Are you paying more in property taxes than major corporations?

How much do you pay in property taxes each year ? I know for a fact you pay more than 'the big boys' on your 3 bedroom home, than these guys do. It certainly depends on where you live, but odds are that you are paying far more than Fidelity Investment Corporation is on its enormous 340 acre customer-service operation in Fort Worth, Texas. The property tax should be $319,417 based on it's value, but Fidelity only pays $714.15

How do they get away with this? They easily save millions of dollars a year, by exploiting the state’s agricultural exemption ; which should not even apply to corporations. To qualify, one must show that your land is “used wholly or in part” for raising livestock, growing crops, or preserving wildlife. By sticking a couple bulls on their property (24 longhorn cattle to be exact) Fidelity saves hundreds of thousands in taxes. This program was originally intended to help farmers with large tracts of land and thus huge property taxes back in 1966. As you would expect to be the case, Fidelity is not alone in exploiting this law:


-Michael Dell pays $1,355 in property taxes rather than $580,780 because he keeps 100 birdhouses on his property.


-Exxon Mobile saves millions on its 3,909 acre lot in Texas by growing trees and raising cattle on part of the land. The appraised value of the property is $38 million but Exxon pays taxes on an appraisal value of $1.2 million.


-Samsung pays $135.68 on 54 acres rather than the $21,080 it used to pay after the company put up birdhouses and sprayed for red ants.


- Nokia pays $95 a year in property taxes on a 30 acre repair factory. It used to pay $85,000 before growing hay on a part of the property.


- Janice Squire, a home owner, pays nearly $9000 a year in property taxes on 3 rental homes in the same State as the above corporations.


There is only one way to look at these facts ; and that is the FACT that our government has been run by corporate interests for far too long now. They ALLOW this to happen, and ENCOURAGE it. It's killing America, as we already live in a time when the middle class man pays more than a major corporation. Kinda makes ya sick, don't it ? Remember the loop hole which allowed people to write-off hummers ? This is no different folks, there are pleanty of these out there for rich folks to take advantage of. The funny thing is -- there doesn't seem to be any advantages for the poor to middle class tax payer...

Bush's Grandfather Planned Fascist Coup In America

New investigation sheds light on clique of powerbrokers, including Prescott Bush, who sought to overthrow U.S. government and implement Hitlerian policies





A BBC Radio 4 investigation sheds new light on a major subject that has received little historical attention, the conspiracy on behalf of a group of influential powerbrokers, led by Prescott Bush, to overthrow FDR and implement a fascist dictatorship in the U.S. based around the ideology of Mussolini and Hitler.

In 1933, Marine Corps Maj.-Gen. Smedley Butler was approached by a wealthy and secretive group of industrialists and bankers, including Prescott Bush the current President's grandfather, who asked him to command a 500,000 strong rogue army of veterans that would help stage a coup to topple then President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

According to the BBC (see link) , the plotters intended to impose a fascist takeover and "Adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression."

The conspirators were operating under the umbrella of a front group called the American Liberty League, which included many families that are still household names today, including Heinz, Colgate, Birds Eye and General Motors.

Butler played along with the clique to determine who was involved but later blew the whistle and identified the ringleaders in testimony given to the House Committee on un-American Activities.

However, the Committee refused to even question any of the individuals named by Butler and his testimony was omitted from the record, leading to charges that they were involved in covering the matter up, and the majority of the media blackballed the story.

In 1936, William Dodd, the U.S. Ambassador to Germany, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt in which he stated,

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

The proven record of Prescott Bush's involvement in financing the Nazi war machine dovetails with the fact that he was part of a criminal cabal that actively sought to impose a fascist coup in America.

Prescott did not succeed but many would argue that two generations down the line the mission has all but been accomplished.

Bill would force "top 25 piracy schools" to adopt anti-P2P technology

By Ken Fisher | Published: July 23, 2007 - 05:06PM CT

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is making waves with a planned amendment to the Higher Education Reauthorization Act being introduced in time for the next school year. Reid's amendment holds select educational funds hostage for US colleges and universities that do not meet a set of criteria meant to bolster the war on file-sharing on college campuses. This is the legislative carrot-and-stick move that many colleges have feared would arise.

The amendment would essentially put US colleges in the business of aggressively policing copyright on their network in order to stay off of a "blacklist" that would be comprised primarily of RIAA and MPAA accusations. More disturbing, the US Secretary of Education would conduct an annual review of the top 25 file-sharing schools according to that "blacklist" and place those schools on "probation" pending their mandatory adoption of technological measures meant to block file-sharing.

According to the most recent version of the amendment, such schools must "provide evidence to the Secretary that the institution has developed a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property."

The amendment does not address how copyright holders or their representatives such as the RIAA or the MPAA collect their data or represent it. It simply assumes that such data constitutes an objective assessment of comparative file-sharing activity at US schools. This is, of course, utter nonsense, because a school with 70,000 students will likely have more notices than one with 2,000 students.

As such, the bill smells like a favor to the anti-P2P tech industry, in that it's basically lining up 25 enormous schools as new customers. Better yet, taxpayers will get to foot the bill, as more than 50 percent of the last RIAA Top 25 was comprised of state schools.

The Digital Freedom Campaign had harsh words for the amendment. "No one supports illegal downloading or file sharing, but the Digital Freedom Campaign and its members believe that Universities have more urgent things to do with their scarce budgets than collect information on their students for the government and for the RIAA," said Jennifer Stoltz, a spokesperson for the Digital Freedom Campaign. "Academic resources would be better spent educating students rather than spying on them at the behest of large corporations." The DFC is behind an attempt to educate college-goers about their rights under the law.

Senator Reid's amendment has undergone several revisions and may be revised again before it is voted on. A major IT officer with a Boston-area university told me that there are concerns that Reid wishes to expand the requirements so that more schools would be required to adopt technology aimed at stifling file-sharing, but that there is no clear method for doing this without making it mandatory for everyone. One option would be to set a threshold of infringement notices per year.

The amendment could be introduced as early as tomorrow, and it is certainly expected to be up for a vote before the close of the week. If this sounds like bad news to you, you should contact your Senators. Remind them that anti-file-sharing technology is not proven to work and is in fact it known to interfere with plenty of legitimate uses, as we have reported earlier.

P2P arms race, here we come!

Bin Laden: Dead or Alive ? -- and how would we know?

By Henry Schuster

Thursday, December 8, 2005; Posted: 12:39 p.m. EST (17:39 GMT)

Editor's Note: Henry Schuster, a senior producer in CNN's Investigative Unit and author of "Hunting Eric Rudolph," has been covering terrorism for more than a decade. Each week in "Tracking Terror," he reports on people and organizations driving international and domestic terrorism and efforts to combat them.

(CNN) -- We've gone almost a year without hearing from Osama bin Laden.

So, where is he? Is he dead or alive? And, if alive, why can't anyone catch him?

These aren't exactly new questions, but they are certainly worth revisiting. It is now more than four years after 9/11. Four years after Tora Bora, the last place that the U.S. government can say with certainty where bin Laden was.

The last time we heard from bin Laden was late last December, in an audiotape praising Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and designating him as the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Bin Laden had actually been quite prolific in his messages in that period - there was a message earlier that month praising the terrorists who had recently attacked the U.S. consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Most interestingly, a videotape appeared right before the 2004 U.S. presidential election on which we could actually see bin Laden.

Dead or alive?

But that was last year. It has been so long since a bin Laden message (and we always look in those messages for date markers - does he make reference to a specific event, such as the election, which would tell us he was alive at a certain date?) that I keep getting the same question: how do we know Osama bin Laden is still alive?

We don't have proof of life. Not since that last audiotape.

But the evidence suggests the world's most wanted man is not dead.

First, there is a statement from his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has appeared on videotapes. His frequent messages make it clear that al Qaeda's number two, at least, is alive and mocking the United States.

Al-Zawahiri's remarks come from a videotape that was done in September, though some parts just showed up on the Internet in the past week.

