political connections.

But around that time, Jill Simpson, an Alabama Republican official and opposition researcher, told the House Judiciary Committee that Riley called her and said the state’s legal apparatus was gearing up to re-investigate Don Siegelman. Moreover, Simpson recalled Riley as saying that Republicans would tie the former governor with Scrushy, “a reviled figure in Alabama.”

Less than a year earlier, Siegelman had been indicted for conspiracy and Medicaid fraud but his trial — which seemed politically motivated — fell apart within a day in court.

On this new go-around, the prosecution had a more favorable judge. Mark Fuller, who had been appointed by President Bush to the U.S. District Court in the Middle District of Alabama, was well connected in Republican circles and, according to local Alabama journalist Glynn Wilson, had personal ties to Rob Riley.

Ten months after Riley signed onto the HealthSouth case, Siegelman and Scrushy were indicted on charges of political bribery. At the center of the charge was a $500,000 donation Scrushy made to the former governor’s 1999 campaign. The money had gone to the state’s education lottery and in exchange Scrushy got a position on a hospital regulatory board.

The connection, critics claim, was weak and prejudiced. Scrushy had been appointed to the board under several governors and his firm had no interests under the board’s purview. But the trial, which began ion April 2006, reverberated throughout Alabama’s political and legal circles. Siegelman’s bid to become governor again was snuffed out. And the civil trial against HealthSouth was altered.

“[Riley] very aggressively he thrust himself into that suit as a late comer,” said Scott Horton, a law professor at Columbia University who has written extensively on these issues for Harper’s magazine. “He knew that Fuller had made statements suggesting that he felt he had once been a target of a politically motivated attack by Siegelman. He knew that this would make someone predisposed against Siegelman and perfect hanging judge. And he would reap the benefit of the class action suit on the side.”

As the criminal case against Siegelman proceeded, so too did the suit against HealthSouth. And in the spring and summer of 2006, the two cases intersected.

According to the Associated Press, in May 2006, William McGahan, an official at UBS, one of HealthSouth’s investment bankers, testified in the Siegelman case that he had been pressured to pony up $250,000 for the donations to the state’s education lottery. The testimony had limited relevance to the class action suit. But, over objections, it found its way into the court record. McGahan, the document read, was eager to please Scrushy and “arranged for UBS to be the source of the funds for the bribe.”

What affect this, and Scrushy’s ongoing criminal trial, had on the proceedings is a subject of debate. Riley, pointing to earlier HealthSouth executives who had pleaded guilty to fraud, said he saw no tangible cross-over between the two cases.

“I don’t believe that had anything to do with the settlement,” he said. “I don’t think that it aided it at all.”

Two other lawyers who served with other plaintiffs on the class action suit against HealthSouth, however, offered different opinions.

“It is not common that you have criminal trials of corporate executive at the same time that a class action suit is taking place involving the same individual,” said Louis Mallone, an attorney for O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue LLP and liaison counsel on the case. “It certainly didn’t hurt the prospects of the [class action case].”

A second official, who declined to speak on the record, said that while the HealthSouth case was a “slam dunk” even before the Scrushy-Siegelman trial began, having Scrushy as a convicted felon “obviously helped” the suit against HealthSouth.

In June 2006, both Siegelman and Scrushy were convicted on charges of bribery. Siegelman was sentenced to seven years and four months in federal prison. Scrushy was given six years and ten months.

Months later the HealthSouth case, after years of trial, was finally settled. The company announced that it would pay a whopping $445 million. It was, said Malone, “one of the top fifteen or twenty [settlements] of all time.”

Riley declined to reveal what he made from the case, saying that the amount was “evolving.” But he did acknowledge that it was substantial. “It was a very good settlement,” he said. “But at the same time there was a lot of work that went into it.

For critics, however, the message was clear. Riley knew Scrushy going down in the criminal trial and saw a way to reap the benefits on the separate civil suit. In other words: Good work, if you can get it.

“Rob Riley approved of the strategy of the dragging Scrushy into the [criminal] case because it would have benefits for him in the class action suit,” said Horton. “It was clear that he was intently following what was going on in Fuller’s court and knew that the conviction of Scrushy in that case would have strong benefits in the class action suit.”

