Steven Gaal
-
Posts
4,661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Steven Gaal
-
-
8 comments SCENE 1
The pantomime season began early this year when a brand new stage production, called the “7/7 INQUEST”, opened at the Royal Courts of Justice. On the afternoon of the 14th of October, a rather plaintive cry of “what do we turn to next, Detective Inspector? “, was heard all around the auditorium, as the normally dependable and confident character-actor, Crown Barrister Hugo Keith, was left bereft of what to do, or say.
Both Hugo, and Detective Inspector Kindness, of Scotland Yard’s Counter-Terrorism Branch, had just spent a great deal of time tracing the progress of the innocent Hasib on CCTV footage through the streets outside King’s Cross Station. Finally, D.I. Kindness announced that they had now reached the last image of Hasib ever recorded. But the trouble was, the young man was no nearer to Tavistock Square – his alleged final destination – at the end of this sequence of digital images, than he was at the beginning. In fact, by walking along the Grays Inn Road he was moving further away than ever!
What could possibly save the opening scene of the pantomime, and put back the swagger into Hugo’s theatrical performance ? After all, he was supposed to be top-billing in this show. Well, the answer was – the good-old London Bus! With great aplomb, and the flourish of a policeman’s cape, the Detective Inspector conjured-up out of thin air the notion that Hasib had climbed aboard a bus, which had then whisked him away in the direction of Euston. The officer did not feel the need to produce a scrap of evidence for this. There was no CCTV image showing Hasib boarding the bus, or of him travelling inside the vehicle. There was a vague reference to witnesses, but he couldn’t name him/her/or them, and they didn’t make a statement to the police at the rehearsals, or attend the pantomime itself and give sworn testimony.
So, instead of being able to follow any more CCTV footage of Hasib himself, the audience were taken on a mystery bus-spotting tour. First, there was route 91 – which Hasib was supposed to have been aboard. There there was mention of a 205 bus, and a 253. Route 168 then took a bow, as did the 73 and the 59. Eventually, a number 30 came into view, and this particular bus suddenly exploded as it entered Tavistock Square.
The theatre audience gasped in horror. It was clear from the extensive damage done to the vehicle that some kind of high-powered explosive device had been planted on the top deck of the bus. But before anyone could collect their thoughts, a pantomime policeman entered from stage right and announced that the 18 year-old Hasib had been a ‘suicide bomber’, and had carried out this attack by means of a home-made concoction that had been brewed in a bath-tub in Leeds!
No CCTV image was ever shown of Hasib on the number 30 bus, and no credible eye-witness came forward to claim they saw him boarding at Euston. Admittedly, there was a brief cameo appearance by an implausible character with a squeaky Scottish accent who said he saw a young man fiddling with a rucksack on board the bus, but everytime he opened his mouth he gave a different account of what he had seen. The audience soon grew tired of his irritating voice, as well as his crackpot performance, and shouted “Get Him Off” – which the pantomime director duly did ( but only for this same character to appear much later, playing the part of a stooge in a very dubious BBC production ).
SCENE 2
By now the theatre audience were becoming quite restless and angry. The poorly constructed plot had too many inconsistencies, and the narrative didn’t seem to make much sense.
One member of the audience shouted “why would an 18 year-old lad from Yorkshire want to kill himself with a bomb on a London bus anyway? Surely if he was unhappy with the public transport services in West Yorkshire, he would have blown himself up on a bus in Leeds or Bradford!”
Someone else added, “Why did he not detonate the device on the 91 bus – which was the first vehicle he travelled on.”
A third objector claimed that he “could see no link at all between Hasib at Kings Cross, and the bus bombing in Tavistock Square.”
Realising that all was not well, the Production Manager rushed out on to the stage and tried to reassure the audience that the narrative was both realistic and robust.
But they were having none of it. “If Hasib is on a suicide mission, then why is he aimlessly wandering around King’s Cross, and not purposefully heading straight towards his destination?” yelled one man sitting in the upper circle. “Could it be that Hasib is under the control of evil masters who have told him to wait outside the station because his role in their dastardly plan will not commence for another hour?”
Someone else chimed in – “and if this is the case, then obviously Hasib is just filling time, and does not really know what to do with himself over this period. So he just wanders around the King’s Cross area, phoning his friends on his mobile phone, visiting MacDonald’s for a burger, and then going into W.H. Smiths for a purchase. His behaviour is quite innocent, and not at all suspicious.”
“Ah!” exclaimed the Production Manager, “but in W.H Smiths he buys a 9-volt battery; is that not very sinister? He is clearly buying this battery for a detonator that lies hidden, along with the bomb, inside the rucksack that he is carrying.”
One lady in the front row piped-up, “But my 18 year-old son looked up on the internet, and there it told him that 9-volt batteries are very useful power units for transistor radios, digital cameras, electrical toys, model cars and trucks, guitar effects and digital clocks. So he buys them regularly for all his electronic devices. I have no doubt that the young Hasib, who was a similar age, was doing the same thing – buying a new battery for some electrical gadget that he was going to use when he got back home to Leeds later that day.”
“Be silent, madam”, commanded the now-exasperated Production Manager, “everyone in the civilised world of spies, intelligence agents, secret police, informers, government narks, hit-squads and assassins knows full well what a 9-volt battery is used for.”
But another female voice rang out to say ” If Hasib had really been a suicide bomber, then it stands to reason that he would have thoroughly checked the battery before setting out from Leeds that morning. It beggars belief to suggest that only when he arrived at Kings Cross did he realise that the battery was faulty, and that he would have to pop in to W.H. Smiths to buy a replacement!”
SCENE 3
There was a further interjection, this time by a 10 year-old boy, who wondered aloud whether all the ice in the rucksack – which was alleged to have been used to cool the bomb – would not have completely melted by the time Hasib reached Kings Cross. His Dad, sitting next to him agreed, adding, “Let’s face the facts here; it was July – the height of summer, and I read somewhere in the Pantomime’s programme that Hasib and his friends had set out on their journey just before four o’clock that morning. Well, the bomb detonated some time after 9.45 – that’s nearly six hours after the ice had been removed from a freezer. In that time the rucksack and its contents had travelled in a small Nissan Micra car all the way down the motorway to Luton. It had then been carried by Hasib on a crowded rush-hour train to Kings Cross, and from there down into the Underground Station and back out again. The rucksack had then spent nearly an hour being lugged around the streets and on to two buses. Surely the ice would have completely melted long before Tavistock Square, with the rucksack swimming in water. Any explosive mixture would by then have turned to sludge.”
“Why can’t you people just accept the story-line that you’ve been given?” growled the angry Production Manager.
But his response only antagonised the audience further. Several people started shouting out: “What about the bereaved families, and those who were badly injured, or who had lost limbs in the explosion? And there are many others who have suffered psychological trauma and are even now trying to rebuild their shattered lives. Are they going to get true justice? It seems they have to remain silent in the wings, while a bunch of ham-actors and perjurers are allowed to parade themselves across the stage.”
The Production Manager was now incandescent with rage. “This pantomime has been staged purposely for the benefit of the bereaved and injured”, he spluttered. “They’ve had their paltry compensation, and they’ve even had a phoney memorial built for them in Hyde Park. Now we are putting on this brilliant production to show the world that we care” – ( although, to be honest, it’s also a handy method of getting the authorities off the hook, and drawing a line under the whole ghastly business ).
He could stand it no longer, “You are all conspiracy theorists”, barked the Production Manager.
“Oh No We’re Not !” responded the audience.
“Oh Yes You Are !” he yelled back.
SCENE 4
A stagehand then rushed forward from behind the scenes to whisper in his ear. “Sir, we are on the verge of a crisis here, shouldn’t we return to the Pantomime?” “Yes, precisely”, muttered the defeated Production Manager. And upon uttering this magic word, the trapdoor in the floor of the stage suddenly flew open, and a terrifying figure arose enveloped in billowing green smoke. This was the arrival of the pantomime villain – Peter ‘Power of Darkness’.
“This morning I was holding an exercise for an organisation with a thousand employees” he began. “Obviously the vast majority had proper work to do, but I did persuade about eight of them to join me in a little office near the basement. After a while the Supervisor came along, clapped his hands, and said, get a move on you lot, chop-chop, this exercise is going on far too long. So we immediately switched from slow time thinking, to quick time doing, and got our bureau numbers – a logical thing to do. After-all there are more Jewish businesses in Cricklewood, than there are American banks in the City of London, so it stands to reason….
The audience were incensed by this flow of gibberish and started booing and hissing. Almost at once Peter ‘Power of Darkness’ started to descend through the trapdoor, shouting “I’ve still got the hairs on the back of my neck standing upright”. And with that he disappeared for ever – except for occasional appearances on the BBC.
FINAL SCENE
That night a deeply-troubled Hugo left the brightly lit Royal Courts of Justice, and trudged wearily homeward through the dark, snow-covered streets of London to his dank, lonely garret. It was getting near to Christmas and he fretted that the pantomime would not last the whole season. The problem was, he thought to himself, the story-line was so poorly scripted. No adult – and certainly no child -would accept such an unbelievable narrative. Fair enough, all those actors who had behaved honourably, or bravely, on July 7th had been warmly applauded by the audience, but the rest of the cast – including himself – had been blown a large raspberry. Hugo searched for adequate words to describe the pantomime. “What was it the former prime-minister, Tony Blair, had said – a Ludicrous Diversion?” Yes, that was it – a ludicrous diversion.
When he finally reached his luxury penthouse in fashionable Mayfair, Hugo switched on the TV and picked up some of the morning newspapers. And to his astonishment, all the media were heaping praise on the pantomime, and giving it high marks for its quality, credibility, and – yes – durabilty. The BBC, of course, was gushing like an over-excited schoolgirl, while even an editorial in the Guardian ‘waxed lyrical’ about the performance of the fairy-godmother – Lady Justice Hallet.
Hugo’s face started beaming with joy, as he realised that the pantomime would run and run all the way through to the end of March. And then – in April maybe – a large cheque would drop through the gold-plated letterbox of his Georgian, French mahogany, front-door. He now sighed with relief, as he pulled on his Santa hat, poured himself a sherry, grabbed a couple of minced-pies, and began to sing the words of his favourite Christmas Carol -”God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen, Let Nothing You Dismay ……
Contributed by Graeme - and thank you, Sir!
Uncategorized 7/7 Inquest, Hasib Hussain CommentsLeave a comment Trackback
Written by graeme about 1 month ago.
Reply So, the pantomime continues with the arrival of more participants – even the resurrection of dear old ’squeaky’ Richard Jones. He has obviously been told by his superiors to attend the Inquest, in order to deliberately discredit his own accounts of July 7. Now that it has been well-and-truly established that the bomb exploded on the top-deck of the number 30 bus, his many versions of what happened are no longer needed, and so, by sticking closely to the crackpot account that he initially gave to the media, his testimony can be safely discarded by the Inquest – along with grateful thanks, and lots of love, from Hugo The Barrister.
Turning to more serious things; we now – at last – have sworn evidence from eye-witnesses on both buses that morning;- the 91, and the 30. (I’ll deal with the latter in a subsequent post, but first let us deal with the number 91 bus.)
Well, there is surprisingly good quality testimony from ANETA DYBEK-ECHTERMEYER, who describes a man fitting the appearance of Hasib Hussein on the lower deck of the vehicle. She says he boarded the bus in the Grays Inn Road at Kings Cross, and then left it – as all the passengers had to – at Euston. What makes her evidence so credible, is not just her own account, but that she is backed-up by another passenger – PAUL REKRET – who also saw this man on board. While he cannot remember when the man got on the bus, his evidence does tally very well with that of Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer.
Apparently, both their attentions were aroused by a nervous, agitated-looking man, who was carrying a heavy rucksack. He seemed lost, or pre-occupied, and was oblivious to his immediate surroundings because he kept bumping his rucksack into other passengers. Aneta Dybek-Echtermeyer stated that his face was sweating horribly, and both recalled that one young woman even tapped him on the shoulder, and politely asked the man to be more considerate of other passengers – but he said nothing in response.
Now, this is only the second time in the entire pantomime that there has been any corroboration of evidence. In fact we have to go right back to Woodall Services on the M1 motorway to find any statement or testimony that is confirmed by another witness or some additional information ( i.e.;- the motorway service manager’s account being verified by clear, timed and dated, CCTV images ). Every other witness statement has remained uncorroborated up-until-now. Therefore, it is highly likely – if not absolutely certain – that these two witnesses were indeed looking at Hasib Hussein on board the number 91 bus that morning.
However, what they are describing is not a suicide bomber who is travelling willingly and serenely to some kind of celestial paradise, but a hot, tired, confused, and thoroughly fed-up young man who doesn’t know where he is going.
You see, Hasib has been awake since at least 3 o’clock that morning, and has travelled for nearly three hours in a cramped Nissan Micra all the way down from Leeds to London. There, he has been given a ‘pep-talk’ by a patronising geezer in a posh suit, who drives a Jaguar; and that guy has told him that he is about to take part in a very important secret exercise. He must not communicate with any member of the public while on the exercise, and he must follow the instructions of his ‘handlers’ down to the letter. He is then given a heavy rucksack to carry, and is told that it contains a fake bomb and a detonator.
Along with his friends, he stands on a crowded rush-hour train down to Kings Cross, and is then led by his handlers into the underground station. But upon arriving there he is immediately separated from his friends, and is curtly told to go and wait outside the station because he is not needed for the exercise at that stage. Hasib, quite naturally, ‘has the hump’, but he does as he is told, leaves the station, and starts mooching around the nearby streets.
Kings Cross is not a very pleasant place to hang around during the rush-hour – especially on a warm July morning. The place is swarming with crowds, and the traffic noise and exhaust fumes are ubiquitous. He is totally overdressed for the hot city streets, and he dosen’t know where to go, or what his friends are doing. The heavy rucksack is a damned nuisance, and as the time ticks on he is becoming more-and-more tired and sweaty. The novelty of taking part in the exercise is rapidly dissipating, but he has to continue, mainly out of loyalty to his friends, but also because he is being paid. So there is nothing he can do except continue wandering around the streets and phoning his friends on his mobile phone.
Eventually he drops the rucksack on the floor and decides to look inside ( we have CCTV footage of him rifling through the contents, just by the entrance to the mainline station.) To his disgust, instead of any equipment that looks vaguely electrical – like switches, cables, fuse-wires, timing devices etc., the rucksack contains a couple of bricks, two or three plastic bags full of sand, a rusty can of golden syrup, two jars of mouldy peanut butter, and a pile of old socks and vests that came out of a laundry basket belonging to a British Intelligence Agent…..
This discovery does nothing to lighten Hasib’s already sour mood. He feels tricked by his handlers into lugging a rucksack full of rubbish around the streets of London. So he decides not to hang around outside the station any more, but ‘to do his own thing’ by going into W.H. Smiths and purchasing a battery for himself, and then visiting Mac Donalds where he can sit down and enjoy a burger and a milk-shake.
Eventually his handlers meet up with him on the Grays Inn Road, and he thinks that his ordeal is over and will now be rejoining his mates. But to his dismay these handlers put him on board a 91 bus and send him along to Euston, where he is told that he will be met by another couple of guys who will tell him what to do next. Hasib Hussein – just 18 years old – is now near the end of his tether. He is agitated and confused, and probably more than a little ‘on edge’, as to where he is going, and where and when he will meet up with his friends.
So, what the two eye-witnesses are clearly witnessing on the 91 bus is a young man anxiously looking out the windows, petulantly displaying his irritation and contempt by deliberately swaying and bumping his phoney rucksack into the other bus passengers. Even though he has lost faith in the exercise, he still doggedly presses on, because he does not respond to the young woman who taps him on the shoulder. This indicates that he is still obeying the instructions that he was given back at Luton, i.e.;- that he must not communicate with any members of the public.
Written by NK about 1 month ago.
Reply Those two witnesses both described ‘HH’ as wearing dark glasses, on the 91 bus, and there are no pics of him wearing glasses at all. They also alluded to the 19 rather than 91 bus. Anita Dybeck: ‘Yes, he did have the glasses, like small — like, looking a bit like techno kind of style, reflecting glasses as well, black reflecting glasses.’ (12th Jan para 62); Rekret, (12th pm para 4): ‘he did have sunglasses. I noted that I couldn’t recall whether he was wearing the sunglasses or whether they were on his head.’
Written by graeme about 1 month ago.
Reply The afternoon session on the 14th October (Page 17)
D.I. Kindness and Hugo are viewing the CCTV footage of Hasib Hussein at Kings Cross, and apparently he puts on a pair of sunglasses after leaving Mac Donalds.
I seem to recall that I have seen some images of Hasib wearing sunglasses – I’m sure that it was shown on TV. Maybe some of you out there can verify if such footage exists.
From their testimony the two eye-witnesses on the bus clearly state the 91. The number 19 does not call at Caledonian Road, nor Kings Cross.
I think we might have to conclude that Hasib Hussein was on that bus – but we can only speculate why the Met. have been so reluctant to release any CCTV images.
Written by Andrew S. MacGregor about 1 month ago.
Reply ‘I like Graeme. Graeme is a thinker, and he has intelligence, with a bit of sarcastic wit, that whets his style of writing.
I have based my belief that Hasib Hussain did not ride on the 91 bus on the absolute failure of many CCTV cameras, those cameras being on buses 91 and 30, as well as at Euston Station, and we were told that by Det.Insp. I. Kindness and Hugo Keith QC. I will retain this view.
So now, to cover that area of uncertainty, Hugo Keith has produced two witnesses who saw Hasib Hussain on bus 91. Well that may be the truth, or it may still be lies, we will need more information to work that out, but it is not that important in the overall scheme of things.
I do though like the twist of the sunglasses. Apparently nearly all of the CCTV scenes show Hasib Hussain without sunglasses, and yet the two witnesses on bus 91 say sunglasses, and then Graeme says ‘look at the last frames as Hasib Hussain leaves McDonalds. I’d say that Graeme would be spot on in this argument.
However, if Graeme’s theory is correct, in that somebody did get Hasib Hussain onto the Bus 91, then Graeme’s belief that Hasib Hussain would be tired, irritable and a bit angry is not quite correct. Hasib Hussain would still be of the belief that everything was right and he had just been helped to make his part of the play work out and for that he would be thankful, not angry.