"Al Qaeda for holy war is still, thanks to God, a base for jihad. Its prince Osama bin Laden, may God protect him, still leads the jihad," al-Zawahiri said.

Then there are the recent remarks by CIA Director Porter Goss to ABC's "Good Morning America." He was asked why his agency couldn't find bin Laden or al-Zawahiri.

"They don't want us to find them and they're going to great lengths to make sure we don't find them. And I assure you we're applying a lot of efforts to find out where they are. And I don't want to get into the depth and the details, but we know a good deal more about bin Laden and Zarqawi and Zawahiri than we are able to say publicly," Goss said.

The commander of US forces in Afghanistan was even more explicit about bin Laden Thursday. "Our working assumption is that he is alive today," Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry told Pentagon reporters.

So where are the al Qaeda leaders? The best guess remains that bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are hiding somewhere in the tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Will we ever know?

There were a number of conspiracy theories before the 2004 election that the United States had somehow captured bin Laden and was keeping him on ice until right before the election so President Bush could take political advantage.

If he died, everybody will know.
-- Jamal Khalifa, former close associate of Osama bin Laden
It was obvious nonsense, which bin Laden himself proved with his election eve video. If the United States knew bin Laden was dead, or had been captured, it would be hard to imagine such news remaining secret for long (think about Saddam Hussein's capture).

This paranoia plays on the notion that somehow we won't know. Nonsense, says bin Laden's brother-in-law.

"If he died, everybody will know," was the e-mail answer I got from Jamal Khalifa. He was perhaps bin Laden's closest friend for a decade before the two men parted ways in the late 1980s. Khalifa now lives in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where many of the bin Laden clan also reside, including bin Laden's mother.

"We don't have any news," he added, except for the video from Ayman al-Zawahiri.

When al-Zawahiri's wife and children were killed in Afghanistan by U.S. bombs, word made it back, apparently via jihadi circles, to Cairo, where his relatives live. Funeral notices appeared in at least one Cairo newspaper and the family observed a period of mourning.

Most of bin Laden's relatives have publicly disavowed him, but his mother has not. As a devout Muslim, she would likely observe the same sort of mourning period if somehow she got the news in some non-public fashion.

Which might be one way we find out.

The al-Zawahiri letter revisited


Ayman al-Zawahiri, from a videotape released in September.
On the subject of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the issue of that alleged letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi won't go away. (Read the letter in English or in Arabic.)

The United States government believes the letter - in which al-Zawahiri lays out a blueprint for jihad that works outward from Iraq, but also criticizes al-Zarqawi for beheadings - is real.

But Jordanian security sources -- who don't want to be identified -- told me recently they believe the letter is a forgery.

Paul Eedle, a London journalist who has studied al Qaeda's various messages for the last several years, has studied the Arabic version of the letter carefully and also has second thoughts about its validity.

He initially believed the letter was legitimate. Now, however, "I'm not convinced this is genuine. I think it could be a forgery by someone who is extremely fluent in Arabic but is not a native Arab educated to a high level in traditional Arabic literature and Muslim texts."

An interesting twist is that this may not matter. Mohanad Hage Ali of the London-based Arabic al-Hayat newspaper says that the jihadis he's spoken to believe the letter is real. They don't seem to have the same doubts.

US angers Pakistan over claims that Al-Qaeda leaders are being sheltered in Pakistan

Published: Sunday July 22, 2007


The United States Sunday sparked heated verbal skirmishes by refusing to rule out military action against Al-Qaeda leaders sheltering inside Pakistan, one of its closest "war on terror" allies.

The US director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell, said Al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was in all likelihood alive and sheltering in a frontier zone where pro-Taliban Pakistani tribal leaders hold sway.

"My personal view is that he's alive, but we don't know because we can't confirm it for over a year," he told NBC television. "I believe he is in the tribal region of Pakistan."

Senior US officials reiterated that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf remained a lynchpin of the campaign against terrorism.

But their comments signaled frustration over what US intelligence chiefs say is Al-Qaeda's resurgence in lawless parts of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

Asked if the United States could take action inside Pakistan, White House Homeland Security Adviser Frances Townsend said: "There are no tools off the table, and we use all our instruments of national power to be effective."

A new report by the US intelligence community last week said that Al-Qaeda had regrouped in its Pakistani "safe haven" and was determined to inflict mass casualties through new attacks on the United States.

McConnell said that its recovery was made possible by a September peace accord between the Pakistani government and tribal leaders in the ill-governed border region, which the tribals scrapped a week ago.

Fighting along the rugged frontier has intensified amid a nationwide wave of Islamist bloodshed that has killed more than 200 people, sparked by the Pakistani army's storming of the radical Red Mosque in Islamabad this month.

"Instead of pushing Al-Qaeda out, the people who live in these federally administered tribal areas, they made a safe haven for training and recruiting," McConnell said.

"And so, in that period of time, Al-Qaeda has been able to regain some of its momentum."

The US administration's latest remarks sparked a curt response from Islamabad.

"Our stance is that Osama bin Laden is not present in Pakistan," Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao told AFP in the Pakistani capital. "If anyone has the information he should give it to us, so that we can apprehend him.

Townsend reaffirmed a point first made by White House spokesman Tony Snow last week, when asked whether the United States would use "direct military force" against Al-Qaeda or Taliban elements inside Pakistan.

"No question that we will use any instrument at our disposal to deal with the problem of Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda," she told CNN, referring to bin Laden's number two Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Pakistan has called such comments "irresponsible and dangerous." The army Sunday ruled out the possibility of joint operations with US forces to target extremists.

"Pakistani forces are quite capable of conducting operation(s) against militants on their territory and only they have the authority to do so," chief military spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad said.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri told CNN that instead of intelligence estimates, the United States should give Islamabad clear evidence of the Al-Qaeda presence inside Pakistan.

"Let the United States provide us with actionable intelligence, and you will find that Pakistan will never be lacking," he said, attacking US media criticism "despite all the sacrifices that Pakistan has been making."

Both Townsend and McConnell said the United States stood by Musharraf after President George W. Bush, in his weekly radio address Saturday, expressed full US support for his efforts "to rid all of Pakistan of extremism."

Democrats agitating for an end to the Iraq war have accused Bush of making the United States more vulnerable to terrorism by neglecting the strengthening Al-Qaeda threat from Pakistan.

McConnell said that if Musharraf were forced from power by the Islamist violence and pro-democracy unrest sweeping Pakistan, that could have a "severe impact" on the US struggle against terrorism.

But he also stressed that "President Musharraf is one of our most valued allies."

FBI can listen in on you, even if your cell phone is off

Does this make anyone else feel a bit, I dunno... a bit uncomfy right about now? You didn't get the memo on this one either ? Okay just making sure !

John F. Kennedy VS the Federal Reserve

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business. The Christian Law Fellowship has exhaustively researched this matter through the Federal Register and Library of Congress. We can now safely conclude that this Executive Order has never been repealed, amended, or superceded by any subsequent Executive Order. In simple terms, it is still valid.

When President John Fitzgerald Kennedy - the author of Profiles in Courage -signed this Order, it returned to the federal government, specifically the Treasury Department, the Constitutional power to create and issue currency -money - without going through the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank. President Kennedy's Executive Order 11110 [the full text is displayed further below] gave the Treasury Department the explicit authority: "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This means that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation based on the silver bullion physically held there. As a result, more than $4 billion in United States Notes were brought into circulation in $2 and $5 denominations. $10 and $20 United States Notes were never circulated but were being printed by the Treasury Department when Kennedy was assassinated. It appears obvious that President Kennedy knew the Federal Reserve Notes being used as the purported legal currency were contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America.

"United States Notes" were issued as an interest-free and debt-free currency backed by silver reserves in the U.S. Treasury. We compared a "Federal Reserve Note" issued from the private central bank of the United States (the Federal Reserve Bank a/k/a Federal Reserve System), with a "United States Note" from the U.S. Treasury issued by President Kennedy's Executive Order. They almost look alike, except one says "Federal Reserve Note" on the top while the other says "United States Note". Also, the Federal Reserve Note has a green seal and serial number while the United States Note has a red seal and serial number.