***

Don Siegelman : “All Roads Lead To Rove”

crooksandliars.com

DailyKos:

March 15th, 2008

All roads lead to Rove. That was the message scrawled as an afterthought in the lower left-hand corner of the envelope I received in yesterday’s mail. It contained a letter from an old and dear friend of mine. His name is Don Siegelman. He is the former governor of Alabama and he is being held as a political prisoner of the Bush administration in a Federal prison in Louisiana.

They don’t allow Don the luxury of stationary so he must write his letters on whatever he can find. He wrote me on a xeroxed article he wanted me to see. [..]

When I first heard of Don being prosecuted for corruption my heart sank. I didn’t know what to think. It had been years since we’d spoken and the press made it sound awful for Don (what else?). Of course I had no idea what was really going on. Now that I do I am horrified…and furious.

Don is a formidable force in Alabama politics. His friends are loyal and his supporters enthusiastic. They re-elected him Governor in the midst of a bogus corruption trial engineered by the Bush Justice Department at the behest of Karl Rove who takes orders from you-know-who. Don campaigned for re-election throughout the early phases of the trial. On election night he was declared the winner, but Karl Rove’s minions stole the election overnight by manipulating the ballots in Baldwin County. It was classic Rovian/Republican election theft. They did it with computers and electronic voting machines. Don went to bed the re-elected Governor of Alabama, and woke up an unemployed defendant. [..]

Something that has not been reported is that they have been physically beating Don. I don’t know the extent of his injuries or exactly how many times it has happened – but it has been multiple times.

There are no words for the fury I feel. This is an outrage. And it is the most un-American thing I have ever heard. I cry bitter tears of frustration and rage.

Please everyone. We have to help Don, and we have to crush these thugs and put them out of the business of perverting our democracy. We must investigate and prosecute the responsible parties, not for political reasons, but to actually serve the interest of justice. The cause of justice calls upon us to hold these criminals accountable. We must bring them to justice and stop such travesties from ever again happening in our United States of America.

Please contact Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairmen of their respective Judiciary committees and ask them to appoint an Independent Investigator. You can also donate to Siegelman’s Defense Fund.

h/t: After Downing Street

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Why is Don Siegelman Still in Prison?

60 Minutes: Don Siegelman (vids) + Parts of Broadcast Blocked in Alabama…

Siegelman-Don

Griffin Takes Powerful New Approach to 9/11 Truth

Dandelion Salad

by Tod Fletcher
Global Research, March 15, 2008

Review of David Ray Griffin’s latest book

9/11 CONTRADICTIONS by David Ray Griffin is the fifth of his books to examine the official account of the events of September 11, 2001. This brilliant and highly readable book takes a new yet simple approach to the truth about 9/11. It focuses entirely on contradictory statements made by members of the Bush administration, government departments and agencies, and official bodies such as the 9/11 Commission. All the statements that Griffin examines are official claims in direct conflict with other official claims. How could this be? Why would the government keep changing “the official story”? The public, of course, is expected to take all the statements as incontrovertibly true, yet they directly conflict with one another.

And why, if the government pronouncements are contradictory, haven’t members of Congress and the mainstream media launched investigations to determine which are true and which are false, and to ask why are obvious falsehoods about the events of 9/11 being promulgated by the government? I say “obvious falsehoods” because, as Griffin explains in the Preface, “If [Transportation Secretary Norman] Mineta said “P,” that is a fact. If the 9/11 Commission said “not P,” that is a fact. And it is a fact that “P” and “not P” cannot both be true” (p. viii). The subtitle, “An Open Letter to Congress and the Press,” indicates Griffin’s hope that the juxtaposition of the contradictory claims the book provides will stimulate such investigations. But the book is really intended for the public at large, and its clear focus makes it the easiest to read of all Griffin’s books on 9/11. Because of its relative simplicity it is a perfect introduction to the subject.