It was Lisa French’s statement concerning her sighting of Hasib Hussain on Bus 30, in that he was bumping into people including a little old lady, that people would start thinking that Hasib Hussain was starting to show some irritability, that is until you sight the bus-driver’s statement where he says that he had about 100 people on board that he had picked up at Euston Station, and then stopped and let about forty people off.
If Bus 30 was so overcrowded, and Hasib Hussain was on that bus, and standing on the lower floor, then there is every possibility that he would be bumping other people, especially whenever the bus lurched. In fact any person wearing a rucksack would be accidentally bumping into people. But, if Hasib Hussain was on the bus the CCTV camera would have shown him, and please do not use the excuse the cameras didn’t work. That lie has been around longer than Princess Di’s murder in Paris.
However, once you view the photograph of the 30 Bus shortly after the explosion and you see two young men on the top deck, both wearing rucksacks, then you realise that Lisa French could have mistaken either one of these two for Hasib Hussain. Memory is a fickle creature and often changes with time, which is why police statements are required to be taken as soon as possible.
Again, I would compare the driver’s statement with those statements make by Richard Jones immediately after the event, and in the days following when the media made more of Richard Jones.
And then I’d go back to Terence Mutasa, the nurse from the University College Hospital who said, “I treated two girls in their 20′s who were involved in the bus bomb. They were saying some guy came in and sat down and that he exploded. The girls received minor injuries and were in shock and distressed. They said the guy just sat down and the explosion happened. They thought it was a suicide bomber.”
So, who were these two girls and where were they seated to have seen ‘this guy’ sit down on a seat and then ‘explode’?
And again consider that ‘this guy’ came and sat down and then exploded just as the bus had reached an area predicted by Efraim Halevi, the former head of Mossad.
You see, these two girls have a vivid recollection of what had happened, and had they been properly interviewed by police, they would be able to describe the ‘guy’ and what he was wearing, and especially if he had been carrying a large rucksack’
One would imagine that these two girls would have been ‘star’ witnesses.’
Written by NK about 3 weeks ago.
Reply There is a suggestion here http://7julyinquests.independent.gov.uk/hearing_transcripts/01022011pm.htm
that Germain Lindsay did twig to what was going on, from what he saw at King’s Cross, shortly before the bombs went off.
Written by graeme about 1 month ago.
Reply Thanks Andrew, for your comments. Yes, you’re right – it doesn’t matter very much now whether Hasib Hussein was on the number 91 bus or not. Nick has, in his post entitled “Lisa French And The Tavistock Square Blast’, written a clear account summarising the events on the number 30 bus, including the testimony of the key eye-witnesses aboard. It is quite evident that Hasib was not on that vehicle – and the only witness who suggested that he might have been, is Lisa French herself.
I actually read her testimony before reading Nick’s post, so I was unaware at that stage of her harrowing post-traumatic condition. But even while reading this poor lady’s account, it felt as though she was someone desperately trying to prove to herself, rather than the inquest, that she was following the footsteps of a ’suicide bomber’ who had changed her life for ever.
So, we are now left with the question of what happened to Hasib Hussein and the two others – Shezhad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsey. In his excellent documentary film ‘7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT’, Muad’Dib speculates that the four ( in fact, just 3 ) men made their way to Canary Wharf, where they attempted to contact media organisations such as Reuters. He claims that they had discovered they were being used as dupes in a real terror attack, and had fled there to tell their story before the perpetrators closed in and silenced them.
This maybe true, but there are drawbacks to such a scenario;-
1) The perpertrators could not possibly allow the men to be seen alive after the explosions had taken place. It would be essential to keep them hidden, under close guard.
2) If the young men had found out the truth and made a sudden escape from their “handlers”, then the latter would quickly have hunted them down long before they ever reached Canary Wharf.
3) The background of these guys suggests that they really wouldn’t have had much of a clue of how to go about contacting the national newspapers, radio or TV. They may have heard of Canary Wharf, but they would not have known what was there – or even how to get there. Perhaps if their leader, Mohammad Siddique Khan, had been present that day, then he would have been able to “think on his feet” in an emergency, and have considered such a plan of action. But the three others were too young and inexperienced to have acted in this way.
4) These three would have just paniced, dumped their rucksacks, and dashed back into the Thameslink Station – hoping to catch a train back to Luton.
My own theory is this;- that they remained unaware of the truth right through to the end. They had been told that they had an important role in the “exercise” , and so the idea that they were being “set up” never entered their heads – even when things started to go wrong due to their late arrival in London that morning.
I reckon that it was never the intention of the perpetrators to place Hasib Hussein on the number 30 bus – because they couldn’t guarantee that he would find an available seat on the upper deck, towards the rear, where the explosion would take place. ( Supposing he could only find a seat near the front, or had to stand downstairs near the doors. He would then have survived the blast, and the whole plot would have unravelled.) Similarly with the others on the tube trains – the perpetrators could not take the risk of the men surviving. So they, too, were never going to be put on board the trains ( hence, the absence of CCTV images ).
But of course they still had the problem of disposing of the young men. My contention is that a pair of vans were already waiting for them in the streets around Kings Cross. These could then transport the men secretly – according to the original plan – out to Canary Wharf. The three guys would not be alarmed by this, because they had already been told earlier, back in the car park at Luton Station, that once the exercise was over they would conveyed in vans to an office, well away from Kings Cross, where everyone would be de-briefed, and a summary of the event compiled for an official report.
In reality, a “killing zone” had been prepared, probably in an underground car park at Canary Wharf. The first van would arrive carrying Tanweer and Lindsey. They would step out of the back doors of the vehicle, and would be immediately gunned-down by marksmen – without them ever knowing a thing. The second van would then arrive, but obviously it could not drive into the area where the bodies and blood were visible. So it halted near the HSBC Tower, and Hasib Hussein left the vehicle there instead. He, too, was summarily executed – once again, never realising the awful truth.
I’m sorry if this sounds brutal and unpleasant – but how else were these guys despatched ?
Written by NK about 3 weeks ago.
Reply There is a suggestion here http://terroronthetube.co.uk/latest-77-articles-3/germaine-lindsey-at-king%e2%80%99s-cross/ that Germin Lindsey did twig to what was happening, at King’s Cross, shortly before the bombs went off.
Written by graeme about 3 weeks ago.
Reply Yes, I read your post regarding Jermaine Lindsey at Kings Cross. I did leave a comment a few weeks back. But you could well be right. Lindsey had certainly escaped the clutches of his “handlers” at that moment, and was definitely acting “off-message” . According to Mr Patel he was most insistant about contacting the Duty Manager asap. Maybe Lindsey did feel uneasy about the situation on the Picadilly Line, because things were obviously not going to the plan that they had been told about in advance.
But whether he realised the full danger to himself at that time – we’ll never know. Unfortunately, Mr Patel gives such a wide time-frame of between 8.15 and 8.45 for when he spoke to Lindsey, but the bombs did not detonate until 8.49, and so at that stage Lindsey would have been unaware of any explosions, deaths or injuries.
-
J7: 7/7 Inquests Blog
7/7 Inquest: Examining and documenting the proceedings of the Coroner's Inquest into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005, including analysis of the hearing transcripts and the evidence presented.
Sunday, February 27, 2011MI5 taking the PISCES - Part 1
Week 18 of the 7/7 Inquest proceedings from 21st to 24th February was scheduled to hear evidence regarding Preventability issues. The corporate witness for MI5 - Witness G was allocated two days, ACC Parkinson for West Yorkshire Police a day, and the final day was to hear evidence from ex-Metropolitan Police DAC Peter Clarke as well as DS Prunty of SO13. The lead counsel on Preventability issues was Patrick O'Connor assisted by Caoilfhionn Gallagher, both representing the bereaved families.
Witness G was instead on the stand for over 3½ days yet, on critical matters, Witness G claimed to know nothing. For those watching in the press and public annexe, also set-up by De Boers, Witness G's testimony was listened to while staring at a blank screen where the witness being questioned would usually appear. Often nothing was heard in response to questioning as Witness G simply nodded his responses. Noteworthy is that the deferential Hugo Keith QC failed to pull Witness G up on his repeated nodded responses, in the same way he would usually admonish a witness by making the point that the stenographers cannot hear a nod. Also interesting was the apparent appointment of new stenographers -- the live transcriptions come into their own when the microphones aren't working, something which generally occurs when counsel other than Keith interject or begin their questioning -- to replace the usual team owing to the high-security required by MI5 to put Witness G on the stand. This meant we were treated to 'petty criminal' appearing on the screen that carries the live transcriptions as 'pet tea criminal'. There were also long delays before each day's transcripts and adduced evidence appeared on the Inquests public website. In fact, a number of pieces of adduced evidence have yet to appear on the Inquests web site owing to "issues with the publication of these documents" that are being worked through with the American authorities. Unsurprisingly, these document relate specifically to the fantastical case of the FBI's star Supergrass/Informant, Mohammed Junaid Babar.
So how and why did Witness G's appearance get dragged out for 3½ days? Simply because, after being denied permission to make public Witness G's written statements, Mr Eadie, QC for the Home Secretary and the Security Service, decided to force the issue by insisting that G's three written statements be adduced into evidence and published on the Inquests website. Highly irregular behaviour, as pointed out by both Hugo Keith and Justice Hallett, given that G's evidence should be his oral testimony, not prior written statements. Only those pages actually referred to and shown during his oral testimony would go into the evidence published by the Inquests, and it was argued by counsel that this was sufficient as the Inquests had done justice to the written statements in examining each area. Eadie was insistent and informed the Inquest and the many bereaved families present that he would then take Witness G through each page and in that way get the full written statement adduced. Wednesday was expended through little more than G's simple repeated responses of "Yes", "No", "Don't know" and "I agree" to Eadie. The day that should have been available to Patrick O'Connor QC, the advocate to the bereaved, to examine the evidence of West Yorkshire Police was robbed from them in a most cynical way. So too was most of Thursday. The three remaining witnesses were left with a little over three hours in which to give evidence and answer questions. Malfeasant filibustering on behalf of the State indeed.
Evidence
Were these 3½ days useful in terms of evidence? The press picked up on the fact that severely cropped photos of Shehzad Tanweer and Mohammed Sidique Khan were sent to the FBI to be shown to Supergrass/FBI informer Mohammed Junaid Babar in order to identify the members of the 'Crevice Plot'. Khan's photo was so badly cropped that it wasn't even shown to Babar. The ludicrous explanation from G was that the original photo would have shown the covert nature of the photograph and could reveal where it had been taken. Even the deferential Hugo Keith could not allow this explanation to go by unchallenged and asked if it was thought that Babar would be capable of recognising Toddington Service Station. Keith also ventured that one of his progeny could do a better job. Whether the FBI might not have had access to colour imaging systems in 2004 raised another note of disbelief from Keith: "America is not the other side of the moon. The systems must have been in place to allow a colour photograph to be transmitted to America".
By the end of the first day of Witness G's testimony J7 were compelled to write to the Coroner. We sent the following:
On 21 February pm, Witness G gave the following testimony in relation to a subscriber check on a phone number registered to MSK at 49a Bude Road:
Q. Could we have Security Service document SYS11076 [sYS11076-1], please? You have in the last day or two, G, provided some further details in relation to this call?
A. (Witness nods).
Q. The Security Service gave evidence, did it not, to the Intelligence and Security Committee that the calls were in July and August in their entirety, but, in fact, that was erroneous?
A. No. The calls were in July and August as reported in the ISC report. Our error at that point was saying we had done the subscriber check in July and August rather than March.
Q. I understand. So there were calls -- I think the ISC report showed or stated that there were calls in on 19th July, I think 15th August and -- sorry -- two dates in July and a date, 17th August, but it has subsequently transpired, has it not, that there were more calls on 19th July than the ISC understood?
A. Correct.
Q. The call on 17th August was not 17th August, but 15th August?
A. Correct.
Q. So there were some small errors in relation to the dates given to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
A. (Witness nods).
Q. The essence of the calls was this, was it not: that one of the early significant individuals in the Operation Crevice, the operation from 2003 and through 2004, was in touch with a man called Sidique Khan, who gave that address, but that was all it was understood to be?
A. It is not actually right to say he gave that address. That was the subscriber address for the telephone.
Q. If a check had been done, if a check had been done, and I am not suggesting that that single call necessitated a check, it would have shown that there was a person in touch with Mohammed Qayum Khan called Sidique Khan of 49A Bude Road?
A. That was a subscriber to the phone, yes.
Q. Operation Crevice, which included this man Mohammed Qayum Khan, gave rise to thousands upon thousands of what you have described earlier as call events, data events?
A. (Witness nods).
What explanation is there for a subscriber check on 11/03/2003 - 6 months before the phone call from 'Q' to a phone registered to MSK at 49a Bude Road in July 2003? 11/03/2003 would appear to be prior to the date of 'late March 2003' given for the start of Operation Crevice in the ISC II report.
Enlarge
J7's question was put to Witness G the following day and his response elicited another missive from J7 to the Inquests:
J7 appreciate that the Inquest team examined our query in relation to the subscriber check on the MSK phone 49a Bude Road carried out on 11 March 2003.
This response from Witness G to the question in relation to the subscriber check being carried out in March 2003 was due to the MSK phone number appearing on Mohammed Quayyam Khan's billing prior to the beginning of Operation Crevice.
Q. You told us that one of the other investigative links to the man called Sidique Khan was the subscriber check on 11 March 2003 which showed that a phone was registered to his name and the address at 49A Bude Road, we know subsequently to have been the Iqra bookshop, and you, therefore, would have been able to assess that one of the calls made in July and August by Mohammed Qayum Khan, one of the participants in Crevice in the early days, was to that name and address?
A. (Witness nods).
Q. Why was a subscriber check being done in March if the calls from Mohammed Qayum Khan were not until July and August?
A. Because, at that point, we were reviewing earlier billing on Mohammed Qayum Khan on which that number came up.
Q. Oh, I see, so the Crevice operation, having started earlier in the year, had meant that there were checks from the very beginning going on in relation to calls made by the participants --
A. That's correct.
Q. -- which is why a check was made in March?
A. That's correct.
Q. So Crevice started long before July and August, towards the early part of 2003, in fact.
A. In the early part of 2003, yes.
Q. Before 11 March, presumably?
A. Yes, I can't remember the exact date, but certainly before then.
Q. But logically, it must have been before.
The ISC II report detailed timeline p58 makes the claim that the date of 13 July 2003 is significant in relation to MSK "as data from a mobile phone associated with MQK shows a number of calls with a telephone number MI5 had not seen before..... MI5 cannot match the name Siddique Khan with any on their databases and the contact is not investigated any further".
Do we now know that MI5 had seen this number before and the name MSK was presumably recorded in their databases from the check carried out on 11 March 2003? Why did the check on 13 July 2003 not flag this contact up?
Enlarge
This point was, sadly, clumsily handled by the seemingly pressurised O'Connor, who was faced with a mountain of evidence with which to question Witness G and a very short time allocated to him on 23rd February in which to do it:
Q. Could I go to a different topic, please, tab 7 in our core bundle? That is the subscriber check on 11 March 2003. This was kept on Security Service files, was it?
A. On Security Service records, yes.
Q. It's the -- I should identify it. It is SYS11076 [sYS11076-1] it's a subscriber check on 11 March 2003. I'll take you to the reference, if you wish, but ISC2 records when Crevice started as being late March 2003. Do you follow? I'll take to you the reference. It's page 57 in the hard copy, so page 64 of ISC2 which is INQ8305 [iNQ8305-63]. Do you see there's a time-line there?
A. I think I have a different one up.
Q. Late March 2003. Is that not -- I'm not saying it's a big error, but is that somewhat in error, then?
A. Well, that would be my view, yes. I mean, having looked at the early part of Crevice, I would have put it a little bit earlier than that.
Q. So that this document falls within Operation Crevice?
A. Yes.
Q. If we go to the next page in the ISC document, so that's page 65 , halfway down the first paragraph, 13 July 2003, if you glance down the first few --
A. I think we're working to different references. The 65 --
Q. I said page 65. It's page 64 [iNQ8305-64], I'm sorry, I'm adding seven -- that's what I've been consistently doing, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Page 64, then.
A. 13 July 2003, yes, I've got that.
Q. Yes, now, if you please glance down it, but if you go four or five lines down, it says: "MI5 cannot match the name 'Siddique Khan' [spelt with two Ds] with any in their databases ..." Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you had this telephone subscriber check in your records?
A. Yes, as I explain in, I think, my second statement, or possibly my third, the ISC is in error here because we didn't brief them correctly.
Q. Do you think you didn't brief the ISC correctly because there are two Ds rather than one? Do you see? You're checking, in July 2003, a number against Siddique Khan, two Ds, so that somebody has said, maybe accurately, that MI5 couldn't match Siddique, with two Ds, Khan?
A. No, we didn't brief them correctly because we'd misunderstood what our own records said and believed that this 11 March 2003 date for the check was an error and should have said July, but our reinvestigations recently confirm that 11 March is correct.
Q. So it's not that your systems were flummoxed by there being two Ds rather than one?
A. That's not relevant for the system we're talking about here. The error was ours in assuming that the 11 March date on this document was incorrect when it was, in fact, correct. [23 02 2011 p7:63]
If the honest intent of Witness G was to genuinely assist the Inquest process, he could have chosen to clarify quite why MI5 failed to pick up the name 'Sidique Khan' when searching on the phone number, rather than his name, and also why they claimed to the Intelligence & Security Committee that their checks in July 2003 failed to access and include the recorded March 2003 subscriber check held on their database. Instead, another question has been added into the mix: From where did the Siddique Khan name with two ds originate?
What is blatantly clear from this exchange, apart from the ISC II report being littered with errors, is that in July and August 2003, MI5 knew full well that Mohammed Quayyum Khan, aka 'Q', was in contact with at the very least the Iqra bookshop and, potentially, also in contact with Mohammed Sidique Khan. Given that intercept evidence cannot be used or referred to in proceedings, considered RIPA evidence, there is of course the question of the bugging of 'Q's phone and the fact that there was presumably full knowledge of precisely what was being said. Intercept evidence from phone bugging -- as used extensively during Operation Crevice -- is very likely the untouchable subject referred to in another dead-end exchange between O'Connor and Witness G:
Q. Can we find from here, therefore -- I'm not asking you for anything confidential, but in broad terms -- a pattern of mobile phone use between Mohammed Sidique Khan and Omar Khyam in the lead-up to each of these meetings?