President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation. According to the United States Secret Service, 99% of all U.S. paper "currency" circulating in 1999 are Federal Reserve Notes.

Kennedy knew that if the silver-backed United States Notes were widely circulated, they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve Notes. This is a very simple matter of economics. The USN was backed by silver and the FRN was not backed by anything of intrinsic value. Executive Order 11110 should have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level (virtually all of the nearly $9 trillion in federal debt has been created since 1963) if LBJ or any subsequent President were to enforce it. It would have almost immediately given the U.S. Government the ability to repay its debt without going to the private Federal Reserve Banks and being charged interest to create new "money". Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S.A. the ability to, once again, create its own money backed by silver and realm value worth something.

Again, according to our own research, just five months after Kennedy was assassinated, no more of the Series 1958 "Silver Certificates" were issued either, and they were subsequently removed from circulation. Perhaps the assassination of JFK was a warning to all future presidents not to interfere with the private Federal Reserve's control over the creation of money. It seems very apparent that President Kennedy challenged the "powers that exist behind U.S. and world finance". With true patriotic courage, JFK boldly faced the two most successful vehicles that have ever been used to drive up debt:

1) war (Viet Nam); and,

2) the creation of money by a privately owned central bank. His efforts to have all U.S. troops out of Vietnam by 1965 combined with Executive Order 11110 would have destroyed the profits and control of the private Federal Reserve Bank.


Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY. By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended - (a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j): "(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and (b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof. SECTION 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY THE WHITE HOUSE, June 4, 1963


Once again, Executive Order 11110 is still valid. According to Title 3, United States Code, Section 301 dated January 26, 1998:

Executive Order (EO) 10289 dated Sept. 17, 1951, 16 F.R. 9499, was as amended by:

EO 10583, dated December 18, 1954, 19 F.R. 8725;

EO 10882 dated July 18, 1960, 25 F.R. 6869;

EO 11110 dated June 4, 1963, 28 F.R. 5605;

EO 11825 dated December 31, 1974, 40 F.R. 1003;

EO 12608 dated September 9, 1987, 52 F.R. 34617

The 1974 and 1987 amendments, added after Kennedy's 1963 amendment, did not change or alter any part of Kennedy's EO 11110. A search of Clinton's 1998 and 1999 EO's and Presidential Directives has also shown no reference to any alterations, suspensions, or changes to EO 11110.

The Federal Reserve Bank, a.k.a Federal Reserve System, is a Private Corporation. Black's Law Dictionary defines the "Federal Reserve System" as: "Network of twelve central banks to which most national banks belong and to which state chartered banks may belong. Membership rules require investment of stock and minimum reserves." Privately-owned banks own the stock of the FED. This was explained in more detail in the case of Lewis v. United States, Federal Reporter, 2nd Series, Vol. 680, Pages 1239, 1241 (1982), where the court said: "Each Federal Reserve Bank is a separate corporation owned by commercial banks in its region. The stock-holding commercial banks elect two thirds of each Bank's nine member board of directors".

The Federal Reserve Banks are locally controlled by their member banks. Once again, according to Black's Law Dictionary, we find that these privately owned banks actually issue money:

"Federal Reserve Act. Law which created Federal Reserve banks which act as agents in maintaining money reserves, issuing money in the form of bank notes, lending money to banks, and supervising banks. Administered by Federal Reserve Board (q.v.)".

The privately owned Federal Reserve (FED) banks actually issue (create) the "money" we use. In 1964, the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Subcommittee on Domestic Finance, at the second session of the 88th Congress, put out a study entitled Money Facts which contains a good description of what the FED is: "The Federal Reserve is a total money-making machine. It can issue money or checks. And it never has a problem of making its checks good because it can obtain the $5 and $10 bills necessary to cover its check simply by asking the Treasury Department's Bureau of Engraving to print them".

Any one person or any closely knit group who has a lot of money has a lot of power. Now imagine a group of people who have the power to create money. Imagine the power these people would have. This is exactly what the privately owned FED is!

No man did more to expose the power of the FED than Louis T. McFadden, who was the Chairman of the House Banking Committee back in the 1930s. In describing the FED, he remarked in the Congressional Record, House pages 1295 and 1296 on June 10, 1932:

"Mr. Chairman, we have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks. The Federal Reserve Board, a Government Board, has cheated the Government of the United States and he people of the United States out of enough money to pay the national debt. The depredations and the iniquities of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal reserve banks acting together have cost this country enough money to pay the national debt several times over. This evil institution has impoverished and ruined the people of the United States; has bankrupted itself, and has practically bankrupted our Government. It has done this through the maladministration of that law by which the Federal Reserve Board, and through the corrupt practices of the moneyed vultures who control it".

Some people think the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are not Government institutions, departments, or agencies. They are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers. Those 12 private credit monopolies were deceitfully placed upon this country by bankers who came here from Europe and who repaid us for our hospitality by undermining our American institutions.

The FED basically works like this: The government granted its power to create money to the FED banks. They create money, then loan it back to the government charging interest. The government levies income taxes to pay the interest on the debt. On this point, it's interesting to note that the Federal Reserve Act and the sixteenth amendment, which gave congress the power to collect income taxes, were both passed in 1913. The incredible power of the FED over the economy is universally admitted. Some people, especially in the banking and academic communities, even support it. On the other hand, there are those, such as President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, that have spoken out against it. His efforts were spoken about in Jim Marrs' 1990 book Crossfire:"

Another overlooked aspect of Kennedy's attempt to reform American society involves money. Kennedy apparently reasoned that by returning to the constitution, which states that only Congress shall coin and regulate money, the soaring national debt could be reduced by not paying interest to the bankers of the Federal Reserve System, who print paper money then loan it to the government at interest. He moved in this area on June 4, 1963, by signing Executive Order 11110 which called for the issuance of $4,292,893,815 in United States Notes through the U.S. Treasury rather than the traditional Federal Reserve System. That same day, Kennedy signed a bill changing the backing of one and two dollar bills from silver to gold, adding strength to the weakened U.S. currency.

Kennedy's comptroller of the currency, James J. Saxon, had been at odds with the powerful Federal Reserve Board for some time, encouraging broader investment and lending powers for banks that were not part of the Federal Reserve system. Saxon also had decided that non-Reserve banks could underwrite state and local general obligation bonds, again weakening the dominant Federal Reserve banks".

In a comment made to a Columbia University class on Nov. 12, 1963,

Ten days before his assassination, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy allegedly said:

"The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American's freedom and before I leave office, I must inform the citizen of this plight."

In this matter, John Fitzgerald Kennedy appears to be the subject of his own book... a true Profile of Courage.

This research report was compiled for Lawgiver. Org. by Anthony Wayne

What is the Federal Reserve Bank?

What is the Federal Reserve Bank (FED) and why do we have it?

by Greg Hobbs November 1, 1999

The FED is a central bank. Central banks are supposed to implement a country's fiscal policies. They monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable. Central banks also do business, such as currency exchanges and gold transactions, with other central banks. In theory, a central bank should be good for a country, and they might be if it wasn't for the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the government of the country they are serving. Private central banks, including our FED, operate not in the interest of the public good but for profit.

There have been three central banks in our nation's history. The first two, while deceptive and fraudulent, pale in comparison to the scope and size of the fraud being perpetrated by our current FED. What they all have in common is an insidious practice known as "fractional banking."

Fractional banking or fractional lending is the ability to create money from nothing, lend it to the government or someone else and charge interest to boot. The practice evolved before banks existed. Goldsmiths rented out space in their vaults to individuals and merchants for storage of their gold or silver. The goldsmiths gave these "depositors" a certificate that showed the amount of gold stored. These certificates were then used to conduct business.

In time the goldsmiths noticed that the gold in their vaults was rarely withdrawn. Small amounts would move in and out but the large majority never moved. Sensing a profit opportunity, the goldsmiths issued double receipts for the gold, in effect creating money (certificates) from nothing and then lending those certificates (creating debt) to depositors and charging them interest as well.