Drawing on government publications, media reports, testimony from the 9/11 Commission hearings, oral histories from the Fire Department of New York, and other official sources, Griffin documents masterfully 25 of the most serious contradictions, divided into five parts:

“Part I. Questions about Bush Administration and Pentagon Leaders,” reveals the contradictory claims about the activities of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Richard Myers, Donald Rumsfeld and Ted Olson. In this part Griffin shows that Bush’s long stay at the Florida school was initially confirmed and later denied by the White House, that various government spokespersons and the 9/11 Commission could not agree on where Cheney, Myers and Rumsfeld were at key times that morning, and that DOJ Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claims to have received phone calls from his wife on Flight 77 were directly contradicted by the DOJ’s FBI.

“Part II. Questions about the US Military,” explores the many contradictions within government claims about when the military was alerted to the emergencies on the flights, whether the military could have shot down Flight 93, and whether it had envisioned 9/11-type attacks prior to that day.

“Part III. Questions about Osama bin Laden & the Hijackers,” examines the contradictions in official claims about the religious devotion of the alleged hijackers, where the luggage with the Arabic-language flight manuals, attributed to Mohamed Atta, was found, whether cell phone calls from the flights provided evidence of hijackers, and the existence of hard evidence for Osama bin Laden’s responsibility.

“Part IV. Questions about the Pentagon,” spotlights contradictions in the official account of Hani Hanjour’s flying skills, what caused the large hole in the interior C Ring wall of the building, and whether a sophisticated US military reconnaissance plane was overhead during the attack.

“Part V. Questions about the World Trade Center,” exposes the contradictions in Rudy Giuliani’s account of his foreknowledge of the catastrophic collapse of the Twin Towers, in the official claims about explosions in the towers and WTC 7 before they disintegrated, and in official statements concerning the presence of molten steel in the subbasements after the buildings came down.

When examined under Griffin’s microscope, it becomes clear that the “official story” has kept changing over time, just like the stories criminals tell as they are interrogated. As holes in the government’s explanations of the incomprehensible events opened up under questioning, to some degree from the press but primarily from the 9/11 truth movement, they were plugged by new claims. And virtually all of the new claims have been accepted by the press and Congress without asking how they could be true in light of the earlier, contradictory claims. You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that when the story keeps changing, doubt is cast on all of its versions. Any police investigator knows this, as should investigative journalists and elected representatives.

Of course, if Congress and the press won’t do their jobs, it’s up to the rest of us. With this authoritative dissection of the conflicting statements of the principal suspects, Griffin has done much of the pre-trial legwork already. The American public should not allow his selfless devotion to truth and justice to be squandered by inaction. This may be one of those things that representatives just cannot do for us.

Link to Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/11-CONTRADICTIONS-Letter-Congress-Press/

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Tod Fletcher, Global Research, 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8352

Bill Moyers Journal: Government Oversight + Rick Karr on Government Secrecy

Dandelion Salad

Bill Moyers Journal
PBS
March 14, 2008

Undoubtedly, the daily grind of congressional hearings passes by most Americans unremarked and probably unseen. Only the most high-profile will make the evening news. But they are the very stuff of government.

BILL MOYERS JOURNAL looks back at a years-worth of hearings held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the investigative arm of the House, and speaks with the Committee Chair, Representative Henry Waxman, about the Committee’s role in the government:

“It’s almost like having a policeman on the beat. If no one thinks they’re being watched and being held accountable, they think they can get away with anything.”

Video link and transcript Part 1

Video link and transcript Part 2

Rick Karr on Government Secrecy

Are muckrakers and whistleblowers facing insurmountable odds?

Video link and transcript

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Edmonds-Sibel

Country of Laws by Ralph Nader

Dandelion Salad

by Ralph Nader
Friday, March 14. 2008

The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has resigned for being a longtime customer of a high-priced prostitution ring.

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, remains, disgracing his office for longtime repeated violations of the Constitution, federal laws and international treaties to which the U.S. is a solemn signatory.

In his forthright resignation statement, Eliot Spitzer—the prominent corporate crime buster—asserted that “Over the course of my public life, I have insisted, I believe correctly, that people, regardless of their position or power, take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself.”

In a recent speech to a partisan Republican fund-raising audience, George W. Bush fictionalized his Iraq war exploits and other related actions, and said that next January he will leave office “with his head held high.”