A. Yes, that's fair.
Q. Good. That's what I thought I detected. I'm not going to go behind the redactions.
A. I would be grateful if you didn't.
Q. No, I'm not going to. So obviously somebody has, and you have, reviewed what is the sensitive aspect of this and what is in this document and what's been redacted. Can I ask you this, though, because it's obviously not sensitive that there is this pattern, do you understand: was there similar contact before 21 February 2004?
MR EADIE: My Lady, that's very problematic, or it may be.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Why? It's the same principle. Why is this more secret than what the witness has accepted?
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I think you'd better allow Mr Keith or Mr O'Connor to whisper certain letters in your ear, Mr O'Connor.
MR KEITH: We can't whisper anything, I'm afraid, because that would be equally impermissible.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: If supposing, though, that something existed ...
MR KEITH: Could my learned friend ask the question and then we will reassess or rephrase it and then we will see where we need to go thereafter?
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Fine. My Lady, what I'm very happy to do is I will rephrase it, just on my feet, and then leave it, everyone can think about it, perhaps speak to me in general terms over the luncheon adjournment and that's it.
....
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Anyway, try the question again to see whether we can avoid offending any of my rulings, statutory instruments, Parliament Acts, whatever.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Was there any mobile phone contact between a mobile phone attributed to Mohammed Sidique Khan and a mobile phone attributed to Omar Khyam which took place on 20 or 21 February 2004?
A. My Lady, for the reasons you've identified, I don't know whether I can answer this question. [ibid p67:21]
Passports Pakistan and PISCES
One of the other issues examined in relation to Mohammed Junaid Babar was a statement he gave in April/May 2004 regarding meeting with certain members of the 'Crevice plot' at Islamabad airport in June and July of 2003. It was plain that the two men Babar identified as 'Ibrahim' and 'Zubair' could have been identified by accessing the travel information between the UK and Pakistan of Jawad Akbar who was already in custody after the 30 March 2004 Crevice arrests and whose passport details were known. Again J7 were compelled to communicate with the Coroner and Counsel and sent the following communication when Eadie and 'G' sought to confirm how difficult such a process would be:
On 23 February, Mr Eadie questioned how information on travel to and from Pakistan could be acquired by the police:
22 Do you also know -- and, again, say if you don't and
23 we can do some further research -- how the information
24 about Mr Akbar's travel was actually acquired by the
25 police?
90
1 A. I do not, no.
2 Q. You don't know what level of detailed work, diplomatic
3 efforts and mutual legal assistance, treaty requests,
4 had to be made to secure that information?
5 A. I do not, no.
Yet on 19/07/05, 3 days after the formal identification of MSK, the media were able to report all the details of Khan & Tanweer's travel to and from Pakistan including stopovers in Turkey, flight numbers and images from PISCES from November 2004. Passport numbers were also released.
Daily Mirror 19/07/2005
The opening statement of the Crevice trial stated:
86. This is a Time Chart or Time Line. It has, as you will see on the front page, a line alongside each defendant and some other individuals who feature. The purpose of the chart is to indicate, so far as records are available, entry into and departure from, Pakistan. If we go to page 7 for example, we find we are in the period June and July 2003. That was, you may remember, a period of some significance because according to Babar, that was when the Malakand training camp took place.
87. Against that background we see Khyam and Garcia are indeed in Pakistan. If we go back to page 6 we see Khyam arrived on 7 May; if we go back to page 5 we see Garcia arrived on 10 February. Reverting to page 7 we see Shujah arrived on 27 June, with his digital scales you may recall.
88. Jawad Akbar arrived later on 25 July and Khawaja a little earlier on 16 July - they attended later than the first batch you will recall. This chart is dependent upon records - passports and a system called PISCES which Pakistan had introduced only in the last two or three years and not at all airports. Accordingly the records may not be complete and may not cover someone - Amin may be an example - who has been in Pakistan on a long term basis.
As indicated above this information was gathered by the use of passport numbers and PISCES without the use of flight manifests.
J7 could also have detailed an even earlier report that appeared in the Times on 18 July 2005 which also revealed these flight details, and it would be interesting to know The Times' source for this information, particularly if the source was, as is likely, the security services.
Taking the PISCES
PISCES is a system set up in Pakistan by the FBI/CIA to enable live monitoring of passengers through Pakistan's airports. A Times of India report details the link between PISCES and FBI/CIA systems:
The Personal Identification Secure Comparison Evaluation System (PISCES), an automated border control system, is being implemented in 20 ports of immigration in Pakistan.
According to latest information, all points of entry and exit in Pakistan would have PISCES system by Dec 31, 2004.
PISCES is being installed in over a dozen high risk countries of the world at America's instance. However, in Pakistan's case, Timesofindia.com has detailed American plans showing that PISCES is being linked up to Pakistan's internal national information making the situation much more complex.
According to the Mission Performance Plan set by the US embassy in Islamabad, America is presently involved deeply in prodding and forcing Pakistani authorities to develop national intelligence and criminal databases which did not exist till 2001.
Surprisingly this database is linked to the PISCES border control system which is in the hands of US officials.
In the mission document targets, by 2004 end the PISCES system would be "fully operational and integrated with National Crisis Management Cell's intelligence and investigative database".
In 2003, the US embassy was aiming to develop "fully functional intelligence and investigative database" link between provincial Crime Investigation Departments and National Crisis Management cell".
And in 2003 itself, the American plan reveals: "intelligence and investigative database linked with other similar programs, including PISCES border control system."
Startlingly, only in 2005 will Pakistan assume "responsibility for continued operation of PISCES system."
Till then, the US counter-terrorism officials would have control over the sophisticated system that not only records details of every person leaving or entering Pakistan, but would also transmit these details to the central servers of FBI and CIA back in the US.
Details of PISCES installation are detailed in the Mission Performance Plan for 2004, prepared about a year after 9/11 in 2002, and in possession of Timesofindia.com .
Besides PISCES, thousands of closed circuit television networks are being installed across Pakistan.
Over the last two years US policies regarding Pakistan have been unfolding as scripted in the Mission Performance Plan for 2004.
An article on the implementation of PISCES in Malta in 2004 claims:
FBI may have its bugs on Malta’s arrivals and departures
The information on travellers collected by the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES), donated to Malta by the United States, is liable to be shared with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s database and other intelligence agencies, according to a report by the US Congressional Research Service seen by MaltaToday.
PISCES, a $1.5 million (Lm700,000) software package which forms part of the US Department of State’s Terrorist Interdiction Programme, is designed to monitor and restrict the movement of terrorists and other criminals across borders by making real-time comparisons of photographs and other personal details with the FBI database, and analyse traveller information to identify and intercept terrorist suspects.
Malta is in fact the only EU Member State to have allowed the installation of PISCES at all its transit points, namely Malta International Airport, the Sea Passenger Terminal, Ta’ Xbiex Marina and the Gozo ferry terminal.
According to a US Congress report seen by MaltaToday on Pakistan-US Anti-Terrorism Co-operation, PISCES can make “real-time comparisons of photographs and other personal details with the FBI database in order to track the movements of Islamic militants”, as well as containing data on worldwide bomb explosions.
Strange how such a major counter-terrorism system has failed to reach the ears or eyes of as senior a member of MI5 as Witness G:
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Right. Was there any system of record-keeping -- it wasn't the Border Agency then, I don't think, in 2001, 2004, 2005, 2003 -- but was there any system of record-keeping -- bare record-keeping -- of departures and arrivals at UK border points?
A. I'm afraid you'd need an expert from the Home Office or the Passport Office or whatever, but my view, based on my limited knowledge of these things, is that they were not, at this time, recording departures from the UK routinely of British citizens, but that is not a certain answer, Mr O'Connor.
Q. Right. Have you heard of something called Operation Theseus?
A. I have.
Q. Is that a system run by the Pakistani -- Pisces, I'm getting muddled.
A. I haven't.
Q. You haven't heard of Operation Pisces. So I can't ask you anything about that?
A. I'm afraid you can't, no.
Q. Right. I'll state the point, because, my Lady, I'm not being as clear as I might be. The proposition is that the Pakistani authorities, from at least 2002, kept a record of arrivals and departures through all the major airports, including Islamabad, which is the relevant one, and the Security Service has a close liaison partnership with the Pakistani authorities, doesn't it?
A. The UK authorities do, yes.
Q. Is it right that if you asked or instigated a request from the Pakistan authorities for information from any such system, you would expect it to be answered cooperatively by the Pakistani authorities?
A. I don't know, to be honest, Mr O'Connor. It would depend what the question was.
Q. This is not a highly sensitive piece of information to pass to the Security Service here, is it?
A. It really would depend on what the piece of the information was and how the Pakistanis felt.
Why would Witness G choose to claim no knowledge of PISCES in 2011, some 7 years after its implementation? Why would he choose not to assist counsel for the bereaved families by outlining what is commonly known about this system? Frankly, if Witness G is unaware of the PISCES system then he is in the wrong job.
Mr Eadie began the afternoon of the final day's hearing on Preventability by submitting a supplementary response from Witness 'G' into the proceedings which only led to more obfuscation of the issue about whether PISCES was easily accessible and how data from it was accessed in respect of Jawad Akbar's travel to Pakistan:
MR EADIE: Witness G, have you, overnight, had cause to have some researches conducted into what we are calling the manifest point?
A. I have.
Q. Is the product of those researches contained in a --
MR KEITH: It's on the system, if my learned friend needs it, at temp 2.
MR EADIE: Can we have that up on the screen, please [sYS-manifest document]? I don't know if we can blow that up a little. It's not very legible. G, I want particularly to focus, if I may, on paragraph 3 of that document, taking the rest of it as read, as it were. So far as that is concerned, is it your understanding that a formal request was made by the Metropolitan Police post-arrest in order to obtain details about Akbar's travel?
A. It is my understanding.
Q. What was the date on which that request was made?
A. June 2005.
Q. When was a response received from the Pakistani authorities in relation to that?
A. That was received in September 2005.
Q. Is that the date we see in subparagraph (d) of paragraph 3?
A. It is.
Q. In order to produce that result, had the Pakistani authorities simply gone to an airline and got the manifest details with a list of all the passengers?
A. They had not.
Q. What had they gone to?
A. They had interrogated their system, Pisces.
Q. What does that give you?
A. Pisces, as I understand it, is a central system operated by the Pakistani authorities which will offer a date and time of passing through immigration control for named individuals, not flight manifests.
Q. As part of that, as we see from paragraph 3(a), the form in which that request was made was by way of a request for mutual legal assistance, was it?
A. That is correct.
Q. The response that came back was, what? It was in the form of a statement, according to 3©. Is that right?
A. That's my understanding.
Q. That gave a flight number and carrier and route?
A. That is correct.
Q. As a result of that, the Met made further enquiries; yes?
A. That's correct.
Q. Those are set out in subparagraph (e) of paragraph 3. Is that right?
A. They are.
Q. As a result of that, because those enquiries were carried out after the 7/7 attacks, it was by that date known that Ibrahim was, in fact, MSK. Is that right?
A. That is correct.
Q. It was through that route, and that route only, that they arrived at MSK being on that flight?
A. That is correct.
Q. Could we go to the next page, please, on the screen? Is the point that is the core point that's being made in paragraph 4 that SYS wouldn't have had any reason, prior to March 2005, to make a any sort of similar request to the Pakistani authorities? Why is that?
A. Because we wouldn't have required that for intelligence purposes, unlike the Met requiring it for evidential purposes.
Q. What's the significance of the March 2005 date?
A. In March 2005, that's when we received the additional information from Mohammed Junaid Babar.
Q. If you had made a similar request, does paragraph 5 then set out the additional steps that you would have needed to take in order to achieve an identification result?
A. Yes, I think that's correct.
Q. Paragraph 6 looks, unless I'm missing something, to be something of a repetition of what we've already seen in paragraph 3: namely, the date of the request by the Met and the date on which the response was given. Is that right?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. Then in paragraph 7, you deal with the most likely mechanism for seeking to establish the identity of Ibrahim, which was through photographs. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. Rather than this sort of, as we now know it would have to have been, convoluted process?
A. That's correct.
Q. In any event, paragraph 8 is dealing with whether or not you had enough specific details at the time to make a sensible interrogation of the Pakistani authorities even assuming that time and everything else permitted?
A. That's correct.
MR EADIE: I'm grateful. Thank you, Witness G. [24/02/11 p1:19]
Witness G is claiming that a multi-million dollar system installed by the US could not have been accessed simply through searching for a passport number or a known flight number and/or date for the passengers that had passed through, despite all this information being stored by the system. 'G' also claims that this could only be accessed through the hard copy of Javad Akbar's passport which showed an entry stamp for 25 July 2003. This hardly answers how Mohammed Siddique Khan's and Shehzad Tanweer's flight details were printed in the Times just 11 days after 7/7, on 18 July 2005.
Not to be deterred O'Connor attempted one last time to clarify how PISCES could have been interrogated to enable the identification of 'Ibrahim' and 'Zubair' between March 2004 and July 2005. This exchange also reveals some of the assumptions that Justice Hallett is content to make over this issue and is a cause of concern in anticipating how she will rule and on what basis at the end of these proceedings, which should only be on fact and evidence not assumption. It also reveals some of the frustrations and tensions that have built up over 'G's extended appearance and the pressures that have arisen in the short time allowed for Mr O'Connor to make essential points to the Inquests:
Q. Finally, this gist gives us a helpful indication through other enquiries that were made about the time lag that in fact happened between the enquiry of the Pakistan authorities in June 2005, about Akbar, and the witness statement being produced on 6 September 2005. Do you follow?
A. I do.
Q. Query, do you allow the receipt of the formal witness statement may not actually reflect precisely the receipt of the bare information. It's possible that was communicated --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Wait a minute, Mr O'Connor, I'm sorry, I'm stopping you here. This was a request made by UK authorities after London had just been blown up.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Oh yes, yes, yes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: You cannot ask me to find as a fact that you'd have received the same kind of rapid cooperation if some kind of request had been sent years before in relation to somebody they didn't really know much about. I'm sorry, that is not a good point and I am not going to allow you to pursue it.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: My Lady, the point is, in fact, the opposite. This is my last question, my Lady, and I have a document to go to, so we're talking about, once I ask this question --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: All right, carry on.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: My Lady, may I explain why it's the opposite? Because it's the very fact that Akbar is in custody and the authorities had this information from his passport anyway, as this gist points out. So this enquiry was not actually urgent and, by contrast, the enquiry about Ibrahim was because he's free and potentially a threat. Does my Lady see the point?
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr O'Connor, unless I'm going to ask Witness G to take me through the kind of time-lag you get from requests to foreign countries we will be here for, I suspect, days. I have done a number of cases involving requests to foreign countries. I suspect you have too. And the response from foreign countries varies enormously, depending on the circumstances, both in our country, in their countries, and their response. I am not going to enable you to make a bad point without saying to Witness G: go away and get me the evidence about the average response time to an ordinary request to Pakistan.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: My Lady, I'm sorry, but the tension between us at this moment is entirely a result of the way this morning was very substantially expended without very much product. My Lady, I would like, please -- there is going to be no such explanation as you fear. There is one document which illustrates my point very simply and clearly. Can I ask for it to be put up, we'll see it and we'll see the time-lag?
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: You can ask for it to be put up, because I'm going to let you just have this one last piece of leeway. If you describe a tension, it is because parties -- wrongly, in my view, and wrongly in law -- have been treating these proceedings as if they are adversarial. They have been accusing Counsel to the Inquests of asking questions with a particular motive in mind.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: We haven't, my Lady.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Mr O'Connor, may I finish, please?
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Yes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: They act for me and they do not take sides, and if tension is arising in these proceedings, I attribute it solely to the way some parties have been treating these proceedings. So could we please all allow the temperatures to calm or to lower and for everybody's tempers to calm down and to focus on the issues which can properly be put to the witnesses. Right, you have two minutes.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Could we please have [iNQ9398-2] up,please? Could it be expanded? Do you see this is a Pisces answer to a request for information?
A. So it appears to me. I'm not familiar with these.
Q. You see that it is a reply of 22 August 2005.
A. Is that in the top right, Mr O'Connor? I can barely read it.
Q. I agree. Do you see "Available query particulars, query date 22 August 2005"?
A. Yes.
Q. And you see "deputy command", blah blah blah,"Islamabad, through Pisces via letter", blah blah blah, "dated 22 August 2005"?
A. No, I'm afraid I can't read the second bit, but I'm assuming that is what it says.
Q. That is what it says. Do you agree this query is very likely to have been sent after the 7 July bombings, there's no reason for it to have been sent before?
A. It is likely, but I do not know.
Q. If this answer -- I've asked Mr Hill to help us on this, and Mr Hill is nodding, my Lady, I asked him earlier today to save time -- but if this answer is dated 22 August 2005, it shows that there's a time-lag of some six weeks or so, seven weeks perhaps. Is that right?
MR HILL: Can I help?
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Thank you.
MR HILL: Request made on 1 August, answered on the 22nd.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Three weeks. My Lady, I apologise for going beyond the two minutes, but it has established something which is informative and takes us well, well, well beneath the four months appearing in this gist in relation to those other enquiries. That's all I ask. Thank you. [ibid p8:10]
Enlarge
This still doesn't explain how the Times was reporting this information on 18/07/2005 when the Metropolitan Police Service hadn't received this response until 22/08/2005!
In a final desperate bid to get clarity on the issue of being able to know - in the case of someone who is suspected of involvement with terrorism - their movements in and out of the UK without the use of intrusive action (as claimed by 'G' in point 8 of this witness statement) O'Connor makes an appeal to Justice Hallett for this question to be asked of the Security Services:
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: The ideal answer would be: with the passport number and date of birth of a terrorism suspect we can tag that passport number and name and date of birth on a computer system and, when somebody travels -- I know I'm not going to get this, but this is the ideal -- when somebody travels, leaves Heathrow and arrives in Pakistan, we know about it. Now, I can't be told all of that, but the thrust and common sense of it is: actually, we have a facility which is regularly used, which can easily be used, not intrusive actions at all, whereby we can monitor the movements of terrorism suspects. Now, my Lady's, I'm sure, got the point, it can be formulated much better than I've formulated it now.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: For a start, before anybody goes off with the idea that is the case --
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Yes, I agree. I --
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Pause. We don't know that that was the case back in 2004/2005, and we don't know whether the kind of actions you're describing do come within the kind of material which the authorities would rather I dealt with in closed session.