Since the certificates represented more gold than actually existed, the certificates were "fractionally" backed by gold. Eventually some of these vault operations were transformed into banks and the practice of fractional banking continued.

Keep that fractional banking concept in mind as we examine our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States (BUS). It was created, after bitter dissent in the Congress, in 1791 and chartered for 20 years. A scam not unlike the current FED, the BUS used its control of the currency to defraud the public and establish a legal form of usury.

This bank practiced fractional lending at a 10:1 rate, ten dollars of loans for each dollar they had on deposit. This misuse and abuse of their public charter continued for the entire 20 years of their existence. Public outrage over these abuses was such that the charter was not renewed and the bank ceased to exist in 1811.

The war of 1812 left the country in economic chaos, seen by bankers as another opportunity for easy profits. They influenced Congress to charter the second central bank, the Second Bank of the United States (SBUS), in 1816.

The SBUS was more expansive than the BUS. The SBUS sold franchises and literally doubled the number of banks in a short period of time. The country began to boom and move westward, which required money. Using fractional lending at the 10:1 rate, the central bank and their franchisees created the debt/money for the expansion.

Things boomed for a while, then the banks decided to shut off the debt/money, citing the need to control inflation. This action on the part of the SBUS caused bankruptcies and foreclosures. The banks then took control of the assets that were used as security against the loans.

Closely examine how the SBUS engineered this cycle of prosperity and depression. The central bank caused inflation by creating debt/money for loans and credit and making these funds readily available. The economy boomed. Then they used the inflation which they created as an excuse to shut off the loans/credit/money.

The resulting shortage of cash caused the economy to falter or slow dramatically and large numbers of business and personal bankruptcies resulted. The central bank then seized the assets used as security for the loans. The wealth created by the borrowers during the boom was then transferred to the central bank during the bust. And you always wondered how the big guys ended up with all the marbles.

Now, who do you think is responsible for all of the ups and downs in our economy over the last 85 years? Think about the depression of the late '20s and all through the '30s. The FED could have pumped lots of debt/money into the market to stimulate the economy and get the country back on track, but did they? No; in fact, they restricted the money supply quite severely. We all know the results that occurred from that action, don't we?

Why would the FED do this? During that period asset values and stocks were at rock bottom prices. Who do you think was buying everything at 10 cents on the dollar? I believe that it is referred to as consolidating the wealth. How many times have they already done this in the last 85 years?

Do you think they will do it again?

Just as an aside at this point, look at today's economy. Markets are declining. Why? Because the FED has been very liberal with its debt/credit/money. The market was hyper inflated. Who creates inflation? The FED. How does the FED deal with inflation? They restrict the debt/credit/money. What happens when they do that? The market collapses.

Several months back, after certain central banks said they would be selling large quantities of gold, the price of gold fell to a 25-year low of about $260 per ounce. The central banks then bought gold. After buying at the bottom, a group of 15 central banks announced that they would be restricting the amount of gold released into the market for the next five years. The price of gold went up $75.00 per ounce in just a few days. How many hundreds of billions of dollars did the central banks make with those two press releases?

Gold is generally considered to be a hedge against more severe economic conditions. Do you think that the private banking families that own the FED are buying or selling equities at this time? (Remember: buy low, sell high.) How much money do you think these FED owners have made since they restricted the money supply at the top of this last current cycle?

Alan Greenspan has said publicly on several occasions that he thinks the market is overvalued, or words to that effect. Just a hint that he will raise interest rates (restrict the money supply), and equity markets have a negative reaction. Governments and politicians do not rule central banks, central banks rule governments and politicians. President Andrew Jackson won the presidency in 1828 with the promise to end the national debt and eliminate the SBUS. During his second term President Jackson withdrew all government funds from the bank and on January 8, 1835, paid off the national debt. He is the only president in history to have this distinction. The charter of the SBUS expired in 1836.

Without a central bank to manipulate the supply of money, the United States experienced unprecedented growth for 60 or 70 years, and the resulting wealth was too much for bankers to endure. They had to get back into the game. So, in 1910 Senator Nelson Aldrich, then Chairman of the National Monetary Commission, in collusion with representatives of the European central banks, devised a plan to pressure and deceive Congress into enacting legislation that would covertly establish a private central bank.

This bank would assume control over the American economy by controlling the issuance of its money. After a huge public relations campaign, engineered by the foreign central banks, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was slipped through Congress during the Christmas recess, with many members of the Congress absent. President Woodrow Wilson, pressured by his political and financial backers, signed it on December 23, 1913.

The act created the Federal Reserve System, a name carefully selected and designed to deceive. "Federal" would lead one to believe that this is a government organization. "Reserve" would lead one to believe that the currency is being backed by gold and silver. "System" was used in lieu of the word "bank" so that one would not conclude that a new central bank had been created.

In reality, the act created a private, for profit, central banking corporation owned by a cartel of private banks. Who owns the FED? The Rothschilds of London and Berlin; Lazard Brothers of Paris; Israel Moses Seif of Italy; Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg of Germany; and the Lehman Brothers, Goldman, Sachs and the Rockefeller families of New York.

Did you know that the FED is the only for-profit corporation in America that is exempt from both federal and state taxes? The FED takes in about one trillion dollars per year tax free! The banking families listed above get all that money.

Almost everyone thinks that the money they pay in taxes goes to the US Treasury to pay for the expenses of the government. Do you want to know where your tax dollars really go? If you look at the back of any check made payable to the IRS you will see that it has been endorsed as "Pay Any F.R.B. Branch or Gen. Depository for Credit U.S. Treas. This is in Payment of U.S. Oblig." Yes, that's right, every dime you pay in income taxes is given to those private banking families, commonly known as the FED, tax free.

Like many of you, I had some difficulty with the concept of creating money from nothing. You may have heard the term "monetizing the debt," which is kind of the same thing. As an example, if the US Government wants to borrow $1 million ó the government does borrow every dollar it spends ó they go to the FED to borrow the money. The FED calls the Treasury and says print 10,000 Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) in units of one hundred dollars.

The Treasury charges the FED 2.3 cents for each note, for a total of $230 for the 10,000 FRNs. The FED then lends the $1 million to the government at face value plus interest. To add insult to injury, the government has to create a bond for $1 million as security for the loan. And the rich get richer. The above was just an example, because in reality the FED does not even print the money; it's just a computer entry in their accounting system. To put this on a more personal level, let's use another example.

Today's banks are members of the Federal Reserve Banking System. This membership makes it legal for them to create money from nothing and lend it to you. Today's banks, like the goldsmiths of old, realize that only a small fraction of the money deposited in their banks is ever actually withdrawn in the form of cash. Only about 4 percent of all the money that exists is in the form of currency. The rest of it is simply a computer entry.

Let's say you're approved to borrow $10,000 to do some home improvements. You know that the bank didn't actually take $10,000 from its pile of cash and put it into your pile? They simply went to their computer and input an entry of $10,000 into your account. They created, from thin air, a debt which you have to secure with an asset and repay with interest. The bank is allowed to create and lend as much debt as they want as long as they do not exceed the 10:1 ratio imposed by the FED.

It sort of puts a new slant on how you view your friendly bank, doesn't it? How about those loan committees that scrutinize you with a microscope before approving the loan they created from thin air. What a hoot! They make it complex for a reason. They don't want you to understand what they are doing. People fear what they do not understand. You are easier to delude and control when you are ignorant and afraid.

Now to put the frosting on this cake. When was the income tax created? If you guessed 1913, the same year that the FED was created, you get a gold star. Coincidence? What are the odds? If you are going to use the FED to create debt, who is going to repay that debt? The income tax was created to complete the illusion that real money had been lent and therefore real money had to be repaid. And you thought Houdini was good.

So, what can be done? My father taught me that you should always stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand up alone.

If "We the People" don't take some action now, there may come a time when "We the People" are no more. You should write a letter or send an email to each of your elected representatives. Many of our elected representatives do not understand the FED. Once informed they will not be able to plead ignorance and remain silent.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution specifically says that Congress is the only body that can "coin money and regulate the value thereof." The US Constitution has never been amended to allow anyone other than Congress to coin and regulate currency.