Eliot Spitzer violated certain laws regarding prostitution and transferring of money through banks—though the latter was disputed by some legal experts—and for such moral turpitude emotionally harmed himself, his family and his friends.

George W. Bush violated federal laws against torture, against spying on Americans without judicial approval, against due process of law and habeas corpus in arresting Americans without charges, imprisoning them and limited their access to attorneys. He committed a massive war of aggression violating again and again treaties such as the Geneva Conventions, the UN Charter, federal statutes and the Constitution.

This war and its associated actions have cost the lives of one million Iraqis, over 4000 Americans, caused hundreds of thousands of serious injuries and diseases related to the destruction of Iraq’s public health facilities.

From the moment the news emerged about Spitzer’s sexual frolics the calls came for his immediate resignation. They came from the pundits and editorialists; they came from Republicans and they started coming from his fellow Democrats in the Assembly.

Speaker Sheldon Silver told Spitzer that many Democrats in the Assembly would abandon him in any impeachment vote.

George W. Bush is a recidivist war criminal and chronic violator of so many laws that the Center for Constitutional Rights has clustered them into five major impeachable “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” (under Article II, section .4)

Scores of leaders of the bar, including Michael Greco, former president of the American Bar Association, and legal scholars and former Congressional lawmakers have decried his laceration of the rule of law and his frequent declarations that signify that he believes he is above the law.

Many retired high military officers, diplomats and security officials have openly opposed his costly militaristic disasters.

Only Cong. Dennis Kucinich (Dem. Ohio) has publicly called for his impeachment.

No other member of Congress has moved toward his impeachment. To the contrary, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Dem. Calif.), Rep. Steny Hoyer (Dem. MD) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman, John Conyers publicly took “impeachment off the table” in 2006.

When Senator Russ Feingold (Dem. Wisc.) introduced a Resolution to merely censure George W. Bush for his clear, repeated violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—a felony—his fellow Democrats looked the other way and ignored him.

Eliot Spitzer came under the rule of law and paid the price with his governorship and perhaps may face criminal charges.

George W. Bush is effectively immune from federal criminal and civil laws because no American has standing to sue him and the Attorney General, who does, is his handpicked cabinet member.

Moreover, the courts have consistently refused to take cases involving the conduct of foreign and military policy by the president and the Vice President regardless of the seriousness of the violation. The courts pronounce such disputes as “political” and say they have to be worked out by the Congress—ie. mainly the impeachment authority.

Meanwhile, the American people have no authority to challenge these governmental crimes, which are committed in their name, and are rendered defenseless except for elections, which the two Party duopoly has rigged, commercialized, and trivialized. Even in this electoral arena, a collective vote of ouster of the incumbents does not bring public officials to justice, just to another position usually in the high paying corporate world.

So, on January 21, 2009, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney will be fugitives from justice without any Sheriffs, prosecutors or courts willing to uphold the rule of law.

What are the lessons from the differential treatment of a public official who consorts with prostitutes, without affecting his public policies, and a President who behaves like King George III did in 1776 and commits the exact kinds of multiple violations that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other founders of our Republic envisioned for invoking the impeachment provision of their carefully crafted checks and balances in the Constitution?

Well let’s see.

First, Bush and Cheney are advised not to travel to Brattleboro or Marlboro Vermont, two New England towns whose voters, in their frustrated outrage, passed non-binding articles instructing town officials to arrest them inside their jurisdictions.

Second, George W. Bush better not go to some men’s room at an airport and tap the shoe of the fellow in the next stall. While one Senator barely survived that charge, for the President it would mean a massive public demand for his resignation.

We certainly can do better as a country of laws, not men.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Living by the Sword by Ron Paul, M.D.

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks & Spitzer charges are intimately linked By Greg Palast

Forget Spitzer, fire Bernanke By Chan Akya

Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime by Former NY Gov Eliot Spitzer

Nader-Ralph

www.votenader.org/

Tibetan monks lead protests against China + Tibet riots (vids)

Dandelion Salad

RussiaToday

Beijing has set a deadline of Monday for demonstrators in Tibet to surrender. Chinese officials say the violence in the last few days has left ten people dead. But exiled Tibetan leaders put the death toll at a hundred and claim many more protestors have been injured.