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: I understand. That precise, detailed information could well raise public interest immunity issues, but some piece of information, which will assist my Lady to reach a fair conclusion as to the facility with which that kind of tracking could be done at the time without setting out how it was actually done, and the way the state of play at the moment is, well, it's all disproportionate and may involve intrusive actions and really it's not really on.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Right, so the question would be: was there an ability to monitor the international travel of Mohammed Sidique Khan by name --
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Yes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: -- and passport number?
MR PATRICK O'CONNOR: Yes. [ibid p113:5]
J7 suggest that the actual answer as to whether a known suspect can be monitored on entry or exit from the UK will be a resounding 'Yes' - especially when travelling to or from Pakistan. That was, after all, one of the primary requirements for and functions of PISCES intended to benefit the Intelligence agencies. Where this information will matter is when DCS McKenna of the Metropolitan Police gives evidence about Operation Theseus on 3rd March as the final witness to face the 7/7 Inquests.
J7 asked in our submission to the Inquests quite how Mohammed Junaid Babar was able to enter and exit the UK at least 3 times without coming to the attention of the Intelligence Services. This brings us on to the issue of the FBI and possible CIA involvement in Operation Crevice.
The FBI
Peter Taylor Report, BBC News from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.
From 11 February 2004 an Executive Liaison Group met daily to discuss Operation Crevice, these meetings were chaired by DAC Peter Clarke. As reported by Peter Taylor in the news report embedded above, there was constant live intelligence shared between the FBI and their counterparts in the UK and we suggest this also included input into these ELG meetings. If Mohammed Junaid Babar was not working for the FBI in February 2004 what precisely merited the involvement of the US in what was perceived to be a domestic threat to the UK by UK citizens?
Part II to follow
Posted by Bridget at 2/27/2011 08:00:00 PM 0 comments Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz Links to this post
Labels: 7/7, 7/7 Inquest, FBI, Fertiliser Bomb Plot, London bombings, MI5, Mohammed Junaid Babar, Mohammed Sidique Khan, Operation Crevice, Patrick O'Connor QC
Friday, February 18, 2011McDaid Who?
"McDaid who?" would be the majority of people's response if you mentioned the name McDaid in connection with the events in London on 7th July 2005. Yet Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid is a name that has emerged recently at the 7/7 Inquests. Due in no small part to the following section of the submission on 'Preventability' that J7 prepared and dispatched to the Inquests' coroner and counsel:
HELL'S ANGELS, THE TARTAN TALIBAN, AND THE SBS
A former Hell's Angel who worked at the Iqra bookshop in Leeds, Martin Gilbertson, claims that the most vocal of all those he worked with was not any of the four accused but a white convert to Islam; ex-SBS soldier and anti-terrorist operative Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. Gilbertson said,
“Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid did most of the talking, most of the ranting and raving; and as an ex-Marine, he knew about matters military.”24
Given his background, McDaid has featured surprisingly little in connection with the story of 7/7. McDaid's apparent volte-face conversion from one of the highest levels of Defence of the Realm to 'radical Islamism', is still something of an unexplained and largely uninvestigated mystery. Also in close proximity to the four accused is another white convert to Islam, James McLintock, also with links to the Iqra bookshop. McLintock is a former fighter with the Mujahideen, also known by the Islamic name Mohammed Yacoub/Yaqub, and who has been arrested on separate occasions “on suspicion of terrorist activities”25, usually in the vicinity of Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
Have any of these individuals been questioned by police in connection with 7/7?
Gilbertson told a Guardian journalist,
“I spent a lot of time repairing their PCs, and clearing viruses they had picked up from Jihad websites, put there, I think, by the Americans. When the Jihad sites were closed down, they were often replaced by pornographic sites, again - I think - by the Americans. At one point, the police took McDaid's Laptop computer and stripped it down - I had to repair it. Naveed also had his home computer taken by the police, and I helped him build a new one.”26
In a separate interview with BBC Newsnight's Richard Watson, Gilbertson revealed that the seizure of computers happened in early 2004.27
Why has there never been any mention of the police seizure of computers from the Iqra in early 2004? When did this raid take place? What prompted the raid? What information and data was garnered from these computers and how was it acted upon?
Footnotes
24 'When I heard where the bombers were from I felt sick' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
25 Profile: James McLintock - Times Online
26 'When I heard where the bombers were from I felt sick' | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
27 YouTube - 7.7 London Suicide Bombers
Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid
Martin Gilbertson's claim that he was so concerned about the goings-on at the Iqra bookshop in Beeston -- a claim which played out in the media to include Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer -- that he contacted West Yorkshire Police in 2003 was thoroughly discredited by counsels to the Inquests, the bereaved and West Yorkshire Police. Gilbertson's statements to the police, one of which was taken over two days in a hotel because Gilbertson 'feared for his safety', and his testimony to the Inquests, came under close scrutiny and sustained attack until he was eventually asked by Mr Beggs, counsel for West Yorkshire Police:
Q. Is that because, Mr Gilbertson, the sad truth is that you are an egocentric self-publicist, a fantasist, exaggerator, speculator, irresponsible individual?
Source: Hearing Transcripts 16 February 2011
Afternoon, page 72 lines 18 - 20
Whether Gilbertson did or did not attempt to warn West Yorkshire Police in 2003 about the Iqra bookshop in Beeston is truly a red herring, particularly if information revealed to the Inquests during his testimony is correct. Hugo Keith informed Gilbertson and the public of the following:
Q. It's a significant issue, Mr Gilbertson, you must be aware, because although it's perhaps less important now because my Lady and the parties in these proceedings are now aware that McDaid was known to the Security Service and West Yorkshire Police since at least 1998, and suspected of being involved in extremist activities since then, you have alleged repeatedly, outside these proceedings, to the press and elsewhere, that you attempted to bring your concerns about radical extremism to the attention of the police.[ibid p52:8]
West Yorkshire Police and the 'Security Services' knew all about Martin McDaid and Iqra, so why the need for this farce? Instead of the media covering Gilbertson's 'warning West Yorkshire Police' over the 5½ years since 7/7, why haven't we been hearing about what they already knew and what they had apparently known for some 7 years before 7th July 2005?
When the BBC's Richard Watson was interviewing Martin Gilbertson for one of Watson's regular 'jihadi network' Newsnight pieces, why wasn't he asking about McDaid or at least contacting West Yorkshire Police or his many contacts inside MI5 to ask them what was already known? Why the cover-up and why the secrecy?
Martin Gilbertson interviewed on Newsnight. from J7 Truth Campaign on Vimeo.
Richard Watson reporting on BBC Newsnight 9th May 2007.
Mark Hargreaves, a youth worker who gave evidence to the Inquests prior to Gilbertson, described how he began working with Martin McDaid in 2001, as well as a previously unmentioned individual, Max Gillespie also known as Abdul Rahman:
Q. In your statement to the police, you describe how, when you did start to work with them at Tempest Road, you worked in a room in the rear of the building and you saw hateful, deeply offensive pictures and videos, and these were shown to you by the person you knew to be called Martin McDaid. Is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see where this material was coming from or where it was going?
A. As far as where it came was concerned, I have no idea, but there were a number of times when they told me they were travelling of a weekend to other cities to distribute this material to other Iqra bookshops indeed.
Q. When you say they told you, who were they?
A. That would be Martin McDaid and Max Gillespie, who was also known as "Abdulraqman"*.
Q. Did you gain any understanding of where precisely the material was being distributed, which parts of the country, for example?
A. Two that I recall clearly. One was Glasgow and the other one was Birmingham. [ibid p6:16]
Q. In summary, you describe in your statement how it was obvious to you that this individual, McDaid, was whipping up hatred. Is that a view that you adhere to now, you're still of that view, that that was what was being done?
A. Yes, definitely. [p13:4]
* the name given by Hargreaves was definitely Abdul Rahman
Rewind to the outlining of Preventability issues at the Inquests and Martin McDaid's name is first mentioned in connection with Beeston and Iqra by Hugo Keith on 2 February 2011:
My Lady, may I now turn to the issue of preventability? This issue concerns whether the atrocities on 7 July could reasonably have been prevented by way of some sort of intervention by the Security Service or the police, in essence the state. [p88:20]
.... West Yorkshire Police to a number of people, including a suspected extremist called McDaid on account of their joint attendance at a training camp in the Lake District in January 2001. Mohammed Sidique Khan had also attended the camp and a photograph was taken of him but a source to whom West Yorkshire Police subsequently showed the photo failed to recognise or identify him. Some time after the camp, in April 2003, McDaid was seen briefly to get into a car that subsequent checks established was a car registered to a Mr Sidique Khan of 11 Gregory Street. [p98:1]
This at least fills in some of the redactions (perhaps) in the ISC II report:
enlarge
Link
A joint West Yorkshire Police and MI5 operation named Operation Warlock was active in the area from at least January 2001. Although McDaid was known to MI5 and West Yorkshire Police as far back as 1998, the two people we can surmise from Inquests evidence that were under surveillance were Tafazal Mohammed and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid. This is the same Tafazal Mohammed that set up and ran the Iqra bookshop and learning centre at which ex-SBS McDaid was 'whipping up hatred'. Did West Yorkshire Police and MI5 really need Gilbertson's DVDs and evidence to know what was going on there?
According to the ISC timeline above, checks were carried out on Khan's BMW on 16 April 2003 after he was seen giving a lift to the 'known extremist' McDaid. Khan was assessed as having no significance following a two day joint West Yorkshire Police/MI5 surveillance operation, Operation Honeysuckle, which ran on 14/15 April 2003. By coincidence. or perhaps not, the very same date a camping trip run by Max Gillespie/Abdul Rahman, and attended by at least Tafazal if not McDaid also, took place:
Enlarge
Link
Were photographs taken of this camp in the same way that they were during the 'Operation Warlock' Lake District camp in 2001? Note that Operation Warlock apparently failed to identify Mohammed Sidique Khan, despite the image below, seemingly excised from video surveillance footage captured on a 3-hour long tape.
Information garnered during 'Operation Honeysuckle' was adduced in a summary prepared for the Inquests by West Yorkshire Police. The summary identifies 49 Bude Road, the Iqra bookshop and charity, and shows the association with McDaid is clearly known:
Enlarge
Link
The West Yorkshire Police summary also highlights that the charity registration details and the trustees of the Iqra charity were investigated. Mohammed Sidique Khan was an Iqra trustee in 2003, so once again his name was also known:
Enlarge
Link
Information passed to J7 revealed that the 'security services' tipped off a newspaper in 2002 with information about Martin McDaid. Although the original article is not available online, it was referenced in a Times article of June 2006 which examined Gilbertson's story:
Contrary to the government’s claims, this hotbed of extremism had not gone unnoticed by MI5. In early 2002 a source within the security services was sufficiently concerned about McDaid to tip off a journalist on this newspaper about him. The source alleged that young Muslims were being taken on outdoor pursuits courses as part of training for possible terrorist attacks. Inquiries were made but nobody in the local community was willing to talk.
The tip-off was that McDaid, the ex-Special Boat Service soldier cum 'radical' 'extremist' convert to Islam, was training people in the countryside. However, the security services refused to provide a picture of McDaid to accompany the story, suggesting that the security services were happy for the legend about a 'Muslim' 'extremist' "training for possible terrorist attacks" to be known, but without anyone being able to identify him by appearance. J7's source believes that McDaid's name (without an accompanying identifying photograph) was only passed to the newspaper to provide cover and credibility for McDaid within the local community.
From the ISC report we also note that between Operation Warlock (2001) and Operation Honeysuckle (2003) another operation began in late March 2003. This was Operation Crevice, which was to lead, a year later, to the arrests and prosecution of the 'fertiliser bomb plot', a prosecution in which Mohammed Junaid Babar played a central part by testifying against the accused. At around the same time (Spring 2003 according to the Metropolitan Police Service) Mohammed Junaid Babar was engaged in his second trip to the UK during which he apparently met with Mohammed Sidique Khan in Leeds. This was in April 2003 according to Hassan Butt. Who else did Mohammed Junaid Babar travel to Leeds to meet? Was Babar in the locality around the time of Operation Honeysuckle, the 14-15 April 2003?
Operation Crevice was initially and apparently an investigation into Mohammed Quayyam Khan aka 'Q'. J7 also highlighted the dubious credentials of 'Q' in our submission to the Inquests regarding issues of Preventability:
During the 2007 trial of the Crevice suspects, it was claimed that the mysterious figure known as 'Q'7, later identified as Mohammed Quayyum Khan, had recruited both Mohammad Sidique Khan and Omar Khyam; the latter of whom is the alleged ringleader of the fertiliser bomb plot investigated via Operation Crevice. Questions were asked after the Crevice trial regarding why 'Q' was not arrested along with the others.
BBC Panorama reporter, Peter Taylor, challenged DAC Peter Clarke with the following questions during an episode entitled 'Real Spooks'8, broadcast in May 2007:
TAYLOR: Why was 'Q' never arrested?
CLARKE: Decisions are made during the course of investigation based upon the evidence that's available, and the decision as to who should be arrested is based entirely upon what evidence is available at the time.
TAYLOR: Was 'Q' not arrested possibly because he was working for you or MI5?
CLARKE: I'm not prepared to comment on any speculation like that. It's pure speculation.
TAYLOR: Where is 'Q' now?
CLARKE: I said I'm not prepared to talk about 'Q'.
A simple, “No.” from Clarke might have sufficed if indeed it was the case that 'Q' had no connection to the police or security services.
Was Mohammed Quayyum Khan ever questioned or investigated in connection to 7th July? Why wasn't he included on the blacklists of al-Qaeda financiers
Footnotes
7 Bomb plotters' al-Qa'eda 'link' still in Britain - Telegraph
8 BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Real Spooks: transcript
Information about Operation Crevice contained within the ISC report directly linked Mohammed Sidique Khan to 'Q' through a number of July 2003 phone calls to a phone registered in Mohammed Sidique Khan's name to 49a Bude Road. 49a Bude Road is of course the address of the Iqra bookshop of which, in 2003, Mohammed Sidique Khan was a trustee.
So, the ISC's seemingly direct link may not be as direct as they suggest. The phone may well have been used as an all purpose phone on the Iqra premises, rather than a 'personal' phone used solely by Mohammed Sidique Khan. Khan may well have just happened to be the person who registered the phone on behalf of Iqra and the calls could have been received by anyone on the premises. Despite MI5's claims that the name Sidique Khan didn't match any on file -- even though his car registration was noted and traced to him on 16 April 2003 -- the 'Security Services' would certainly have known about and been interested in the address of the Iqra bookshop, particularly if they had been monitoring McDaid since 1998, and as a result of the names of the registered charity trustees they garnered from Operation Honeysuckle.
Did the running of two separate operations, Crevice and Honeysuckle, preclude the ability for either single operation to comprehend the bigger picture, or perhaps allow for State assets to operate effectively in the shadows of each surveillance operation? With all the various individuals apparently under surveillance as far back as 7 years before July 2005, yet none of them apprehended in time to prevent the events of 7/7, this would appear to be the case.
The Inquests will need to fill in some of the other redacted information in relation to 'Q' especially if this leads back to Junaid Babar or indeed Martin McDaid:
Enlarge
Link
Mohammed Junaid Babar - an FBI/CIA asset; 'Q' - an MI5 asset, and Martin 'Abdullah' McDaid, an ex-Special Boat Service anti-terrorist operative and 'convert' to Islam that MI5 were happy to tip off The Times about, all just one step removed from those accused of perpetrating the attacks of 7 July 2005... well, figure it out for yourself.
When considering the information above, it is worth bearing in mind that the Secret Services honed their modus operandi in the 6 counties of Eire. It is now known that many in the Provisional IRA leadership were in fact British agents. A previous Special Boat Service operative (the SBS being an elite regiment of 250 of the Queen's finest, in the same mode as the SAS) was John Joe Magee - the IRA's 'Angel of Death'.
As Gilbertson found out to his cost, 'only the truth stands up under scrutiny'. The same goes for MI5 when their chosen Corporate Spook is called to give testimony next week.
Rest assured, J7 will be subjecting their testimony to scrutiny!
"Truth does not fear investigation."
Posted by Bridget at 2/18/2011 02:22:00 PM 20 comments Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz Links to this post
Labels: 7 July Inquests, 7/7 Inquest, James McLintock, London bombings, Martin Gilbertson, Martin McDaid, MI5, Mohammed Sidique Khan
Monday, February 14, 2011A cat amongst the [stool] pigeons - Mohammed Junaid Babar
An article in today's Guardian asks some of the questions that J7 posed to the 7/7 Inquests when we sent our submission on Preventability to the coroner and counsel in July 2010.
In light of the Guardian series of articles regarding this issue, we reproduce below our submission listing the serious issues that arise from the role that Mohammed Junaid Babar has played in the events of not only 7th July 2005 but also the so-called 'fertilizer bomb plot', apparently scuppered by Operation Crevice, and also the incarceration of Fahad Hashmi:
CREVICE TRIAL
Without the testimony of 'Supergrass' Mohammed Junaid Babar at the Crevice trial, would there have been enough evidence against these men to merit the 40 year life sentences they received? Especially given the statement read on behalf of these men at the end of the Crevice trial explicitly denied that there was any plot to attack the UK:
This was a prosecution driven by the security services, able to hide behind a cloak of secrecy, and eager to obtain ever greater resources and power to encroach on individual rights.
There was no limit to the money, resources and underhand strategies that were used to secure convictions in this case.
This case was brought in an atmosphere of hostility against Muslims, at home, and abroad. One stoked by this government throughout the course of this case.
This prosecution involved extensive intrusion upon personal lives, not only ours, but our families and friends.
Coached witnesses were brought forward. Forced confessions were gained through illegal detention, and torture abroad. Threats and intimidation was used to hamper the truth. All with the trial judge seemingly intent to assist the prosecution almost every step of the way.
These were just some of the means used in the desperate effort to convict. Anyone looking impartially at the evidence would realise that there was no conspiracy to cause explosions in the UK, and that we did not pose any threat to the security of this country.
It is not an offence to be young, Muslim and angry at the global injustices against Muslims."9
WIDER CONNECTIONS
The section in the Provisional Index of Factual Issues entitled “Preventability” comprises by far the bulk of the index. Further, the bulk of areas outlined in points 13-23 relate directly to just two of the accused, Khan and Tanweer, and their interactions with others connected to Operation Crevice, notably, and mostly, Omar Khyam. There are wider connections over and above those between Khan (now deceased) and Khyam (serving a life sentence, received in no small part due to the testimony of the prosecution's 'star witness'14 Junaid Babar), featuring individuals that appear to create and facilitate links between disparate individuals and groups across continents, and we outline these for informational purposes below. Many of these individuals appear to have protected status in that they have either never been arrested or have miraculously evaded prosecution over a period of time when many lesser figures were rendered to the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.