Ask your representative, in light of that information, how it is possible for the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, and the Federal Reserve Bank that it created, to be constitutional. Ask them why this private banking cartel is allowed to reap trillions of dollars in profits without paying taxes. Insist on an answer.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If the America people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Jefferson saw it coming 150 years ago. The question is, "Can you now see what is in store for us if we allow the FED to continue controlling our country?"


"The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime, and the punishment of his guilt."

John P. Curran

Chicago Police Department - Murders an innocent man, on camera

Melanie Sloan: Millions of White House Emails Missing / Destroyed

Watch for comment from the Lawyer of Carl Rove at the end. Whats wrong Rove? Why are you lawyering up already ?

140,000 Carl Rove / RNC White House Emails were illegally Destroyed

Dana Pernio lies about White House email scandal: from a handfull, to 22 or 50 over time -- (and now, a month later) to at least 88 RNC accounts

This post, written by Nico Pitney, originally appeared on Think Progress:

House investigators have learned that the Bush administration's use of Republican National Committee email accounts is far greater than previously disclosed -- 140,216 emails sent or received by Karl Rove alone -- and that the RNC has overseen "extensive destruction" of many of the emails, including all email records for 51 White House officials.

For the last several months, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been "investigating whether White House officials violated the Presidential Records Act" by using email accounts maintained by the RNC and the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign for official White House communications. Today's findings confirm that the accounts were used "for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies." The report adds:

Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive.

Some other key findings:

- RNC account use far greater than believed: Despite White House spokesperson Dana Perino's claim that 50 White House officials used RNC email accounts "over the course of the administration," the committee learned that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. Not only this, but watch the video above ; in the begining of this scandal she says 'only a handfull of white house staffer' had RNC email accounts. Then it was 50 (over the course of this admin) , & now it's 88. Gee, I just love getting lied to, but only when it's a pretty, Blonde Neo-Con like Dana Perino!

- Bush-Cheney 04 campaign stonewalling: The committee says it may need to "issue compulsory process" to force the cooperation of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign. Despite providing at least eleven White House officials with email accounts, "the campaign has unjustifiably refused" to provide the Committee with even the most basic information about the accounts, including the number of e-mails that have been preserved.

- Destroyed RNC emails may be preserved by federal agencies. The RNC has preserved only 130 e-mails sent to Karl Rove during Bush's first term and no e-mails sent by Rove prior to November 2003. "For many other White House officials, the RNC has no e-mails from before the fall of 2006." Several federal agencies contacted by the committee have indicated they "have preserved official communications that were destroyed by the RNC," but others have resisted the investigation.

- Gonzales may have known about RNC account use. According to a deposition from Rove's former assistant Susan Ralston, in 2001, then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales "may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records." The committee calls for an investigation into Gonzales' actions on this matter.

Nico Pitney is the Deputy Research Director for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.

ACLU Slams Appeals Court Decision in NSA Surveillance Case

(7/6/2007) Court Allows Bush Administration to Continue Illegal Wiretapping

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CINCINNATI - In a 2-1 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals today dismissed a legal challenge to the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program. The challenge was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of prominent journalists, scholars, attorneys and national nonprofit organizations who say that the unchecked surveillance program is disrupting their ability to communicate effectively with sources and clients.

Even though the plaintiffs alleged a well-founded fear that their communications were subject to illegal surveillance, the court dismissed the case because plaintiffs could not state with certainty that they had been wiretapped by the National Security Agency.

The following quote can be attributed to ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro:

“We are deeply disappointed by today’s decision that insulates the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance activities from judicial review and deprives Americans of any ability to challenge the illegal surveillance of their telephone calls and e-mails. As a result of today’s decision, the Bush administration has been left free to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which Congress adopted almost 30 years ago to prevent the executive branch from engaging in precisely this kind of unchecked surveillance.

“It is important to emphasize that the court today did not uphold the legality of the government’s warrantless surveillance activity. Indeed, the only judge to discuss the merits clearly and unequivocally declared that the warrantless surveillance was unlawful.

“We are currently reviewing all of our legal options, including taking this challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court. In the meantime it is now more important than ever for Congress to engage in meaningful oversight.”

On June 27, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy issued subpoenas to the White House, Vice President and the Justice Department for documents about warrantless surveillance. The deadline for compliance is July 18.

Today’s decision is online at:

www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0253p-06.pdf

White House Policy Illegally Silences Americans Critical of Bush, ACLU Charges (6/28/2007)

Civil Liberties Group Sues Former White House Staffer for Ejecting Taxpayers from Public Events

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today filed a federal lawsuit against a former high-level White House staffer for enacting a policy that unlawfully excluded individuals perceived to be critical of the administration from public events where President Bush was present. The policy is laid out in an October 2002 "Presidential Advance Manual" obtained by the ACLU.

"The White House has gone too far in its attempt to make dissent invisible," said Chris Hansen, a senior ACLU attorney who is lead counsel in this case. "When taxpayers foot the bill for a public event, the president does not have the right to use a partisan litmus test to stack the audience with his political supporters."

The ACLU filed today's lawsuit after obtaining a heavily redacted version of the Presidential Advance Manual from the Justice Department. This manual is the Bush administration's guide for planning presidential events around the country, and it repeatedly instructs organizers about "the best method for preventing demonstrators," "deterring potential protestors from attending events," "designat[ing] a protest area . . . preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route," and the like.

The ACLU said it is clear from the manual that the aim of the White House policy is to keep people who are critical of the president away from him and from the news media. According to the manual, "if it is determined that the media will not see or hear" demonstrators, then event staff can ignore them. The manual's guidelines are designed for use at all presidential events, not just fundraisers or political rallies. However, the ACLU noted that there are stricter constitutional guidelines for taxpayer-funded events than for privately- or politically-funded events.

"When the president attends a public event, the First Amendment does not allow him to speak or listen only to those who agree with him," said Arthur Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the National Capital Area and co-counsel in the lawsuit. "Public places cannot be 'cleansed' of all dissent just to make the president look popular on television."

The ACLU is suing Gregory Jenkins, former Director of the White House Office of Presidential Advance and a Deputy Assistant to President Bush, for setting the policy in the manual. Jenkins' policies have led to the removal and, in some cases, arrest of innocent people from taxpayer-funded events. The lawsuit names as plaintiffs Jeff and Nicole Rank, who were arrested at a Fourth of July presidential appearance at the West Virginia State Capitol because they were wearing t-shirts critical of the president, and Alex Young and Leslie Weise, Denver residents who were thrown out of a town hall meeting with President Bush because they had an anti-war bumper sticker on their car.

The Ranks had tickets to attend the July 4, 2004 event, but drew attention when they removed their outer garments to display t-shirts bearing the international "no" symbol (a circle with a diagonal line across it) superimposed over the word "Bush." Although other people in the audience were allowed to wear pro-Bush paraphernalia, White House event staff demanded that the Ranks remove or cover their t-shirts. When the Ranks refused, the White House staffers instructed local police to arrest the couple, causing them to be removed from the Capitol grounds in handcuffs, jailed and charged with trespassing. Ms. Rank was also temporarily suspended from her work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. City officials later apologized for their part in the arrest when they realized they'd been used as political operatives by the White House.

Similarly, Weise and Young had tickets to attend the March 21, 2005 Denver town hall on Social Security, but they were singled out after a staffer was informed that Weise had a bumper sticker on her car that read, "No More Blood for Oil." Weise was stopped upon entering the event and warned that she had been "ID'd," but was allowed to enter. However, shortly after reaching their seats, Weise and Young were forcibly removed from the event by a staffer who later admitted that he was acting under orders from White House officials.

"Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of the American way of life and public forums are the place where this matters most. Peaceful expression, whatever the format, is vital to all of us. We believe this case is important for protecting the rights of all Americans," Weise and Young said in a joint statement.