Living by the Sword by Ron Paul, M.D.

Dandelion Salad

by Ron Paul, M.D.
13 March 2008

It has been said that “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” And in the case of Eliot Spitzer this couldn’t be more true. In his case it’s the political sword, as his enemies rejoice in his downfall. Most people, it seems, believe he got exactly what he deserved.

The illegal tools of the state brought Spitzer down, but think of all the harm done by Spitzer in using the same tools against so many other innocent people. He practiced what could be termed “economic McCarthyism,” using illegitimate government power to build his political career on the ruined lives of others.

No matter how morally justified his comeuppance may be, his downfall demonstrates the worst of our society. The possibility of uncovering personal moral wrongdoing is never a justification for the government to spy on our every move and to participate in sting operations.

For government to entice a citizen to break a law with a sting operation – that is, engaging in activities that a private citizen is prohibited by law from doing — is unconscionable and should clearly be illegal.

Though Spitzer used the same tools to destroy individuals charged with economic crimes that ended up being used against him, gloating over his downfall should not divert our attention from the fact that the government spying on American citizens is unworthy of a country claiming respect for liberty and the fourth amendment.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs make it doubly wrong.

Sacrifice of our personal privacy has been ongoing for decades, but has rapidly accelerated since 9/11. Before 9/11 the unstated goal of collecting revenue was the real reason for the erosion of our financial privacy. When nineteen suicidal maniacs attacked us on 9/11, our country became convinced that further sacrifice of personal and financial privacy was required for our security.

The driving force behind this ongoing sacrifice of our privacy has been fear and the emotional effect of war rhetoric – war on drugs, war against terrorism, and the war against third world nations in the Middle East who are claimed to be the equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

But the real reason for all this surveillance is to build the power of the state. It arises from a virulent dislike of free people running their own lives and spending their own money. Statists always demand control of the people and their money.

Recently we’ve been told that this increase in the already intolerable invasion of our privacy was justified because the purpose was to apprehend terrorists. We were told that the massive amounts of information being collected on Americans would only be used to root out terrorists. But as we can see today, this monitoring of private activities can also be used for political reasons. We should always be concerned when the government accumulates information on innocent citizens.

Spitzer was brought down because he legally withdrew cash from a bank – not because he committed a crime. This should prompt us to reassess and hopefully reverse this trend of pervasive government intrusion in our private lives.

We need no more Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act!

No more Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Acts!

No more torture!

No more Military Commissions Act!

No more secret prisons and extraordinary rendition!

No more abuse of habeas corpus!

No more PATRIOT Acts!

What we need is more government transparency and more privacy for the individual!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

The $200 billion bail-out for predator banks & Spitzer charges are intimately linked By Greg Palast

Forget Spitzer, fire Bernanke By Chan Akya

Predatory Lenders’ Partner in Crime by Former NY Gov Eliot Spitzer

Statement on H.R. 3773 – FISA Amendments Act of 2008 by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Paul-Ron

Statement on H.R. 3773 – FISA Amendments Act of 2008 by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.

Dandelion Salad

by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D.
14 March 2008

Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this latest attempt to undermine our personal liberties and violate the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. This bill will allow the federal government to engage in the bulk collection of American citizens’ communications. In effect, it means that any American may have his electronic communications monitored without a search warrant.

As such, the bill clearly violates the Fourth Amendment, which states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

see

Dennis Kucinich speaks about secret congress meeting!!! (video)

FBI Found to Misuse Security Letters By Dan Eggen

EFF Applauds House Passage of Surveillance Bill with No Telecom Immunity

Debate about Secret Session in House of Representatives (videos)

Debate about Secret Session in House of Representatives Part 2 (videos)

Dennis Kucinich: You Can’t Secure Our Nation With LIES!