Much is made of the failings of West Yorkshire police and the security services to properly investigate and/or assess Khan and Tanweer, particularly in the two years prior to 7th July 2005. However, there is an important question to be asked here:
How would Khan and Tanweer have known that they were not under investigation given the following facts:
29 March 2004: Momin Khawaja was arrested in Canada in the culmination of what was reported as a “a month long sting operation”
30 March 2004: Eight arrests were made of men who were known to Khan and Tanweer as part of Operation Crevice.
June 2004: news broke that the FBI had been holding Mohammed Junaid Babar in custody in New York since April 2004. It was reported that he was negotiating a plea bargain with the authorities.
Junaid Babar, a US citizen had being widely reported since November 2001, declaring support for the 9/11 attacks and announcing he was recruiting fighters to fight against US forces in Afghanistan:
As the TV camera rolled Mohammed Junaid Babar’s eyes shone indignantly behind nerdish glasses: “There is no negotiation with the Americans. I will kill every American that I see in Afghanistan, and every American I see in Pakistan.”15
Jon Gilbert, who conducted interviews with Junaid Babar, later mused:
“The conundrum still remains, though. Why did Babar talk to me so willingly in the first place? It’s a question that I’ve been asking myself for more than six years. Some suggest that he may have already been an FBI agent.“16
Despite making inflammatory and widely publicised pronouncements about being an Islamic warrior, despite seemingly declaring war on Americans, and despite his being a key facilitator in the alleged “terror training camps” in Pakistan (akin to the U.K equivalent of 'Q', Mohammed Quayyum Khan, also a part-time taxi driver), Junaid Babar appears to have been allowed to travel freely between Pakistan and the UK, as shown by the Operation Crevice timeline compiled by the Metropolitan Police17.
2001-2004
· Pakistani-born Mohammed Junaid Babar leaves his home in the USA, just days after 9/11 and travels to Pakistan to live
Spring 2003
· Mohammed Junaid Babar meets Omar Khyam and Waheed Mahmood in England.
January 2004
· Mohammed Junaid Babar travels to England and subsequently meets Omar Khyam, Waheed Mahmood, Jawad Akbar and Anthony Garcia
The results of a joint BBC Radio 4 File on 4 and Newsnight investigation also revealed that, “We understand that Siddique Khan was also seen with this man [Junaid Babar] in Leeds in 2003.”18
Hassan Butt, who first facilitated Junaid Babar's stay in Pakistan19, describes a meeting between Babar and Khan in Leeds, held after attending a barbecue to raise money for 'training camps' which is attended by a number of prolific propagandists and provocateurs for 'extremist' 'Islam'.
Butt reveals that after the jihadist barbecue he drove to Khan’s home near Leeds with another guest, Mohammed Junaid Babar, who would shortly become a supergrass. Babar’s testimony helped to secure the conviction last week of five members of the Crevice gang, who had planned to blow up — among other targets — the Bluewater shopping mall in Kent and the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London.
Although Babar describes the barbecue in his testimony, he does not refer to the drive north, nor to some of the guests named by Butt.
...
The host was a long-standing activist of Al-Muhajiroun, the group set up by Sheikh Omar Bakri in 1996
...
The guest list included men who were later to become notorious. Among them, claims Butt, was Mohammed Quayyum Khan, a part-time taxi driver from Luton who is alleged to have sent Mohammad Sidique Khan to the Malakand training camp on behalf of Al-Qaeda.
…
Butt, who had borrowed his brother’s navy blue Audi TT to get to the party from his home in Manchester, decided it was time to head back north. Babar asked to be dropped off near Leeds. ..
As the sun rose, Babar directed Butt to a terrace house in Batley, West Yorkshire, 15 minutes from the M1. A man in pyjamas came out to greet them. It was Mohammad Sidique Khan.
Butt had met Khan before. Babar had introduced them in 2002 at a gathering at Butt’s flat in Islamabad. Khan now recognised Butt and asked him if he wanted to come in.20
How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile? Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent? How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?
FOI requests to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office submitted by J7 have been refused in respect of attempts by independent researchers to assess this information.
On Babar's second visit to Britain, he stayed with Fahad Hashmi in London and left behind some waterproof socks and a pair of night vision goggles. Junaid Babar went on to become the State's star-witness for the prosecution in the Crevice and Khawaja trials, and his testimony also resulted in a 15 year sentence for Syed Fahad Hashmi, who had previously been extradited to the US from the UK on the basis of the “glorified camping equipment”21 that Babar had left at Hashmi's residence. This was then reported as:
Hashmi, who moved to Britain from Queens in 2003, allegedly allowed his London flat to be used to store supplies and money that Babar was shipping to Abdul al-Hadi al-Iraqi, then head of al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.22
Hashmi spent over 3 years under SAMS, extreme measures which included total isolation whilst facing a life sentence for this 'crime'.
Babar was also the source for the aluminium powder which featured in the Crevice trial.
The government would further prove that the defendant purchased and attempted to purchase the aluminum powder and ammonium nitrate that he knew would be used in explosive devices in the bombing plot in the United Kingdom, and that he did this throughout from December 2002 through March of 200423.
On 6th April 2004, Babar returned to the US but was not arrested or detained until 10th April 2004 when he was picked up by the FBI whilst on his way to a 'taxi school' in Queens, NY.
This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done? How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?
Footnotes
9 J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign - The People's Independent Public Inquiry into 7/7 - http://www.julyseventh.co.uk/crevice/crevice-imran-khan-statement-for-defendants.html
13 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA v MOHAMMAD MOMIN KHAWAJA [2007 FC 490] Ottawa, Ontario, May 7, 2007 [PDF]- http://www.icj.org/IMG/Khawaja-Evidence.pdf
14 Canada's anti-terror legislation vs. Ottawa's Momin Khawaja - http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/observer/story.html?id=1bc4587f-748c-45be-8668-116fdb57619b
15 The supergrass I helped to create - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1737411.ece
16 Ibid.
17 OPERATION CREVICE, Timeline and facts and figures - Metropolitan Police Service - http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/MPS_OpCreviceTimeline.pdf
18 BBC - Press Office - Newsnight/File on 4 investigation - http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/25/khan.shtml
19 Was CBS Duped by Radical Islamist? - http://www.aim.org/guest-column/was-cbs-duped-by-radical-islamist/
20 The jihadi house parties of hate - Times Online - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1752338.ece
21 U.S. student pleads not guilty in terrorism case - World news - Terrorism - msnbc.com - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18923836/38180585
22 Focus: Is the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun waiting to strike again? | World news | The Observer - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/06/terrorism.jamiedoward
23 http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/853.pdf
To reiterate some of the questions that J7 posed to the Coroner that now require urgent answers if we are to understand what truly happened on 7 July 2005, how it happened, why it happened, and who made it happen:
How likely is it that the joint intelligence services of the US and UK were not tracking Babar or Butt in the UK, particularly given Babar's high profile?
Which of these two individuals was being tracked and to what extent?
How was it possible that Junaid Babar was allowed to travel so freely between Pakistan and the UK?
[babar entered the US] This is just a week after the Operative Crevice arrests; was his work now done?
How did he manage to escape the 'no-fly list' to re-enter the US, given his well-publicised running and facilitating of 'terror training' in Pakistan?
Ms Gallagher has raised some of the issues presented in the Guardian articles during this morning's Inquests hearings. She spoke on behalf of Mr Foulkes, father of David Foulkes, who was interviewed by the Guardian and quoted as saying "the terms of reference of the inquest are too narrow to deal with such questions and thinks that it should be suspended while they are re-evaluated":
.. He's asked me to make clear that his concern is not that scope is too narrow and, indeed, the scope ruling fully encompasses the issue of preventability and it's going to be explored next week, but what he does want to ensure is that the inquest has all relevant information and is in a position to fully explore this issue, including the potentially new information referred to in the article and the material that he's seen. Mr Foulkes is, of course, aware that there are PII materials which we haven't seen. It may be that this wasn't a new issue to the Inquest team and to you, my Lady. It may be that this is covered in bundle A and bundle B, which the legal teams and the families haven't seen. But Mr Foulkes' concern is this: he wishes to ensure that the Security Services give a clear statement to the inquest: (a) that they're not aware of any basis for the suggestion that Babar had been an informant for the authorities for any country prior to his detention in New York City in April 2004; and (
that they've provided to the Inquest team and the coroner all information which they have in respect of Babar and US/UK communications in respect of him, and Mr Foulkes' comment to the press --LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As relevant to these proceedings.
MS GALLAGHER: Precisely. Mr Foulkes' comment to the press was intended to suggest that, if the Inquest team didn't have those assurances, then suspension might be required, and it's an understandable and defensible comment which he made at the time in those circumstances.
Source: Hearing Transcripts 14 February 2011 morning page 50 lines 22 on
Posted by Bridget at 2/14/2011 12:04:00 PM 5 comments Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz Links to this post
Labels: Fahad Hashmi, FBI, J7, Mohammed Junaid Babar, Operation Crevice, Shiv Malik, The Guardian
Sunday, February 13, 2011Colonel Mahoney, in Porton Down, with the flawed data
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."
- Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of State
We know there may exist unknown unknowns but, in the instances of the 7 July Inquests, should unknown unknowns form the basis of an open, just and transparent inquest process?
One of the most shocking revelations from these proceedings has been the fact that no internal post-mortems to identify the actual cause of death of the victims were carried out at the Resilience Mortuary set up in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company.
This shock was expressed by one of the first doctors on the scene from the BMA, Dr. Awani Choudhary, when giving evidence about his attempts to save the life of Gladys Wundowa:
Q. You've described your concerns about a possible neck injury. Is that what you meant by feeling that she was in immediate danger or did you mean something more by that?
A. More, I thought -- you see, I have felt her pulse, and by feeling the pulse you can have many, many information, and I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere, I have not seen the post-mortem report, but I thought that she was bleeding from somewhere, and I suspected that she is probably bleeding from either in her chest or abdomen, because her pulse was going very fast, and it was becoming weaker and weaker and, within 10 minutes, you could not feel her pulse near the wrist, but you could feel it just about near the elbow. So if the post-mortem says that she was not bleeding from anywhere, just had a spinal injury, I will be surprised.
Q. Can I ask you this: you've just mentioned bleeding. Do I take it from what you say that you mean internal bleeding?
A. Internal bleeding, yes.
Q. Since you ask about the post-mortem, can I simply inform you that, as with all the other casualties of the day, no internal post-mortem was conducted into Gladys Wundowa, so unfortunately, much as we would like the answers to the questions that you've asked, they don't --
A. I don't want to go through the medical too much. There are two types of shock a patient can have. What we call it, neurogenic, and the other, we call it hypovolemic. In the neurogenic pulse -- you see, the pulse will be pretty well, but the blood pressure will be low, you see, and in the hypovolemic shock, because the blood had been lost, it will be other way round, and I'm absolutely sure that she had had internal injury as well as a spinal injury, and I'm absolutely surprised that a post-mortem has not been done through and through.
Q. Well, Mr Choudhary, that isn't a matter to concern you.
A. Sorry.
Q. I was simply informing you so that we didn't chase any red herrings, but we don't need to concern ourselves about that matter.
Source: Hearing Transcripts 20 January 2011 morning Page 54 Lines 15 on
Before continuing, let us be perfectly clear about the exact role of a Coroner and the purpose of Inquests; it is to establish four things:
The identity of the deceased
When they died
Where they died
How they died
Back in April 2010 when the issues of the resumption and scope of the Inquests were being heard, Mr Patterson, counsel for some of the bereaved families, made it clear that the lack of internal post-mortems to establish cause of death had only just become known to them. The following lengthy section from the transcripts makes clear that this issue, along with the huge delay in identifying the deceased, was deemed by the families to be -- not unsurprisingly -- absolutely crucial to the scope of the Inquests:
As for this need for resumption, madam, the post-mortem examinations also arise as an area of concern for the families. In the case of Mrs Mozakka, for example, no post-mortem examination was held until 13 July, some six days after the bombs, and yes, of course the loss of life that was being addressed here was considerable, was unprecedented, but the question that arises is: could these post-mortems not have been carried out perhaps more quickly than they were? Are there lessons to be learnt? In particular, as to the post-mortems, we have now discovered from the scene reports that there were no internal examinations and, again, a question that arises is: why was the decision taken that there would be no internal examinations? Although the cause of death was clearly the explosions, the precise mechanism of death was not explored, and so that makes the question of survivability all the more difficult for us now and for the families when asking whether or not their loved one might have survived.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: If that decision was taken by a judicial officer, how do you say an inquest is going to explore that?
MR PATTERSON: It may be that your predecessor made that decision. I simply don't know. Doubtless, there were very good reasons, and it was carefully considered, but the fact remains that in looking now at survivability, we have to, for instance, in this case, assume that there were perhaps no internal injuries and that, therefore, sadly, this might be a case where this person was dealing with loss of blood and that Mrs Mozakka, for example, if she hadn't had any internal injuries that would have been insuperable, could have survived if the response had got to her quickly enough. We've read about tourniquets being applied and the like, and how often those very seriously injured did survive.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: I understand that argument. My question was how -- you said that one of the matters that you might wish to explore is why the decision was taken to have no internal investigation, and my question really was, how do you explore that aspect? It's one thing to explore what we do or don't know or what might have happened, given what we do or don't know, but it is a fact that no invasive post-mortems were held. If I am right in thinking that that decision was taken by a judicial officer, I just don't see how you end up exploring it unless you're going to ask to cross-examine him.
MR PATTERSON: I don't know what reasons were recorded at the time, whether they have been recorded somewhere.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: As far as whether or not -- as I see it, the aftermath can be divided into two categories. One is the response of the emergency services and whether or not that has impacted on people's chances of surviving the explosion. There's another aspect which you've just mentioned, which is: could the post-mortems have been carried out more quickly, are there lessons to be learned? Do you say -- which is almost a follow-on from the immediate aftermath, which is, what happens? Were the families notified quickly enough? Were the post-mortems carried out quickly enough? Could you help me on how you say those aspects impact or can be legitimately covered within the context of an inquest into the circumstances of the death as opposed to the circumstances of the investigation thereafter and the telling the families?
MR PATTERSON: I agree that there is a limit in the scope of the inquest, and the statute makes that clear, and the Coroners Rules make that clear, and clearly you have a discretion. All I can say in relation to those aftermath issues, where there is a legitimate argument to say that a line has to be drawn, and that they shouldn't be explored -- and, madam, we are realistic about this, and we know that, for instance, issues as to the way in which the family liaison officers communicated, it may be that some of those issues will be deemed to be beyond the scope of your inquest. We recognise that. It's a discretionary matter for you, and it may be that a clear, bright line can be drawn in relation to some of these issues by focusing on certain issues but not others, so that the recovery and the identification issues can be covered, the issues of the mortuary and the post-mortems can be covered, but that thereafter there may be a line that has to be drawn, and I recognise that and we are alive to that. All we would say is that this is a very good opportunity -- if you do resume the inquest, this is a very good opportunity to deal with those issues, if you take the view that they can be concisely and easily dealt with in the scope and in the course of your inquest.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: Even if I have a discretion, Mr Patterson, I'm bound to exercise that discretion in accordance with the law --
MR PATTERSON: Yes.
LADY JUSTICE HALLETT: -- and at some stage I would welcome greater assistance on -- you say that it might be a good idea to get these matters disposed of, but this is not a public inquiry; it is an inquest, if it's resumed.
MR PATTERSON: Absolutely, and we recognise that. Certainly, in the hours and days that followed the explosions, there were concerns that the families had as to the whereabouts of their loved ones and telephone calls that were made, enquiries that were made, didn't get the answers that it was hoped they would get and, for example, many of the families that I represent have concerns that, for instance, clear identification of the loved ones was found at the scene. In one case there was medication found with the name of the injured person, in another case there were identification cards found on the body. Yet, for many days, they were anxious and worried and telephoning hospitals and visiting hospitals enquiring into whether or not their loved one might still be alive.
Source: Pre- Inquest Proceedings 26 April 2010 morning page 73 lines 19 on
Despite the pleas of Patterson and the pleas of other counsels acting on behalf of the families, the issues of identification and recovery of the deceased were placed outside of the scope of the inquests. Instead, Mr Hill for the MPS offered to discuss with the bereaved how their loved ones were identified, but only outside of the official public inquest proceedings.
Why the Coroners in charge of the Resilience Mortuary, and who opened the Inquests into the 56 deaths, failed or actively chose not to carry out full autopsies to establish actual causes of death, which is after all the function of coroners, has not been revealed nor examined in any way. How can this be?
Whether some of the victims may have had injuries that with prompt hospital treatment were survivable - as perhaps in the case of Gladys Wundowa, who Choudhary pronounced dead in the courtyard of the BMA at 11.10, some 80 minutes after the explosion on the bus whilst University College Hospital was within walking distance - will likely never be known.
The setting up of a Resilience Mortuary was part of the 'Mass Fatality Plan' - drawn up after the events of 9/11 - and contracted to De Boer just the day before these events. The deaths of 56 people - 3 of whom had died in hospital - spread over 3 coroner's districts, hardly amounted to the significantly greater number of '500 or more fatalities' as envisaged and anticipated by the plan:
In drawing up the Mass Fatalities document, London Resilience needed to define clearly which organisation was responsible for which role. It was vital no gaps were left if a seamless plan to deal with 500 or more fatalities was to be developed. The author needed to source everything from body bags and transport to personnel and storage, but it was the need for large mortuary space that proved among the most problematic issues.
It soon became obvious existing mortuaries would not be able to cope with a large scale crisis. We needed blue-sky thinking. We decided temporary structures were the way forward. Quick to erect, modular, portable and highly flexible they became an obvious choice, and De Boer became an obvious supplier. Based in Northamptonshire in the UK, the company had already completed several contracts for the Metropolitan Police. De Boer had proved it could provide a relocatable building almost anywhere in London within a few hours’ notice. De Boer offered a managed solution, working with sub-contractors to create different environments required by different sections of a mortuary like temperature control, security, privacy, power, lighting, water and waste facilities. The company thoroughly understood our requirements and was able to meet exacting specifications.