Mr. Rank added, "The free exchange of ideas is essential to democracy, and when government suppresses one side of that exchange it puts democracy in peril."

The ACLU lawsuit also cites other occasions throughout the country in which individuals were excluded from presidential events because of their political views. For example, in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, ticket holders in line to hear the president speak had to unbutton their shirts before they could get inside. One individual was wearing a t-shirt critical of the president, and was ejected by security officials. In Fargo, North Dakota, several dozen individuals were placed on a "do not admit list" of those forbidden to attend a presidential event; most of the individuals on the list belonged to a liberal organization, and some had written letters to the editor opposing the president's policies. And in Tucson, Arizona, a student was barred from a presidential forum on Social Security because he was wearing a Young Democrats t-shirt.

Today's lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The ACLU previously filed lawsuits in West Virginia and Colorado on behalf of the Ranks and Weise and Young, respectively. Both cases are pending in federal district court. Another ACLU lawsuit charging mistreatment of anti-Bush demonstrators at a presidential appearance is pending in federal district court in Oregon (Moss v. United States Secret Service).

PRESS RELEASE: Swedish Police Shuts Down Pirate Bay - Again

Inskrivet av Nyhetsgruppen 6 July, 2007

This Friday, it became known that the Swedish Police Board will shut down The Pirate Bay, the popular file sharing site, by classifying it as a child pornography site in the blocklist that Swedish Internet Providers respect. Some time next week, an update to the blacklist will include The Pirate Bay.

As a CHILD PORN SITE ? Jesus Christ, kids Downloading MP3s from Pir8 bay everywhere are going -- WTF? I thought that shit happened all of the time on IRC guys. Get a clue

This means that anyone from Sweden visiting the well-known file sharing site The Pirate Bay will be greeted by a block page from the Police Board saying they're not allowed to visit child pornography sites.

"This is a devastatingly ignorant abuse of the trust relationship between the Internet world and the Police that was created in order to stop child pornography", says Rick Falkvinge, leader of the Pirate Party. "Once given the means to shut down unwanted sites, the Police uses the filter to shut down the Pirate Bay after the failed attempt last year. And just like last year, through abuse of procedure."

It's not like Pirate Bay won't go away. They've thought about this before, remember? They'll be back. It's the net, and these guys are SMARTER than that and they'll find a way around the filter. It'll be back up for sure. Wanna make a bet?

"This is not worthy a democracy governed by law. The people who have made this decision cannot remain in our judicial system, Falkvinge continues. It also undermines the legitimacy of the child porn filter. This filter is not intended for subjective use by goverment officials to close down undesirable sites which do not break any laws."

The Pirate Bay, which last year was raided in an attempt to find copyrighted material on the servers, is a controversial site and not highly regarded in the ranks of the establishment. When this happens, it is easy to come to the conclusion that The Pirate Bay is such an embarrassment to the Swedish Government, that any means available is used to stop it.

"Today, online censorship has shown its colors. This abuse of power places Sweden in the same league as China and Saudi Arabia. Now, we must kick out any and all parts of government that don't understand the concept of free communication, and how it is fundamental to a functioning democracy", Falkvinge finishes.

Iraq War Costs : it's costing us $12 Billion A Month, taxpayers!

War costs are up for American operations in Iraq -- way up, more than a third higher than last year. In the first half of this fiscal year, the Defense Department's "average monthly obligations for contracts and pay is running about $12 billion per month, well above the $8.7 billion in FY2006," says a new report, obtained by DANGER ROOM, from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service.

Additional war costs for the next 10 years could total about $472 billion if troop levels fall to 30,000 by 2010, or $919 billion if troop levels fall to 70,000 by about 2013. If these estimates are added to already appropriated amounts, total funding about $980 billion to $1.4 trillion by 2017.

This figure, of course does not take into account the amount of money we will spend on our injured troops - or their incomes lost due to a disablity or injury which prevents them from working. While I believe the troops lives are the highest price we pay for this war : I also believe the American people are being taken for a ride on the costs of war in Iraq by many of the private corporations whom outnumber the actual troops. This war has been about one thing from the get-go: grabbing your tax dollars for a top teir of the elite doing the subcontracting jobs for the government , and controlling the Iraqi oil reserves.

Secrecy at Nuclear Agency Is Criticized by Lawmakers

WASHINGTON, July 5 — A factory that makes uranium fuel for nuclear reactors had a spill so bad it kept the plant closed for seven months last year and became one of only three events in all of 2006 serious enough for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to include in an annual report to Congress.

After an investigation, the commission changed the terms of the factory’s license and said the public had 20 days to request a hearing on the changes.

But no member of the public ever did. In fact, no member of the public could find out about the changes. The document describing them, including the notice of hearing rights for anyone who felt adversely affected, was stamped “official use only,” meaning that it was not publicly accessible.

“Official use only” is a category below “Secret.” Documents in that category are not technically classified but are kept from the public.

The agency would not even have told Congress which factory was involved were it not for the efforts of Gregory B. Jaczko, one of the five commissioners. Mr. Jaczko identified the company, Nuclear Fuel Services of Erwin, Tenn., in a memorandum that became part of the public record. His memorandum said other public documents would allow an informed person to deduce that the factory belonged to Nuclear Fuel Services.

Such secrecy by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is now coming under attack by influential members of Congress. These lawmakers argue that the agency is withholding numerous documents about nuclear facilities in the name of national security, but that many withheld documents are not sensitive. The lawmakers say the agency must rebalance its penchant for secrecy with the public’s right to participate in the licensing process and its right to know about potential hazards.

Additional details of the 2006 event are coming to light now because of a letter sent Tuesday to the nuclear agency by the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The committee chairman, Representative John D. Dingell, and the chairman of the oversight subcommittee, Representative Bart Stupak, both Democrats of Michigan, say the commission “went far beyond” the need to protect security information by keeping documents about Nuclear Fuel Services, a private company, from the public.
The agency, the congressmen said, “has removed hundreds of otherwise innocuous documents relating to the N.F.S. plant from public view.”

Mr. Jaczko, in a telephone interview, said, “Ultimately, we regulate on behalf of the public, and it’s important for them to have a role.” He said he thought other information about Nuclear Fuel Services that should be public had been marked “official use only.”

With a resurgence of nuclear plant construction expected after a 30-year hiatus, agency officials say frequently that they are trying to strike a balance between winning public confidence by regulating openly and protecting sensitive information. A commission spokesman, Scott Burnell, said the “official use only” designation was under review.

As laid out by the commission’s report to Congress and other sources, the event at the Nuclear Fuel Service factory was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid dribbling under a door and into a hallway. Workers had previously described a yellow liquid in a “glove box,” a sealed container with gloves built into the sides to allow a technician to manipulate objects inside, but managers had decided it was ordinary uranium.

In fact, it was highly enriched uranium that had been declared surplus from the weapons inventory of the Energy Department and sent to the plant to be diluted to a strength appropriate for a civilian reactor.

In a puddle, the uranium is not particularly hazardous, but if it formed a more spherical shape, the commission says, it could become a “critical mass,” a quantity and shape of nuclear fuel sufficient to sustain a chain reaction, in this case outside a reactor.

According to the letter sent by the lawmakers, the puddle, containing about nine gallons, reached to within four feet of an elevator pit. Had it flowed into the pit and reached a depth of several inches, it would have been in a shape that might have supported a chain reaction. The letter from the congressmen says the agency’s report suggests “that it was merely a matter of luck that a criticality accident did not occur.”

If the material had gone critical, “it is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death,” the commission said.

A company spokesman, Tony Treadway, said the elevator was better described as a dumbwaiter.

Generally, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does describe nuclear incidents and changes in licenses. But in 2004, according to the committee’s letter, the Office of Naval Reactors, part of the Energy Department, reached an agreement with the commission that any correspondence with Nuclear Fuel Services would be marked “official use only.” The plant makes submarine fuel.

The memorandum that declared such correspondence to be “official use only” was itself designated “official use only.”

The Presidential Advance Manual - or what we have of it!