Paul-Ron

Future of North America, by Andrew Gavin Marshall

by Andrew Gavin Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
March 15, 2008

Vancouver 2010, Coronation of the North American “Community”

Introduction:

The year 2010 will mark a very important date for all people living within Canada, the United States and Mexico. The often-cited Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document, in conjunction with the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), titled “Building a North America Community,” serves as the blueprint for the objectives of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The three above-mentioned “interest” groups make up the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, who produced the report, in which they state, “The Task Force’s central recommendation is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.”¹

The Cult of the Suicide Bomber By Robert Fisk

Dandelion Salad

By Robert Fisk
ICH
03/14/08 “The Independent”

Khaled looked at me with a broad smile. He was almost laughing. At one point, when I told him that he should abandon all thoughts of being a suicide bomber – that he could influence more people in this world by becoming a journalist – he put his head back and shot me a grin, world-weary for a man in his teens. “You have your mission,” he said. “And I have mine.” His sisters looked at him in awe. He was their hero, their amanuensis and their teacher, their representative and their soon-to-be-martyred brother. Yes, he was handsome, young – just 18 – he was dressed in a black Giorgio Armani T-shirt, a small, carefully trimmed Spanish conquistador’s beard, gelled hair. And he was ready to immolate himself.

Israel-Palestine Conflict: The Cycle Starts Again By Liam Bailey

Liam

By Liam Bailey
featured writer
Dandelion Salad

The Bailey Mail
March 15, 2008

2008-03-14 In my last article on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I said that even if Hamas stopped firing rockets and Israel kept its word and stopped attacking Gaza, then before too long Israel would launch an arrest raid in the west bank and the calm would be destroyed. And that is almost exactly what has happened:The almost week long lull in violence, which even saw restraint by Israel despite the odd rocket has been ended by Israeli air-strikes, in response to rockets fired from Gaza by Islamic Jihad, in response to an Israeli rocket attack in the West Bank that killed 4 wanted militants, and the vicious cycle of violence begins all over again.

Recent events also back up the main claim of my last article, that Israel doesn’t want peace; Israel’s attack the started the latest wave of violence came just hours after Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh announced their terms for a ceasefire: an end to Israeli attacks in the West Bank and Gaza, the reopening of border-crossings, an end to the Gaza siege, and a say in the control of their borders.

The last one would have never been agreed to by Israel, but in order to derail hopes of a truce they had to provoke fresh rocket attacks without attracting international condemnation, by international condemnation I mean U.S. condemnation, and how can the US condemn anyone for launching air-strikes against wanted “terrorists” when it has launched several in Somalia alone since 2006.

It’s worked like a charm, the cycle has begun again, and any talk of a truce has been pushed well into the sidelines.

Former deputy defence minister Ephraim Sneh said there could be no solution to the conflict “without the military wiping out Hamas”.

Israel will never wipe out Hamas, because every brutal attempt to do so, in which they kill far more civilians that Hamas militants only serves to do Hamas’ recruiting for them and ensure there are generation after generation of even more fanatical militants.

In a statement Thursday 13 Top UN Humanitarian Official John Holmes heavily criticized Israel’s sealing off the Gaza strip: “It’s not stopping the rockets, it’s not producing the desired political effects”, he said, adding that Israel’s belief that the blockade would generate resentment for Hamas was not “well founded”.

It’s all urinating into the wind though, with a few shining exceptions, the UN has been the most useless world body in the history of man. How can it hope to achieve anything when the world’s main powers, corrupted so by said power and caring about little more than furthering their own agendas can stop it from doing any good unless it coincides with what is good for them?

The UN will only do any good in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if it obtains US support. This would at the same time mean that the US would have stopped unequivocally supporting Israel, which would then mean the conflict would have started costing Israel something that it cared about (money, and overall security) and Israel would suddenly adopt a more welcoming attitude to finding peace — until then the cycle will continue.

see

No Incentives for Israel to Find Peace By Liam Bailey

Threat of Iran War More Real: End the World for What? By Liam Bailey

Bailey-Liam

.

.

Digg It

American Economy: Man The Life-Boats! (Part 1) by Josh Sidman

Josh

by Josh Sidman
Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Josh’s Blog Post
Mar. 15, 2008

The announcement today of Bear Stearns’ insolvency was not a small matter. In fact, I believe that when the history books are written, this event may be considered a key sign-post of the beginning-of-the-end. Yes, the Fed can crank up its magical printing presses and pour dollars on the flames, but there is in actuality very little that the monetary authorities can do to fix the problem. In the long-run, the only real effect of the Fed’s actions will be to further decimate the value of the dollar.