PLANNING
The De Boer team spent months visiting permanent mortuaries and attending meetings with London Resilience to suggest a suitable structure and interior design to replicate the facilities they had seen. The unit needed to accommodate everything from post-mortem facilities to family areas and from body storage to canteen and offi ce facilities. When the bodies of British residents killed by the Asian Tsunami in 2004 were flown back to the UK, De Boer was commissioned through London Resilience to provide extra space at Fulham mortuary in south west London. It proved the plans in place could work and where they could be improved. Six months later on July 6, 2005, a document arrived at De Boer’s UK headquarters finalising what had been agreed for a future crisis response. Within 24 hours the plan was being realised and implemented with the creation of a temporary mortuary in the grounds of the Honourable Artillery Company near Moorgate Underground Station in central London.
Source: Crisis Response Journal (no longer on line)
Who took the decision to invoke the Mass Fatality Plan and construct a Resilience Mortuary at the cost of millions of pounds on 7th July? Why was the decision taken to implement a plan intended for upwards of 500 dead?
It is conceivable that the Mass Fatality Plan would omit full autopsies on the basis of time and personnel constraints in order to focus instead on identification - probably sensible when dealing with hundreds or thousands of deaths from a presumably known source (flooding, pandemic, etc), but was this necessary for 53 deaths? This important issue should certainly fall within the scope of the Inquests to examine.
Due to the absence of full post-mortems, the Inquests turned to the Ministry of Defence to construct models to show the probable fatal injuries and likely causes of death for those with no obviously fatal external injuries. This required another expensive process and a team was set up under Colonel Mahoney, defence professor of anaesthesia and critical care at the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine in Birmingham, whose previous experience included Camp Bastion in Afghanistan. Mahoney was tasked in August 2010 to lead an investigation into what happened to the 18 victims thought to have lived for some time after the explosions.
Q. The essence of your task, though, lies in recognising that it's possible to compute by reference to proximity to a given device the likely injuries that will result, all other things being equal?
A. It is, all other things being equal. Clearly, a real environment can be very complex, as we will be drawing out in a moment, but you can compute in terms of proximity to an explosion by understanding the size of the explosion, the characteristics of the explosive and the pressures and temperatures that that person was subject to, you can predict the likely injuries. Ideally, as we had with the military casualties, we would have an internal post-mortem to give us the degree of detail that we need to confirm those views, but even in the absence of that, you can make an informed judgment.
Q. That is why your view is to be properly expressed as a judgment, because you didn't have internal post-mortem material here which would have allowed you actually to see the condition of the lungs in each of the deceased?
A. That's absolutely correct. There are some people unfortunately, where you can look at the pictures and the environment and say, "I can feel very, very confident this person would not have survived and, in fact, would have likely died instantly", and there are other circumstances where we had to spend a lot more time reviewing the factors and trying to come to a balanced conclusion, and there there are no absolutes.
Q. It's important we understand, therefore, that you weren't asked to address the question of what was the cause of death in each case, because you were doing something different, which was to assess what was likely to have been the cause of death, because, of course, you had to use modelling and the other devices open to you because of the absence of internal post-mortem material?
A. That's right. Where we felt we had a clear cause of death, a particular injury that was demonstrated in the clinical documents, the external post-mortem report and that tied clearly with our views from the scene and the witness reports, we've highlighted that. In other circumstances, we've just had to come to a conclusion as to what was the likely cause of death, given the blast environment that we have calculated and assessed, but accepting the error bars that exist within that environment.
Source: Hearing Transcripts 30 January 2011 morning page 82 lines 14 on
The many caveats included in the final report of this modelling of the likely causes of death of the victims from a blast, included the crucially important, if slightly bewildering, caveat that there was no idea how the explosives allegedly used actually worked. We will ignore for now the not insignificant logistical issues regarding how it might be possible to allege that explosives were used whose characteristics were unknown:
MR KEITH: Colonel, may I now turn to the methodology that you adopted in this case by particular reference to the appendices and the structure of the individual reports? There are a number of methods, or there were a number of methods, open to you to assist you in reaching your overall view as to the likelihood of survivability, which was a likelihood based on the balance of probabilities. Is that right?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Firstly, there is, as we've discussed, past research on the effects of particular explosive devices and their construction?
A. Yes.
Q. Secondly, research on the likely effects on the body and its tissues and organs of the detonation of an explosive device?
A. Yes.
Q. In that regard, is it possible to compute through the use of highly advanced computers and modelling systems something known as blast loading, that is to say the effect on the body and its tissues of the detonation of a device?
A. Yes, you can. It has to be with caveats because we do -- as we did -- have to make assumptions, we had to make assumptions on the explosive output of the device.
Source: Hearing Transcript 31 January 2011 afternoon Page 1 Lines 2 on
The modelling of the blast zone and subsequent blast injuries used what was thought to be the equivalent quantity* of highly-explosive TNT to construct the models. TNT was chosen because the explosive output of the alleged home-made devices -- apparently based on hydrogen peroxide and an organic substance defined as 'piperine' -- was a totally unknown parameter and therefore could not be modelled.
So, assumptions are piled upon presumptions and houses of cards are built on shifting sands. These are the openly-stated unknown unknowns from which the bereaved families are meant to learn how they lost their loved ones. (* How the equivalent quantity of an unknown explosive could be reproduced with TNT when the very thing to which it is meant to be equivalent is declared to be unknown, is anyone's guess.)
The entirely unknown nature of the alleged explosives is not the only caveat contained in the final report produced by Colonel Mahoney's team. Others include:
Q. But your approach must, overall, be read subject to a number of caveats?
A. Yes.
Q. Firstly, as you mentioned, there was no invasive post-mortem in any case.
A. Yes.
Q. Secondly, the X-ray examination was limited, as you've just said, to fluoroscopy?
A. Yes.
Q. Thirdly, although you have photographic evidence, in some cases the photographs were difficult to interpret, for reasons I won't explore with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Fourthly, although there was some objective evidence as to the location of some of the deceased, there is a distinct lack of clarity as to where and how they were moved by the emergency responders?
A. Yes, and certainly in a crowded environment such as King's Cross there are -- some of the deceased, you can't be certain where they were within that dense crowd. [ibid p4:5 -25]
This point was driven home by Mr Patterson in questioning of the Colonel on the second day of his testimony:
I think it's clear from what you said yesterday, Colonel, that all these hundreds and thousands of hours that you and your team spent analysing these various issues, the work that you had to put in would have been a lot easier if you'd had the benefit of internal examinations. Is that right?
A. Yes, if we look at our military casualties, they have internal post-mortems and the majority of them have a post-mortem CT scan. So they have a complete, whole-body CT scan which looks for fragments, makes sure that there's no retained ordnance, but also means that you have a clear record of internal injuries.
Q. So, for example, if an expert like yourself or a family want to know about the internal injuries and whether, for instance, there was this leathering effect in the lungs that you spoke of yesterday, an internal examination might answer that, X-rays might answer that. Is that right?
A. We rely on a combination of both.
Q. We are denied both in this case, is that the position? We don't have either?
A. Well, the only information that we have evidence of is an external examination and the fluoroscopic examination which comments on fragments but does not comment on internal injury.
Source: Hearing Transcripts 1 February 2011 morning page 6 lines 10 on
Just how much more flawed data was input into this modelling process? After all, the modelling only became necessary because of the decision taken not to conduct full autopsies. One other extremely important factor to consider: the positions of the survivors on the trains -- no modelling was undertaken for bus victims -- which would be vital information to compute how injuries were dispersed within any blast zones. This lack of evidence required that the final report placed Phil Beer closer to the seat of the explosion than he was actually positioned on the Piccadilly Line train:
Now, to answer that categorically, what we would really need to see was the injury patterns in all the surrounding people and relate the injury patterns to that individual to those other injury patterns, which has not been part of our original instruction. [ibid p25:12]
A. If we accept our reasoning that Mr Beer was close to the seat of the explosion, based on the injuries that we've described and our initial reasoning that we think he had a high blast lung -- a high likelihood of blast lung because of the overpressure, that would push you more towards injury being -- survival being less likely. If you think, or there's evidence, that Mr Beer had a different chest injury, that would make survival potentially more likely. But on the evidence that we've got our -- my interpretation and the interpretation of my team would place him closer to the seat of the explosion than was indicated on the map. But to answer it -- to answer that appropriately, we'd really need to see an injury map of all the injuries around him or where the position you believe he may have been, and only then, by mapping all the injuries and the outcomes of people, can you say, yes or no, that's how the explosive products propagated. I can't be more precise than that. [ibid p26:2]
Ms Gallagher explores further in a testy session with the Colonel:
Q. Well, Colonel, it sounds as if we agree, because what I was going to put to you next simply was this: that despite the incredible and very wide expertise on the part of your team, the task that you were engaged in is necessarily an imprecise science, particularly given the imprecision and uncertainties in relation to the raw data with which you were working. So you could clearly, with precision, identify certain matters, but generally, you're working with a very wide number of variables, very complex, closed environments and where, as you've said yesterday, and again today, if you shift one of those variables, you can have a very different outcome?
A. No question at all.
Source: Hearing Transcripts 1 February, morning, page 43 lines 9 on
She then points to the caveats included in this report from Mr Hepper, the blast engineer on the team, on the extreme limitations of the modelling methodology absent of device and detonation details:
Q. So really what we're engaged in is a very nuanced discussion around your conclusions, which are based on this material and these variables, Colonel. In addition to the raw data received and relied upon, could I just also have on screen [iNQ10552-17]?
This is appendix A, so it's Mr Hepper, your colleague, Mr Hepper.
A. Yes.
Q. It's paragraph A4.3.6. This relates to the use of computational modelling to simulate the blast environment, and all I was going to say, Colonel, was that in itself carries its own caveats, which Mr Hepper refers to here. So here he refers to the work of Stuhmiller, and he says he "highlights that the possibility to validate these models is limited", and over the page, on page 18 [iNQ10552-18]: "... although the technology has progressed ... the confidence and fidelity of these models is still limited."
A. No question about it. [ibid p44:1]
Enlarge
INQ10552-18
None of the reports on blast lung explain the high incidence of electrocution experienced by so many passengers in the carriages, the subject of a future blog article. Nor do the reports cover how some survivors who were very close to the centre of the 'blast overpressure' survived without this injury (see passengers 56 to 60 in this bus diagram and Greg Shannon & William Walsh on the Aldgate train).
An expensive modelling process based on so many unknowns. Unknown explosives, unknown internal injuries, unknown survivor injuries, unknown X-rays. An expensive mortuary facility that failed to provide the basic information that the bereaved required, along with an expensive Inquest process that is failing to provide real answers to the key questions that it is the core function of an inquest to answer.
"If you want a more definitive answer on the injury patterns of closed-space bombings on a London train, then your task would be: look at all the deceased, look at all the living and look at all the injury patterns, and from that you'd have a more -- you'd have a greater fidelity of your model. But that wasn't the task."
- Colonel Peter Mahoney
Posted by Bridget at 2/13/2011 07:30:00 PM 8 comments Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Google Buzz Links to this post
Labels: 7/7, 7/7 Inquest, Colonel Peter Mahoney, De Boer, Honourable Artillery Company, London bombings, Mass Fatality Plan, Resilience Mortuary, TNT
Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom) 7/7 Inquests Blog Archive
▼ 2011 (10)
▼ February (6)
MI5 taking the PISCES - Part 1
McDaid Who?
A cat amongst the [stool] pigeons - Mohammed Junai...
Colonel Mahoney, in Porton Down, with the flawed d...
Tavistock Square & the second controlled explosion...
SIMply wrong
► January (4)
The notable absence of Hasib Hussain
Corporate Spookdom, 'plausible deniability' at the...
Something is happening here & you don't know what ...
Tavistock Square and No. 30 Bus witnesses come for...
► 2010 (16)
► December (1)
Jermaine Lindsay, a circuit board and plastic bott...
► November (8)
The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan
7/7 Inquests: Fiat Brava Foxtrot Tango
The Conspirators and the "Conspiracy Phones"
7/7 Inquests: Open Justice or No Justice?
July 7th Inquests - 'Life Extinct'?
7/7 Inquests: The Alleged Identification of Shehza...
7/7 Inquests: Danny Biddle, the Rucksack on the La...
7/7 Inquests: The Disintegration of Shehzad Tanwe...
► October (7)
The Strange Account of Ross Mallinson
The Curious Case of the Jag That Parked in the Day...
Behind the Scenes of the Aldgate Explosion, at 11 ...
Don't Mention The Fifth (or Sixth?) Man
The Final Curtain - "CCTV rich" to "CCTV FAIL!"
A CCTV Fuss About Nothing?
7 July Inquests: It's A Conspiracy, Stupid!
Share J7!
Share | Latest Inquest Blog Comments
On Feb 23 Bridget commented on cat amongst stool pigeons mohammed: "Patrick O'Connor to corporate spook 'G' on 23 February:16 Can I ask you a final question about Babar? You17 will be aware recently…"
On Feb 23 The Antagonist commented on simply wrong: "Good question. What are the chances of the IPCC ever ruling in favour of justice for the population at large, and against the injustices perpetrated…"
On Feb 23 gyg3s commented on simply wrong: "Does anyone from this group (J7) have any intention of chasing up the Independent Police Complaints Commission (or similar) with regard to the…"
On Feb 20 numeral commented on mcdaid who: "@Anonymous 5.17Many things are remotely possible. It is possible that Mamida Begum, the biological mother of Khan, is not dead and is the current…"
On Feb 20 Anonymous commented on mcdaid who: "@numeral 1.05 So you're saying that MSK's biological mother died years ago, that the DNA reference sample was taken from the wrong Mamida…"
On Feb 20 Kier commented on mcdaid who: "Anonymous, your gleeful declaration "I've been waiting for J7 Truth to have their '9/11 no planes' moment" sheds a lot of light…"
On Feb 20 numeral commented on mcdaid who: "Anonymous-Feb18-9.25 said:"Will you please explain to the sheep how a piece of Tanweer's shinbone become lodged in a survivor's eye if…"
J7: Inquests Blog Feeds
Posts
Delivered by FeedBurner
Most read this week
Colonel Mahoney, in Porton Down, with the flawed data
"There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some thing...
7/7 Inquests: The Disintegration of Shehzad Tanweer
As the Inquest approached the end of the third and final week of testimony and evidence into the Aldgate scene, as outlined in 'Factual Issu...
McDaid Who?
"McDaid who?" would be the majority of people's response if you mentioned the name McDaid in connection with the events in London on 7th Jul...
MI5 taking the PISCES - Part 1
Week 18 of the 7/7 Inquest proceedings from 21st to 24th February was scheduled to hear evidence regarding Preventability issues. The corpor...
A cat amongst the [stool] pigeons - Mohammed Junaid Babar
An article in today's Guardian asks some of the questions that J7 posed to the 7/7 Inquests when we sent our submission on Preventability to...
SIMply wrong
Back in October 2010, when DS Stuart first gave sworn testimony to the 7/7 Inquests (J7 analysis here) he told us that a phone belonging to ...
Tavistock Square & the second controlled explosion... of Richmal
New Zealander, Richmal Oates-Whitehead, died alone in her London flat, just weeks after the events in London on 7th July 2005. As a clini...
Jermaine Lindsay, a circuit board and plastic bottles
It appears that the King's Cross and Russell Square scene evidence will finish without examining any forensic or pathology evidence for the ...
The Identification of Mohammed Sidique Khan
Week 7 of the 7/7 Inquests drew to a close with the revelations of how Mohammad Sidique Khan was identified on Circle Line train 216 at Edgw...
Corporate Spookdom, 'plausible deniability' at the 7/7 Inquests
"The very grave danger is really as follows, entirely contrary to the interests of justice, that, as soon as any real probing questions are ...
-
Yes they reopened the case not surprising considering a toxicologist said the man was poisoned I suspect they consulted other experts. I searched Google News for "uwe Barschel" genf OR geneva and now three months later there is no evidence they confirmed Brandenbergers findings or that the investigation is on going. The only update seems to be that a TV station interviewed Barschel via medium. I was unable to make out from the translation if he said he killed himself or was murdered. But the journalist wrote The final report of the Lübeck prosecutor expressly leaves open whether Barschel died by murder or suicide. (As translated by Google)
http://www.ln-online.de/regional/2855469
Brandenbergers age is relevant because people mental faculties decline with age and 89 is a rather advanced one and his findings contrast with other obviously younger forensic experts who actually examined the corpse.
As for your age I said you were in your late 60s so you seem to have proveed my point peoples memories are fallible especially yours. But yes I made an arithmetical error you are in your late 50s. Your bio provides further evidence of the fallibility of your memory because it is quite unlikely At the trial the right wing media (smaller then)started attacking coroner Noguchi. They said he had had sex with dead Hollywood starlets ?!? Because he was called as prosecution witness not a defense one and Sirhans lawyers did not ask about him about the muzzle distance.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXI started this thread to talk about FALSE FLAG operations. If someone believes Israel never commits false flag operations,so be it. The comment,"OMG stop the presses an intelligence agency might have killed someone! That is totally unprecedented! "
,is very callous and shows an unsympathetic attitude toward the suffering of others.. The same person showed the same callous attitude towards the victims of the (False Flag OP,no JEWS involved,nope ,none) Bologna Bombing,which killed 85 people and wounded more than 200. Debating points are not human sympathy/empathy. The national bestseller "THE SOCIOPATH NEXT DOOR",by Martha Stout,is a good read. Im sure its a cheap download.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FROM TRUtv
One more issue remained, one that neither Noguchi, the LAPD, nor the witnesses at the crime scene could explain and one that continues to haunt theorists and historians of the assassination to this day. The shot that both Noguchi and the Los Angeles conclude killed Kennedy the one that entered the back of his neck, fragmented upon impact and lodged in his brain stem was fired so close that it left thick powder burns on the skin. Coroner Noguchi estimates (and the LAPD concurs) that the shot was fired at a range no more distant than one-and-a-half inches. Yet, according to all witnesses, Sirhan Sirhan shot in front of Kennedy and, as far as anyone knew, the senator never had the chance to turn his back towards his hunter.