This White House has no respect for the American people what so ever. It's documents like this that really scare the crap out of me, and I hope they scare you as well:

Link to a PDF of the Advance Manual

Above is a link to the official 'Presidential Advance Manual' ; which details how to deal with various aspects of planning for presidential appearences. Because we only have a total of 6-7 full pages out of the 103 page document, we can only guess at what (other) secrets this document holds. Please read this for yourself from the link above, but here are some alarming points of interest / anger :

From Pg. 34

Preventing Demonstrators
As mentioned, all Presidential events must be ticketed or accessed by a name list. This is the best method for preventing demonstrators. People who are obviously going to try to disrupt the even can be denied entrance at lease to the VIP area between the stage and main camera platform. That does not mean that supporters without tickets cannot be given tickets at the door and gain entrance to the event. It is also not the responsibility of the Secret Service to check the tickets of the people entering. They are concerned whether the person is a threat physically to the President and not a heckler. It is important to have your volunteers at a checkpoint before the Magnetomters in order to stop a demonstrator from getting into the event. Look for signs that they may be carrying , and if needs be, have volunteers check for folded cloth signs that demonstrators may be bringing to the event.

(redacted / blank stuff)

Preparing for Demonstrators
There are several ways the advance person can prepare a site to minimize demonstrators. First, as always, work with the Secret Service and have them ask the local police dept. to designate a protest area where demonstrators can be placed, preferably not in view of the event site or motorcade route.

(erased stuff, but no redacted marks)

The formation of "Rally Squads" is a common way to prepare for demonstrators by countering their message. This tactic involves utilizing small groups of volunteers to spread favorable messges using large hand held signs, placards, or perhaps a long sheet banner, and placing them in strategic areas around the site.

These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators. The Rally Squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protesters (USA! USA! USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site. The Rally Squads can include, but are not limited to, college/young republican organizations, local athletic teams, and fraternitites / sororitites.

For larger rallies, the squads should be broken into groups of approx. 15-25 people. A squad should be placed immediately in front of the main camera platform, close to the cut platform, immediately behind the stage area (if people are being used as a backdrop) and at least one squad should be 'roaming' througout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems.ors. Always check with local police to inquire of any demonstration permites issued prior to a visit.

Being aware of Demonstrators

It is importand for the Advance Team and all volunteers to be on the lookout for potential demonstrators. Volunteers should be instructed to conact the Advance person on site (whether it is the Lead, Press or Site Advance) when they see demonstrators.

From pg. 35
Handling Demonstrators
Once a group of demonstrators has been identified, the advance person must decide what action to take. If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the president, or has potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator's effect.

Before reacting to demonstrators, the Advance person should inform the rest of the Advance Team, the Tour Director, and the Press Advance Director of the situation. Be prepared to give the number of demonstrators, location(s), a description, and their issue/organization.

If demonstrators appear to be a security threat notify the Secret Service immediately. If demonstrators appear likely to cause only a political disruption, it is the Advance person's responsibility to take appropriate action. Rally Squads should be dispatched to surround and drown out demonstrators immediately.

Remember -avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap! Also, do not do anything or say anything that might result in the physical harm to the demonstrators. Before taking action, the Advance person must decide if the solution would cause more negative publicitythan if the demonstrators were simply left alone.


.....wake up folks. This shit has gone on for years ; it's just that THIS administration wrote it INTO POLICY. These amazing facts are only free for us to see now because the ACLU filed a freedom of info act on the Government to obtain just what you can see above from our link to the ACLU's copy. If this doesn't piss you off, you aren't paying attention.

Private contractors actually out number U.S. troops in Iraq

New U.S. data show how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of the war-torn nation.

From:

T. Christian Miller, Times Staff Writer
July 4, 2007


The number of U.S.-paid private contractors in Iraq now exceeds that of American combat troops, newly released figures show, raising fresh questions about the privatization of the war effort and the government's capacity to carry out military and rebuilding campaigns.

More than 180,000 civilians — including Americans, foreigners and Iraqis — are working in Iraq under U.S. contracts, according to State and Defense department figures obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Including the recent troop buildup, 160,000 soldiers and a few thousand civilian government employees are stationed in Iraq.

The total number of private contractors, far higher than previously reported, shows how heavily the Bush administration has relied on corporations to carry out the occupation of Iraq — a mission criticized as being undermanned.

"These numbers are big," said Peter Singer, a Brookings Institution scholar who has written on military contracting. "They illustrate better than anything that we went in without enough troops. This is not the coalition of the willing. It's the coalition of the billing."

The numbers include at least 21,000 Americans, 43,000 foreign contractors and about 118,000 Iraqis — all employed in Iraq by U.S. tax dollars, according to the most recent government data.

The array of private workers promises to be a factor in debates on a range of policy issues, including the privatization of military jobs and the number of Iraqi refugees allowed to resettle in the U.S.

But there are also signs that even those mounting numbers may not capture the full picture. Private security contractors, who are hired to protect government officials and buildings, were not fully counted in the survey, according to industry and government officials.

Continuing uncertainty over the numbers of armed contractors drew special criticism from military experts.

"We don't have control of all the coalition guns in Iraq. That's dangerous for our country," said William Nash, a retired Army general and reconstruction expert. The Pentagon "is hiring guns. You can rationalize it all you want, but that's obscene."

Although private companies have played a role in conflicts since the American Revolution, the U.S. has relied more on contractors in Iraq than in any other war, according to military experts.

Contractors perform functions including construction, security and weapons system maintenance.

Military officials say contractors cut costs while allowing troops to focus on fighting rather than on other tasks.

"The only reason we have contractors is to support the war fighter," said Gary Motsek, the assistant deputy undersecretary of Defense who oversees contractors. "Fundamentally, they're supporting the mission as required."

But critics worry that troops and their missions could be jeopardized if contractors, functioning outside the military's command and control, refuse to make deliveries of vital supplies under fire.

At one point in 2004, for example, U.S. forces were put on food rations when drivers balked at taking supplies into a combat zone.

Adding an element of potential confusion, no single agency keeps track of the number or location of contractors.

In response to demands from Congress, the U.S. Central Command began a census last year of the number of contractors working on U.S. and Iraqi bases to determine how much food, water and shelter was needed.

That census, provided to The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, shows about 130,000 contractors and subcontractors of different nationalities working at U.S. and Iraqi military bases.

However, U.S. military officials acknowledged that the census did not include other government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department.

Last month, USAID reported about 53,000 Iraqis employed under U.S. reconstruction contracts, doing jobs such as garbage pickup and helping to teach democracy. In interviews, agency officials said an additional 300 Americans and foreigners worked as contractors for the agency.

State Department officials said they could not provide the department's number of contractors. Of about 5,000 people affiliated with the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, about 300 are State Department employees. The rest are a mix of other government agency workers and contractors, many of whom are building the new embassy.

"There are very few of us, and we're way undermanned," said one State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity. "We have significant shortages of people. It's been that way since before [the war], and it's still that way."

The companies with the largest number of employees are foreign firms in the Middle East that subcontract to KBR, the Houston-based oil services company, according to the Central Command database. KBR, once a subsidiary of Halliburton Co., provides logistics support to troops, the single largest contract in Iraq.

Middle Eastern companies, including Kulak Construction Co. of Turkey and Projects International of Dubai, supply labor from Third World countries to KBR and other U.S. companies for menial work on U.S. bases and rebuilding projects. Foreigners are used instead of Iraqis because of fears that insurgents could infiltrate projects.

KBR is by far the largest employer of Americans, with nearly 14,000 U.S. workers. Other large employers of Americans in Iraq include New York-based L-3 Communications, which holds a contract to provide translators to troops, and ITT Corp., a New York engineering and technology firm.

The most controversial contractors are those working for private security companies, including Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. They guard sensitive sites and provide protection to U.S. and Iraqi government officials and businessmen.

Security contractors draw some of the sharpest criticism, much of it from military policy experts who say their jobs should be done by the military. On several occasions, heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents.