In October and November of last year, I advised readers to buy gold and the yen and to sell short the S&P and bank stocks. It was my opinion then (and continues to be now) that after years of economic over-indulgence (the scale of which was made possible only due to the dollar’s unique position as the world’s reserve currency) the wheels were finally falling off the US economy. In times like these, there is little that government or central banks can do to counter the tidal waves that are flowing through the economy. Assurances by President Bush and Fed Chairman Bernanke that we are unlikely to experience a recession are starting to sound tragic-comical. The question isn’t whether we’re in a recession, its whether we are going into a depression.

As I have done previously, I would like to offer a couple of “survival strategies” for those who agree with my analysis and wish to minimize the financial damage in the weeks and months ahead. Unfortunately, it is my belief that the current crisis is of a particularly tricky variety (often described as “stagflation”), which means that virtually all kinds of assets are at risk. In a typical business downturn, one can move money from stocks to bonds and feel relatively secure. Conversely, in an inflationary environment, money can be moved from bonds to stocks and precious metals. However, in a stagflationary environment, there are no safe-havens.

It has become very clear by now that the U.S. financial authorities are willing to throw the dollar to the wolves instead of running the risk of a deflation (i.e. a general fall of prices, which would in this case be led by falling real estate values). In all fairness to those in charge, this is not necessarily a terrible choice at this point. A deflationary scenario would be truly disastrous, given the level of indebtedness of American government, corporations, and individuals. (Keep in mind that deflation increases the burden of existing debts, while inflation reduces them.) And, since the whole world was so willing to enable the U.S. to spend like drunken sailors, maybe it is right and good that they should be made to bear some of the costs by seeing the value of their dollar-denominated investments plummet.

So, how can a person with a nest-egg (large or small) position him/herself so as to not be totally wiped out in the event of a dollar collapse?

Gold is an answer that has become increasingly popular lately. Gold is traditionally considered a last-resort store-of-value. If just a few percent of all of the money currently invested in stocks and bonds was to suddenly be reallocated to gold, it would require all of the gold in the entire world to fill the additional demand.

Of course, there is a risk-factor to investing in gold. The price of gold has risen from under $300/oz. to $1,000/oz. in the last several years. Anything that has risen that far and that fast could be vulnerable to significant corrections. If the “disaster scenario” that I am predicting does not come to pass, gold could potentially get whacked. But, if it does happen, I believe gold could go to $2,000, $3,000, or higher.

In addition, I believe there is a particularly attractive way to bet on gold at this point, due to the fact that the price of gold mining companies have lagged way behind the price of the physical metal. The economics of the gold mining industry are pretty straightforward. A mining company pays for labor, energy, etc. in order to get gold out of the ground and then sells the metal in the marketplace. The difference between the market price and the cost of mining the gold represents the profit (or loss) to the company. So, obviously, if the price of gold rises while the cost of mining doesn’t, the profitability of gold mining companies increases.

In addition, there is another element to the economics of the gold mining industry that is particularly compelling in the event of further appreciation of the metal – i.e. the principle of leverage. Consider the following hypothetical scenario. If it costs a mining company $500/oz. to bring gold to the market and the market price is $600/oz., the company will make a profit of $100/oz. Now, let’s look at what happens if the price of gold rises to $700/oz. This represents a 20% increase in the value of the metal, but look at what happens to the profitability of the mining company. If we assume that the cost structure of the company hasn’t changed, it still costs $500/oz. to bring gold to market, so instead of making a profit of $100/oz., the company will now make $200/oz. So, as a result of a 20% rise in the price of gold, the profitability of the mining company has risen by 100%.

So, while I hesitate to unreservedly recommend that investors buy gold right now, given that it has risen so much already, I do believe that gold mining stocks represent a huge opportunity. Since these stocks have not kept up with the price of the metal, there is both higher potential upside and lower downside in gold mining stocks than there is in the metal itself.

———-

In the second part of this piece, I will describe another, less conventional strategy for preserving wealth in the event of a dollar collapse. Stay tuned for American Economy: Man The Lifeboats! (Part 2)

see

Business

Federal Reserve

Economy

Sidman-Josh

.

.

Digg It