Even though Noguchi remained tight-lipped and diplomatic at the time, in his biography that he penned a decade later entitled Coroner he wrote, "Until more is precisely known...the existence of a second gunman remains a possibility. Thus, I have never said that Sirhan Sirhan killed Robert Kennedy."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
From Andy Boehm
The Autopsy
Former LA County Chief Medical Examiner Dr Thomas T. Noguchi lost his job due
to allegations of "gallows humor", an unseemly thirst for publicity and
various managerial shortcomings. However, as a forensic pathologist, the
"coroner to the stars" always has received great respect from his scientific
peers, some of whom helped him deal with the Kennedy case.
When it became clear that RFK would die following the shooting, Noguchi made
the politically astute request that experts from the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology (AFIP) assist him on the autopsy so as to reduce the potential for
later controversy. One of these AFIP pathologists, Dr Pierre Finck, had worked
on the controversial autopsy of Sen. Kennedy's brother John.
Noguchi, his regular assistants, a photographer, the AFIP pathologists,
Deputy DA John Miner and a few LAPD observers attended what Noguchi called in
his book, Coroner (Simon & Schuster, 1983), "the most meticulous autopsy I had
ever performed." In a recent interview, Noguchi said that the findings he
released represented a consensus of all the attending pathologists and that
none of the observers has ever quarreled with them.
The autopsy revealed that RFK received two wounds from bullets entering
"underneath and slightly to the back of his right armpit." These alone would
not have killed him, nor would the third bullet, which passed through the back
of his jacket's should pad without hitting him. The fourth and fatal bullet
entered Kennedy's skull just behind his right ear. Soot on his hair and power-
burn "tatoo" patterns on his ear place the gun muzzle just three inches away
from Kennedy's ear.
Noguchi double-checked this distance by firing a similar gun from varying
distances at pig's ears, which are physically similar to human skin. Simply
put, a team of topnotch forensic pathologists concluded that Robert Kennedy
was shot dead from behind by a gun just three inches from his head.
Noguchi's hurried appearance at the Sirhan trial was nothing but "a
formality", he said. Sirhan's chief counsel, Grant Cooper, refrained from
discussing the autopsy in court, apparently fearing the effect of gory details
on the jury. Had Cooper pursued the matter, the jurors would have become very
perplexed, because every witness of the shooting placed Sirhan several feet in
front of Kennedy when firing his gun. Assistant maitre d' Karl Uecker, who
guided Kennedy through the kitchen and stood between the senator and Sirhan
told former Congressmember and UN Ambassador Allard Lowenstein, "There was a
distance of at least one-and-a-half feet between the mussel of Sirhan's gun
and Kennedy's head....There is no way the shots described in the autopsy could
have come from the Sirhan gun."
-
OMG stop the presses an intelligence agency might have killed someone! That is totally unprecedented! No, no it a Joooo thing only those sneaky Jooooz would do such a thing. The article is far from conclusive:
According to a 1998 LYbeck prosecutor's investigation, there were "discrepancies" in Ostrovsky's account that did not provide credibility for his theory that the Mossad was responsible for Barschel's death.
The toxicologist was 89 when he wrote his paper 23 years after the mans death but the Swiss authorities - including a number of forensic experts - concluded that the 43-year-old Barschel committed suicide by taking sleep medication.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaM8eShHs8c&playnext=1&list=PL560586CF244320D1
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The public prosecutors office in Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, announced on Monday that it plans to reopen the Barschel case. REOPEN ...REOPEN ...why mention age ?? subtle ageism of Colby ??
BTW PS In my Bio is a way to get my correct age ( Im not late 70s as ageist Colby posted in another thread). In said thread I said ,"see bio below", before Colby gave my incorrect age. Golly Colby just 'loves' to dis us old folks.
SG
-
Lyrics to Ella's scat version of One Note Samba
doo-dat-doo-doo-da-da-da.......
There is a great line from that song (as translated by Tom Jobim who also wrote the music)
“There are so many people who can talk and talk and talk and just say nothing or nearly nothing”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX So your response is a non-denial denial ????
NOV 25,2010
Berlin paper blames Mossad for assassinating Uwe Barschel in 1987 because of his supposed knowledge of Israeli-Iranian arms deals.
BERLIN – Swiss chemical professor Hans Brandenberger has issued a report that appears to lay a scientific basis for the theory developed by a self-identified former Mossad agent that an Israeli hit team assassinated scandal-plagued German politician Uwe Barschel in his Geneva hotel room in 1987.
Under this scenario, Barschel was killed because of his knowledge of illegal Israeli-Iranian arms trading, according to a lengthy article on Sunday in the Berlin-based Welt am Sonntag newspaper.
The paper’s headline read “New lead in the case of Barschel. Trace leads to Mossad” and drew parallels between the contentions of the former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky, and the report issued by forensic specialist Brandenberger.
The 89-year-old toxicologist said “the chemical findings indicate a murder…. Because of the complexity of the murder it must be assumed that a professional hit team, and not an individual, was at work.”
Ostrovsky wrote in his 1994 book The Other Side of Deception: A Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad’s Secret Agenda that Uwe Barschel was killed by a five-man Israeli assassination team.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor issued a statement to the German news service DPA on Monday, saying “There’s no basis on which one could connect Israel to this case.”
In terms of a new German investigation, Palmor said, “It’s not up to us to tell the German authorities what they should do or not do.”
Palmor dismissed Ostrovsky’s contentions, saying “Half of what he says is lies, and the other half is invented.”
Uwe Barschel was a member of the Christian Democratic Union and was governor of Schleswig- Holstein from 1982-1987. Engulfed in a political scandal because of his involvement in a mudslinging campaign against his opponent, Barschel resigned in 1987. Though Barschel denied participation in discrediting his Social Democratic opponent, it was revealed that he played a role in the campaign attacks.
The Swiss authorities – including a number of forensic experts – concluded that the 43-year-old Barschel committed suicide by taking sleep medication in Geneva’s Beau-Rivage hotel, where he was found dead in the bathtub.
Brandenberger argues in his pathology report that the killers gave Barschel powerful sedatives and then a lethal cocktail of drugs. According to Brandenberger, his report is based on an analysis of tissue and organs detailing the trajectory and timing of the several drugs.
Germany’s media and legal system have pursued leads over the years to determine if Barschel’s death was a suicide or the result of foul play. The case has become something of an obsession over the years among German media and authorities. Brandenberger’s report is now fueling wild conspiracy theories about Israel in the blogosphere.
The public prosecutor’s office in Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, announced on Monday that it plans to reopen the Barschel case. According to a 1998 Lübeck prosecutor’s investigation, there were “discrepancies” in Ostrovsky’s account that did not provide credibility for his theory that the Mossad was responsible for Barschel’s death
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-
WHO ? Tricked US into Bombing Libya
WHO ? piss...its no 
secret The Other Side of Deception by Victor Ostrovsky
{p. 32} It seemed that the whole building was going berserk. Everybody and his dog were looking for information that could stop Jordan's King Hussein's efforts for a peace initiative. ...
The American Jewish community was divided into a three-stage action team. First were the individual sayanim (if the situation had been reversed and the United States had convinced Americans working in Israel to work secretly on behalf of the United States, they would be treated as spies by the Israeli government). Then there was the large pro-Israeli lobby. It would mobilize the Jewish community in a forceful effort in whatever direction the Mossad pointed them. And last was B'nai Brith. Members of that organization could be relied on to make friends among non-Jews and tarnish as anti-Semitic whomever they couldn't sway to the Israeli cause. With that sort of one-two-three tactic, there was no way we could strike out.
{p. 113} "It's the old Trojan dick trick." He lit a cigarette.
"What's that?" I couldn't help smiling; I'd never heard it called that before.
"I knew that would get your attention," he said, grinning. "Shimon activated Operation Trojan in February of this year." {the only Shimon in the index is Shimon Peres}
I nodded. I'd still been in the Mossad when that order was given, and because of my naval background and acquaintance with most of the commanders in the navy, I participated in the planning for the operation as liaison with the navy.
A Trojan was a special communication device that could be planted by naval commandos deep inside enemy territory. The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP {footnote: LAP: LohAma Psicologit. Psychological warfare, or, as it's known in the West, disinformation}, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations. Originating from an IDF navy ship out at sea, the prerecorded digital transmissions could be picked up only by the Trojan. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another frequency, one used for official business in the enemy country, at which point the transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.
The listeners would have no doubt they had intercepted a genuine communication, hence the name Trojan, reminiscent of the mythical Trojan horse. Further, the content of the messages, once deciphered, would confirm information from other intelligence sources, namely the Mossad. The only catch was that the Trojan itself would have to be located as close as possible to the normal origin of such transmissions, because of the sophisticated methods of triangulation the Americans and others would use to verify the source.
In the particular operation Ephraim was referring to, two elite units in the military had been made responsible for the delivery of the Trojan device to the proper location. One was the Matkal {footnote: Matkal: Top military reconnaissance unit of the Israeli army} reconnaissance unit and the other was Flotilla 13, the naval commandos. The
{p. 114} commandos were charged with the task of planting the Trojan device in Tripoli, Libya.
On the night of February 17-18, two Israeli missile boats, the SAAR 4-class Moledet, armed with Harpoon and Gabriel surface-to-surface missiles, among other weaponry, and the Geula, a Hohit-class mlsslle boat with a helicopter pad and regular SAAR 4-class armament, conducted what seemed like a routine patrol of the Mediterranean, heading for the Sicilian channel and passing just outside the territorial waters of Libya. Just north of Tripoli, the warships, which were visible to radar both in Tripoli and on the Italian island of Lampedusa, slowed down to about four knots - just long enough to allow a team of twelve naval commandos in four wet submarines nicknamed "pigs" and two low-profiled speedboats called "birds" to disembark. The pigs could carry two commandos each and all their fighting gear. The birds, equipped with an MG 7.62-caliber machine gun mounted over the bow and an array of antitank shoulder-carried missiles, could facilitate six commandos each, while towing the empty pigs. The birds brought the pigs as close to the shore as possible, thus cutting down the distance the pigs would have to travel on their own. (The pigs were submersible and silent but relatively slow.)
Two miles off the Libyan coast, the lights of Tripoli could be seen glistening in the southeast. Eight commandos slipped quietly into the pigs and headed for shore. The birds stayed behind at the rendezvous point, ready to take action should the situation arise. Once they reached the beach, the commandos left their cigar-like transporters submerged in the shallow water and headed inland, carrying a dark green Trojan cylinder six feet long and seven inches in diameter. It took two men to carry it.
A gray van was parked on the side of the road about one hundred feet from the water, on the coastal highway leading from Sabratah to Tripoli and on to Benghazi. There was hardly any traffic at that time of night. The driver of the van seemed to be repairing a flat tire. He stopped working as the team approached and opened the back doors of the van. He was a Mossad combatant. Without a word said, four of the men entered the van and headed for the city. The other four returned to the water, where they took a defensive position by the submerged pigs. Their job was to hold this position to ensure an escape route for the team now headed for the city.
At the same time, a squadron of Israeli fighters was refueling south of Crete, ready to assist. They were capable of keeping any ground forces away from the commandos, allowing them a not-so clean getaway. At this point, the small commando unit was divided {p. 115} into three details - its most vulnerable state. Were any of the details to run into enemy forces, they were instructed to act with extreme prejudice before the enemy turned hostile.
The van parked at the back of an apartment building on Al Jamhuriyh Street in Tripoli, less than three blocks away from the Bab al Azizia barracks that were known to house Qadhafi's headquarters and residence. By then, the men in the van had changed into civilian clothing. Two stayed with the van as lookouts and the other two helped the Mossad combatant take the cylinder to the top floor of the five-story building. The cylinder was wrapped in a carpet.
In the apartment, the top section of the cylinder was opened and a small dishlike antenna was unfolded and placed in front of the window facing north. The unit was activated, and the Trojan horse was in place.
The Mossad combatant had rented the apartment for six months and had paid the rent in advance. There was no reason for anyone except the combatant to enter the apartment. However, if someone should decide to do so, the Trojan would self-destruct, taking with it most of the upper part of the building. The three men headed back to the van and to their rendezvous with their friends on the beach.
After dropping the commandos at the beach, the combatant headed back for the city, where he would monitor the Trojan unit for the next few weeks. The commandos wasted no time and headed out to sea. They didn't want to be caught in Libyan waters at daybreak. They reached the birds and headed at full speed to a prearranged pickup coordinate, where they met with the missile boats that had brought them in.
By the end of March, the Americans were already intercepting messages broadcast by the Trojan, which was only activated during heavy communication traffic hours. Using the Trojan, the Mossad tried to make it appear that a long series of terrorist orders were being transmitted to various Libyan embassies around the world (or, as they were called by the Libyans, Peoples' Bureaus). As the Mossad had hoped, the transmissions were deciphered by the Americans and construed as ample proof that the Libyans were active sponsors of terrorism. What's more, the Americans pointed out, Mossad reports confirmed it.
The French and the Spanish, though, were not buying into the new stream of information. To them, it seemed suspicious that suddenly, out of the blue, the Libyans, who'd been extremely careful in the past, would start advertising their future actions. They also found it suspicious that in several instances Mossad reports were worded similarly
{p. 116} to coded Libyan communications. They argued further that, had there truly been after-the-fact Libyan communications regarding the attack, then the terrorist attack on the La Belle discotheque { La Belle discotheque: The terrorist attack on this location was said to have been linked to the Libyans and was the catalyst for the April 14 bombing of Libya by the Americans} in West Berlin on April 5 could have been prevented, since surely there would have been communications before, enabling intelligence agencies listening in to prevent It. Since the attack wasn't prevented, they reasoned that it must not be the Libyans who did it, and the "new communications" must be bogus. The French and the Spanish were right. The information was bogus, and the Mossad didn't have a clue who planted the bomb that killed one American serviceman and wounded several others. But the Mossad was tied in to many of the European terrorist organizations, and it was convinced that in the volatile atmosphere that had engulfed Europe, a bombing with an American victim was just a matter of time Heads of the Mossad were counting on the American promise to retaliate with vengeance against any country that could be proven to support terrorism. The Trojan gave the Americans the proof they needed. The Mossad also plugged into the equation Qadhafi's lunatic image and momentous declarations, which were really only meant for internal consumption. It must be remembered that Qadhafi had marked a line in the water at that time, closing off the Gulf of Sidra as Libyan territorial waters and calling the new maritime border the line of death (an action that didn't exactly give him a moderate image). Ultimately, the Americans fell for the Mossad ploy head over heels dragging the British and the Germans somewhat reluctantly in with them. Operation Trojan was one of the Mossad's greatest successes. It brought about the air strike on Libya that President Reagan had promised - a strike that had three important consequences. First, it derailed a deal for the release of the American hostages in Lebanon, thus preserving the Hizballah (Party of God) as the number one enemy in the eyes of the West. Second, it sent a message to the entire Arab world, telling them exactly where the United States stood regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Third, it boosted the Mossad's image of itself, since it was they who, by ingenious sleight of hand, had prodded the United States to do what was right. It was only the French who didn't buy into the Mossad trick and
{p. 117} were determined not to ally themselves with the aggressive American act. The French refused to allow the American bombers to fly over their territory on their way to attack Libya.
On April 14, 1986, one hundred and sixty American aircraft dropped over sixty tons of bombs on Libya. The attackers bombed Tripoli international airport, Bab al Azizia barracks, Sidi Bilal naval base, the city of Benghazi, and the Benine airfield outside Benghazi. The strike force consisted of two main bodies, one originating in England and the other from flattops in the Mediterranean. From England came twenty-four F-111s from Lakenheath, five EF-111s from Upper Heyford, and twenty-eight refueling tankers from Mildenhall and Fairford. In the attack, the air force F-111s and the EF-111s were joined by eighteen A-6 and A-7 strike and strike support aircraft, six F\A-18 fighters, fourteen EA-6B electronic jammer planes, and other support platforms. The navy planes were catapulted from the carriers Coral Sea and America. On the Libyan side, there were approximately forty civilian casualties, including Qadhafi's adopted daughter. On the American side, a pilot and his weapons officer were killed when their F-111 exploded.
After the bombing, the Hizballah broke off negotiations regarding the hostages they held in Beirut and executed three of them, including one American named Peter Kilburn. As for the French, they were rewarded for their nonparticipation in the attack by the release at the end of June of two French journalists held hostage in Beirut. (As it happened, a stray bomb hit the French embassy in Tripoli during the raid.)
Ephraim had spelled it all out for me and confirmed some of the information I'd already known. He then went on. "After the bombing of Libya, our friend Qadhafi is sure to stay out of the picture for some time. Iraq and Saddam Hussein are the next target. We're starting now to build him up as the big villain. It will take some time, but in the end, there's no doubt it'll work."
"But isn't Saddam regarded as moderate toward us, allied with Jordan, the big enemy of Iran and Syria?"
"Yes, that's why I'm opposed to this action. But that's the directive, and I must follow it. Hopefully, you and I will be done with our little operation before anything big happens. After all, we have already destroyed his nuclear facility, and we are making money by selling him technology and equipment through South Africa."