Others worry that the private security contractors lack accountability. Although scores of troops have been prosecuted for serious crimes, only a handful of private security contractors have faced legal charges.

The number of private security contractors in Iraq remains unclear, despite Central Command's latest census. The Times identified 21 security companies in the Central Command database, deploying 10,800 men.

However, the Defense Department's Motsek, who monitors contractors, said the Pentagon estimated the total was 6,000.

Both figures are far below the private security industry's own estimate of about 30,000 private security contractors working for government agencies, nonprofit organizations, media outlets and businesses.

Industry officials said that private security companies helped reduce the number of troops needed in Iraq and provided jobs to Iraqis — a benefit in a country with high unemployment.

"A guy who is working for a [private security company] is not out on the street doing something inimical to our interests," said Lawrence Peter, director of the Private Security Company Assn. of Iraq.

Not surprisingly, Iraqis make up the largest number of civilian employees under U.S. contracts. Typically, the government contracts with an American firm, which then subcontracts with an Iraqi firm to do the job.

Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, a contractors' trade group, said the number of Iraqis reflected the importance of the reconstruction and economic development efforts to the overall U.S. mission in Iraq.

"That's not work that the government does or has ever done…. That's work that is going to be done by companies and to some extent by" nongovernmental organizations, Soloway said. "People tend to think that these are contractors on the battlefield, and they're not."

The Iraqis have been the most difficult to track. As recently as May, the Pentagon told Congress that 22,000 Iraqis were employed by its contractors. But the Pentagon number recently jumped to 65,000 — a result of closer inspection of contracts, an official said.

The total number of Iraqis employed under U.S. contracts is important, in part because it may influence debate in Congress regarding how many Iraqis will be allowed to come to the U.S. to escape violence in their homeland.

This year, the U.S. planned to cap that number at 7,000 a year. To date, however, only a few dozen Iraqis have been admitted, according to State Department figures.

Kirk Johnson, head of the List Project, which seeks to increase the admission of Iraqis, said that the U.S. needed to provide a haven to those who worked most closely with American officials.

"We all say we are grateful to these Iraqis," Johnson said. "How can we be the only superpower in the world that can't implement what we recognize as a moral imperative?"

t.christian.miller@latimes.com

--

(INFOBOX BELOW)

The back story

Information in this article is based in part on a database of contractors in Iraq obtained by The Times under the Freedom of Information Act, which allows the public access to government records.

The database is the result of a census conducted earlier this year by the U.S. Central Command.

The census found about 130,000 contractors working for 632 companies holding contracts in Iraq with the Defense Department and a handful of other federal agencies.

The Times received the database last month, four months after first requesting it. Because the Freedom of Information Act law requires an agency to provide only information as of the date of the request, the census is based on figures as of February. During interviews, Pentagon officials said the census had since been updated, and they provided additional figures based on the update.

--

Los Angeles Times

--

--

Contractors in Iraq

There are more U.S.-paid private contractors than there are American combat troops in Iraq.

Contractors: 180,000

U.S. troops: 160,000

--

Nationality of contractors*

118,000 Iraqis

43,000 non-U.S. foreigners

21,000 Americans

--

Top contractors

Company: Kulak Construction Co.

Description: Based in Turkey, supplies construction workers to U.S. bases

Total employees: 30,301

--

Company: KBR

Description: Based in Houston, supplies logistics support to U.S. troops

Total employees: 15,336

--

Company: Prime Projects International

Description: Based in Dubai, supplies labor for logistics support

Total employees: 10,560

--

Company: L-3 Communications

Description: Based in New York, provides translators and other services

Total employees: 5,886

--

Company: Gulf Catering Co.

Description: Based in Saudi Arabia, provides kitchen services to U.S. troops

Total employees: 4,002

--

Company: 77 Construction

Description: Based in Irbil, Iraq, provides logistics support to troops

Total employees: 3,219

--

Company: ECC

Description: Based in Burlingame, Calif, works on reconstruction projects

Total employees: 2,390

--

Company: Serka Group

Description: Based in Turkey, supplies logistics support to U.S. bases

Total employees: 2,250

--

Company: IPBD Ltd.

Description: Based in England, supplies labor, laundry services and other support

Total employees: 2,164

--

Company: Daoud & Partners Co.

Description: Based in Amman, Jordan, supplies labor for logistics support

Total employees: 2,092

--

Company: EOD Technology Inc

Description: Based in Lenoir City, Tenn., supplies security, explosives demolition and other services

Total employees: 1,913

--

Note: Data are as of February, which is most current available.

*Approximate - numbers rounded

Sources: U.S. Central Command, Times reporting

--

Paul Duginski Los Angeles Times

July 2 horror: FTC abandons net neutrality, enables corporations to fuck startups, censor us

If you want the cable weasels to run the Internet like they run cable—or if you want the whole Internet to work like AOL—this is the decision for you.

Via the essential Sideshow, this:

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the corporate kakistocracy market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

“This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving dynamic industry of broadband internet access, which is generally moving towards more, not less, competition,” FTC chairman Deborah Platt Majoras wrote.

“In the absence of significant market failure, or demonstrated consumer harm, policy makers should be particularly hesitant to enact new regulation in this area.”

It’s a question of allowing the Internet to continue to work as it always has. That’s what the corps want to change, to their own advantage, of course, and not oursL

“Mostly the FTC suggests ways that the telephone and cable companies could have new ways to make money from content and applications providers,” said Art Brodsky, of internet advocacy group Public Knowledge.

“Or lower-income subscribers could be charged lower prices, subsidised by ’prioritization revenues’ much as supported email services now provide free email accounts. Nowhere is there discussion of what the consumer gets out of the deal.”

Well, why would there be? Why would anybody imagine that anything these people do would have anything to do with “consumers”?

Here’s what we lose when the Bush regime takes net neutrality away from us:

Life Without Net Neutrality

It would be hard to imagine life without the Internet. It has become part of our daily lives, where we can gather news, meet people, exchange ideas, and register for classes. Here are just a few examples of what the Internet will be like if Congress fails to restore strong Net Neutrality protections:

Censored Speech and Content.

Without Net Neutrality, network providers can block or slow down access to sites they don’t like. Earlier this year, AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy group that was challenging AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

No User Choice.

Without Net Neutrality, network providers – not you – will determine what services and equipment you can use on the Internet. For example, Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status.

Banned Chat Rooms.

Without Net Neutrality, network owners can dictate whether you are allowed to visit popular chat rooms or if you will have to pay a cover charge to enter them. Think it can’t happen? Think again. Just this summer, BellSouth blocked its customers’ access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida.

Online Gamer Restrictions.

Without Net Neutrality, fan sites, mod communities (individuals playing against each other), and MMORPGs (Massively-Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) might find their online gaming shut off. Network providers will be able to charge gamers tolls to access their favorite games, in addition to the broadband connection fee that most users already pay. Network providers would also be able to restrict gaming access to their own online gaming companies, shutting off any competitors.

Expensive Downloads and Pod-casting.

Without Net Neutrality, network providers could charge you more to download your favorite videos or music, or to use services such as Rhapsody, YouTube, Napster, and iTunes. Network providers can also tell you which download service you have to use, charging you a toll if you decide to use one of their competitors.
And if you’ve got a small startup, stand back:

Ed Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts hit it right on the spot with his quote.

“The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and
Google… are going to have to pay taxes to broadband. This vote will change the Internet for the rest of eternity.”

I strongly agree with him here, look at it from the viewpoint of the CEO of a huge ISP. You notice a small startup company getting bigger and better, and you foresee these guy’s making a ton of money in the future. Your ISP is owned by a media company who owns the largest social networking website on the internet. This new startup company is a social networking website that has better features and is 10 times cooler than your sister (step-sister?) site. What can you do to stop the new start-up company from overtaking your sister? Easy, charge this startup millions of dollars to use your network. This startup company says “NO WAY.” and decides not to pay. What do you do? You block your users from accessing the startup company. This is exactly what Net Neutrality aims to stop.

And as for those pesky bloggers….

Happy Fourth!

White House Caught Doctoring "Mission Accomplished" Video