{p. 254} In the following weeks, more and more discoveries were made regarding the big gun and other elements of the Saddam war machine. The Mossad had all but saturated the intelligence field with information regarding the evil intentions of Saddam the Terrible, banking on the fact that before long, he'd have enough rope to hang himself. It was very clear what the Mossad's overall goal was. It wanted the West to do its bidding, just as the Americans had in Libya with the bombing of Qadhafi. After all, Israel didn't possess carriers and ample air power, and although it was capable of bombing a refugee camp in Tunis, that was not the same. The Mossad leaders knew that if they could make Saddam appear bad enough and a threat to the Gulf oil supply, of which he'd been the protector up to that point, then the United States and its allies would not let him get away with anything, but would take measures that would all but eliminate his army and his weapons potential, especially if they were led to believe that this might just be their last chance before he went nuclear
-
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=47&contentid=7886 cancer in vaccines BELOW AT BOTTOM Ive placed three PUB MED references that add to this video. Polio vaccine was sent to Russia.
http://www.amazon.com/Mary-Ferrie-Monkey-Virus-Underground/dp/0964398125 lots of bucks. Maybe someone bought them up? If so ,who would that be ? wow I got 2 of these books (one signed). sg
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
http://www.amazon.com/Virus-Vaccine-Contaminated-Cancers-Government/dp/0312342721/ref=pd_cp_b_2
Amazon.com Review
Past tragedies caused by "miracle drugs" have taught the public to approach cures with caution, and vaccines, in particular, have come under public scrutiny. In The Virus and the Vaccine, journalists Debbie Bookchin and Jim Schumacher uncover the true tale of the polio vaccine and its past and present dangers. Like many medical detective stories before it, this book starts with a chilling anecdote, then flashes back to slowly set the stage for disaster. Baby boomers who only know Jonas Salk and his virus-fighting colleagues as heroes will be disturbed at how some of them downplayed concerns about a monkey virus called SV40 that was present in the polio vaccine. The links between SV40 and human cancer took a long time to define, and breakthroughs in molecular biology made the job more realistic in later decades. Nevertheless, Bookchin and Schumacher argue that a biased scientific bureaucracy in combination with a desperate public and money-hungry pharmaceutical! companies fostered the use of a vaccine that may have increased cancer risk. "The vast majority of baby boomers--almost all of whom received polio vaccine in the late 1950s and early 1960s--have potentially been exposed to the virus," they write. But baby boomers aren't the only ones at risk. The authors reveal that Lederle Laboratories continued to produce potentially contaminated oral polio vaccines well into the 1990s. Although the authors point fingers of blame at some specific targets, they carefully balance their accusations with reminders that public demands for cures must be balanced with careful assessment of new medical treatments. --Therese Littleton --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
From Publishers Weekly
Journalists Bookchin and Schumacher argue that for nine years, from 1954 to 1963, almost every dose of polio vaccine produced in the worldâ€"and the 98 million Americans who received polio vaccinationsâ€"was contaminated with a cancer-causing virus from the monkey kidneys used to develop the vaccine. Although the polio vaccine developed by Dr. Jonas Salk virtually ended polio as a threatening disease, the authors detail how "the screening techniques and observation periods that Salk and the vaccine manufacturers employed were not capable of always catching the contaminants." This sordid story spells out how repeated research studies showing that the "SV40" virus was in the vaccine were dismissed by federal health officials, so that "there would be no warning to consumers that the vaccine they and their children were receiving contained a live monkey virus whose effect on humans was entirely unknown." In the second part, the authors contend that even today such organizations as the National Institutes of Health continue to dismiss study results, even though numerous studies have shown that SV40 is capable of causing cancer in humans. The final and most horrific part of the story reports that Lederle Laboratories, the sole oral vaccine supplier in the U.S. from 1977 onward, continued to use monkey kidneys possibly infected by the SV40 virus in its manufacturing process until oral polio vaccine was removed from the market as late as January 2000. This meticulously researched, levelheaded and well-written book should stir up considerable debate. Because the authors never become alarmist, this solid work of investigative reporting carries considerable weight, and deserves to be read by a large audience.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Bull Exp Biol Med. 2009 Dec;148(6):924-6.
Epidemiology of SV-40 simian virus in different regions of the Russian federation.
Lapin BA, Chikobava MG.
Institute of Medical Primatology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, SochiAdler, Russia. blapin@yandex.ru
Abstract
Multiplication of poliomyelitis virus for vaccine production in 1955-1961 was realized in kidney cell culture from M. rhesus naturally infected with SV-40 simian virus. Hence, some lots of the vaccine were contaminated with this virus. It was found that SV-40 is oncogenic for laboratory rodents. Since 1963, in accordance with WHO recommendation, green monkey kidneys containing no SV-40 were used instead of M. rhesus kidneys. Overall vaccination of the population with poliomyelitis vaccine in 1955-1961 led to infection of many humans in Russia and many foreign countries with SV-40. The possibility of horizontal transmission of the virus was demonstrated. As a result, virus (its DNA sequences) was detected in individuals who were never vaccinated. Hundreds of reports, often contradictory, discuss this problem. Our study is based on the analyses of 460 blood specimens from subjects living in different regions of Russia (Krasnodar region, Moscow, Novosibirsk region, Krasnoyarsk territory). The percent of individuals infected with SV-40 varies from 16 to 49%.
PMID: 21116508 [PubMed - in process]
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
J Virol. 2009 Apr;83(7):3402-6. Epub 2009 Jan 7.
Evolution of the Sabin vaccine into pathogenic derivatives without appreciable changes in antigenic properties: need for improvement of current poliovirus surveillance.
Yakovenko ML, Korotkova EA, Ivanova OE, Eremeeva TP, Samoilovich E, Uhova I, Gavrilin GV, Agol VI.
M. V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119899, Russia.
Abstract
The Sabin oral polio vaccine (OPV) may evolve into pathogenic viruses, causing sporadic cases and outbreaks of poliomyelitis. Such vaccine-derived polioviruses (VDPV) generally exhibit altered antigenicity. The current paradigm to distinguish VDPV from OPV and wild polioviruses is to characterize primarily those poliovirus isolates that demonstrate deviations from OPV in antigenic and genetic intratypic differentiation (ITD) tests. Here we report on two independent cases of poliomyelitis caused by VDPVs with "Sabin-like" properties in several ITD assays. The results suggest the existence of diverse pathways of OPV evolution and necessitate improvement of poliovirus surveillance, which currently potentially misses this class of VDPV.
PMID: 19129444 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]PMCID: PMC2655595Free PMC Article
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
2.Cancer Cell Int. 2010 Feb 23;10:4.
Transformation of SV40-immortalized human uroepithelial cells by 3-methylcholanthrene increases IFN- and Large T Antigen-induced transcripts.
Crosby LM, Moore TM, George M, Yoon LW, Easton MJ, Ni H, Morgan KT, DeAngelo AB.
Environmental Carcinogenesis Division, National Health Effects and Environmental Research Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, USA. lcrosby@uthsc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Simian Virus 40 (SV40) immortalization followed by treatment of cells with 3-methylcholanthrene (3-MC) has been used to elicit tumors in athymic mice. 3-MC carcinogenesis has been thoroughly studied, however gene-level interactions between 3-MC and SV40 that could have produced the observed tumors have not been explored. The commercially-available human uroepithelial cell lines were either SV40-immortalized (HUC) or SV40-immortalized and then 3-MC-transformed (HUC-TC).
RESULTS: To characterize the SV40 - 3MC interaction, we compared human gene expression in these cell lines using a human cancer array and confirmed selected changes by RT-PCR. Many viral Large T Antigen (Tag) expression-related changes occurred in HUC-TC, and it is concluded that SV40 and 3-MC may act synergistically to transform cells. Changes noted in IFP 9-27, 2'-5' OAS, IF 56, MxA and MxAB were typical of those that occur in response to viral exposure and are part of the innate immune response. Because interferon is crucial to innate immune host defenses and many gene changes were interferon-related, we explored cellular growth responses to exogenous IFN-gamma and found that treatment impeded growth in tumor, but not immortalized HUC on days 4 - 7. Cellular metabolism however, was inhibited in both cell types. We conclude that IFN-gamma metabolic responses were functional in both cell lines, but IFN-gamma anti-proliferative responses functioned only in tumor cells.
CONCLUSIONS: Synergism of SV40 with 3-MC or other environmental carcinogens may be of concern as SV40 is now endemic in 2-5.9% of the U.S. population. In addition, SV40-immortalization is a generally-accepted method used in many research materials, but the possibility of off-target effects in studies carried out using these cells has not been considered. We hope that our work will stimulate further study of this important phenomenon.
PMID: 20178601 [PubMed]PMCID: PMC2848030Free PMC Article
-
Let me summarize my posts in the Wikileaks thread
####################################################################
^^^^^^^^ The issue of Wikileaks being a fraud PSY-OPS has not only been posited by myself ,but numerous others. (there are several links in this thread supporting this contention) There are tangential and some substantive connections to the Soros-Rothschild spheres of influence and Wikileaks. This points to Wikileaks being more than meets the eye. Psy-ops can build upon one another. Mr.Ellsberg came to my attention after a talk-radio encounter in the mid 1970s. Mr. Ellsberg's on air radio contention ,"No oil in Vietnam" was at odds with my Uncle's information. I didnt follow Mr. Ellsberg,but it seems he had a want to place himself in the news stream. I am not alone in thinking Mr. Ellsberg is not genuine. In this regard please checkout the full article by Douglas Valentine posted above. After reading Secret Agenda and other Watergate books, I came to think the whole Watergate/Pentagon Papers affair was a PSY-OPS,one building upon another. Again I am not alone in this assessment. Ellsberg coming to the defense of Assange is to me one PSY-OPS building upon another.#######################################################################################################################################
^^^^^^^^ This thread has been diverted to the issue of Vietnam oil because of Ellsberg's ungenuine ,"no Vietnam oil" assertion. In my above post I gave what might be an overlooked link. I will repeat the link again with information that adds to the argument that oil was a consideration in the Vietnam War.
############## START ADDITIONAL INFO ################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Exclusive economic zone
An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's territorial waters. ###################### END ADDITIONAL INFO
The South China Sea has lots of oil . Today the area is in a Vietnam-China territorial dispute. From the above datum,it would be reasonably assumed (prior to 1982) that North Vietnam area would have a large oil reserve = during the Vietnam War timeframe. Mr. Colby slavishly accepts oil company datum/history on Vietnam. IMHO only a fool would do so. For oil companies the lie is just another tool like the drill bit. ## OVERLOOKED LINK http://www.chinahourly.com/bizchina/3169/ ### OVERLOOKED LINK
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ It has been Mr. Colby's repeated implication that I made up my Ellsberg encounter. I stand by my testimony. What Mr. Colby thinks/posts is for me unfortunately unimportant. Earlier in this thread I said Mr. Colby was "mean". Sadly he has not proven me wrong. SGaal PS Oil and lie are really seperated by less than one letter,look to what happened in the Gulf, oil company lies without end .......................................................
###################################################################################
FROM ANSWERS.com
Did we go to war in Vietnam over oil?
REDBEARD RESPONDS
During the Vietnam War I worked for a company that did seismic studies, worldwide, and sold their data to oil exploration companies like Exxon and Standard Oil. (We also sold military electronics and equipment.) When I mentioned the war, my boss told me "oil is synonymous with national defense" and told me that the data our marine crews had gathered indicated an enormous oil deposit off the Vietnam coastline. Today there are derricks pumping that oil.
ANSWER BY REDBEARD bio below
-
############### XXXXXXXXX PART ONE XXXXXXXXXXXX########
It is absurd to say (as COLBY has a want to do) that we have the final word on Vietnam oil reserves and as "I" have said is partially political situation RE: oil development.
CLICK A MAP ON THIS LINK TO SEE OIL IN NOTHERN VIETNAM THAT HAS POLITICAL PROBLEMS BEING FULLY DEVELOPED.
http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2005/02feb/vietnam.cfm DOES OIL AREA SEEM,"small" per Mr. Colby ?
####XXXX ALSO XXX#######
Vietnam and China tussle over oil resources
Updated Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:27am AEST
Two of the world's largest oil companies are taking on China in a dispute that involves Vietnam and the South China Sea.
This week Vietnam's state oil group Petrovietnam announced the resumation of oil exploration with two joint venture partners BP and Exxon Mobil. Beijing responded by telling Exxon Mobil to pull out of the deal. Last year BP suspended its planned seismic surveys following chinese criticism
Presenter: Claudette Werden
Speakers: Dr Fereidun Fesharaki i chairman and CEO of FACTS Global Energy consultancy; Dr Kang Wu - senior research fellow at the Hawai based East West centre; Victor Shun -Singapore based oil analyst
WERDEN: The South China Sea is ringed by Vietnam, The Phillipines, Malaysia, Brunei and China. Each country lays claim and most have fought over some parts of the sea and Spratly Islands which lie in the middle and are thought to contain large oil and gas deposits. In recent years there's been an escalation of oil exploration and survey activitiy mainly by China and Vietnam with the help of foreign joint venture partners, including two of the world's largest oil companies Exxon Mobil and BP. This week Beijing told Exxon to pull out of the deal with PetroVietnam, claiming the activity infringed on Chinese territory.....an example of Beijing's bully boy tactics according to leading international energy consultant Dr Fereidun Fesharaki. He suggests it may be an attempt by Beijing to fast track a territorial agreement between China and Vietnam.
FESHARAKI: Vietnam is one of the last bastions left, everything else is closed to the national oil companies who control everthing so they are kind of desperate to get in, the Chinese are trying to scare them off and this all pushes the Vietnamese to some kind of agreement in favour of China.
WERDEN: Vietnam says its dealings fall entirely within the country's sovereign rights. For its part, Exxon Mobil says it hasn't signed any exploration contract in Vietnamese waters but is looking at offshore projects with PetroVietnam. A similar situation occured last year involving BP, it halted plans to conduct exploration work off the southern Vietnamese coast, because of territorial tension. But this week BP announced it was resuming its exploration activity with PetroVietnam. Singapore based oil analyst Victor Shum says both companies are taking a calculated stand in going against Beijing's wishes despite their large investments in China.
SHUM: At this stage it seems prudent on the part of the international majors to stand up to political pressure. If they yield in one country say China and if they go to other countries, lets say Russia or other Latin American countries, every time a country say hey you have to yield to me, then they have to do so I think the western oil majors now have to stand up to more political pressure. This is not the first time for Exxon Mobil, Exxon Mobil remains in a face off with Venezuela, and in the case of BP its involved with a face of with Russia, so this is not new to the international majors.
WERDEN: The increased exploration activity comes at a time of high oil prices and limited supplies. Dr Fereidun Fesharaki says the global oil companies could win more from walking away from any deal with Vietnam. He suggests they may be rewarded by Beijing for bowing to its pressure.
FESHARAKI : BP and Exxon Mobil have millions and millions of dollars of assets in China, Exxon Mobil, joint venture just finished a multi billion dollar refinery petro chemical plant, I think they have at least 2 billion dollars of interest there, in terms of service stations, in terms of the gas interests there, they are really really heavily in there they can't afford to upset the Chinese, they're hope is to go there and say look I want to participate and the Chinese say don't do it and then if they don't do it they expect some goodies from China from China for not doing it.
WERDEN: Dr Kang Wu senior research fellow at the Hawai based East West centre says China has no choice but to officially protest because the area concerned is disputed territory. He says for all sides its the start and not the end of diplomatic maneouvring.
WU: For China, its very important for China to show its position. Maybe both sides which means the international oil companies, Exxon Mobil and the Chinese probably feeling the water to see how to find a solution to this. I'm not sure both sides in the end will be firm on their positions.
####### ALSO ############## ALSO ######### ALSO ###################
China to explore 38 oil and gas sites in South China Sea
17 Jan 2011
Chinese geologists have found 38 oil and gas basins under the South China Sea and plan to explore them this year, state media said Monday. The government geologists located the 38 basins in 'super-thick oil and gas-bearing strata' in the northern South China Sea, the official China Daily quoted Wang Min, a vice-minister of land and resources, as saying at a national geological conference.
Wang said his ministry would conduct 'comprehensive geological and environmental inspections at key offshore areas' including the northern South China Sea, the southern Yellow Sea and areas near the southern Chinese island of Hainan.
The newspaper did not give the exact location of the oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea, much of which is subject to competing claims between China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, Taiwan and the Philippines. China and Vietnam both increased patrols in disputed areas last year, amid regular spats over alleged incursions by fishing vessels from the two nations.
Wang said geologists also found onshore oil and gas deposits near the Songliao Basin and the Yin'e Basin in northern China, and the Qiangtang Basin on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. They discovered natural gas hydrate for the first time in the northern South China Sea and in permafrost areas of the Qilian Mountains in north-western China, he was quoted as saying.
'As a big developing country, we must make more efforts in exploring domestic supplies to ensure our energy security,' Wang said.
Source: Deutsche Presse-Agentur
NOW ++++also see link below which shows oil in AREA that COLBY SEEMS TO IGNORE (to quote him 'small') THAT IS POTENTIALLY VERY,VERY LARGE.
http://www.chinahourly.com/bizchina/3169/
.
###################################################################
#################### ########### XXXXXX PART TWO ###########XXXXXXX######################XXXXXXXXXXXX###########
People were definitely looking for oil in Vietnam. (see below) (see comments also NAVY Pilot)
#################################################
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Oil Exploration & The Vietnam War
Conspiracy theories 'R' us. The other day at Thursday lunch, Don told us a good, nay, a great one. Dennis, slacker that he is, hasn't uploaded the recording yet, so I guess it falls to me to tell the tale.
It's a story about the Vietnam War and why it ended when it did. Oil companies were looking for oil under the continental shelf off the coast of South Vietnam. They couldn't go in and do regular seismic exploring because, well, there was a war going on. But they could use the seismic waves generated by the bombing to map the structure of the ground underneath the continental shelf, and they did. When they had completed their mapping, they had no further need of any more seismic wave generators, so the bombing was called off. Shortly thereafter the war ended.
Like any good conspiracy theory there is just enough truth in it to make you wonder if this could possibly be what really happened. It might make you wonder for a minute anyway. People were definitely looking for oil, although it is only recently that they seem to be making any real progress in producing oil.
Posted by Charles Pergiel at
comments:
Anonymous said...
I am in the middle of a book by Clara Black which ties together the French Occupation of Vietnam and the search for oil in a very indirect way. This book was first published in 2005. Based on this hint I decided to search Google to see if there really was a connection and voila.
April 10, 2009 4:24:00 PM PDT
Anonymous said...
I was a Navy Pilot during the Vietnam War flying P-3's. We flew patrol missions along the coast of Vietnam looking for gun boats. Prior to each mission we received a secret brief telling us the location of the oil exploration rigs. We were forbidden to go anywhere near them, talk about them or photograph them if we accidentally came across one.I never gave it a second thought until recently. It's now becoming clear what it was all about.
February 25, 2010 4:22:00 PM PST
#############################XXXXXXXXXXXXX PART THREE A XXXXXXXXXXX###########################################
I,STEVEN GAAL contend that ELLSBERG is not what he seems to be.
March 8, 2003
Will the Real Daniel Ellsberg Please Stand Up!
The Clash of the Icons
By DOUGLAS VALENTINE
Political activist Daniel Ellsberg became an icon in 1971 after he leaked The Pentagon Papers. This "act of conscience" helped turn public opinion against the Vietnam War, and contributed to the demise of President Richard Nixon, whose felonious minions, the infamous Plumbers, sent CIA officer E. Howard Hunt, and former FBI agent (and self-professed rat-eater) G. Gordon Liddy, to burglarize confidential files from Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office. Hunt and Liddy thought they could trump the anti-War movement by showing that Ellsberg was a mentally deranged LSD-abuser, but their slap-happy plan backfired, and instead opened up the Pandora's box of the CIA inspired dirty tricks the Republican Party relied upon (and still uses today) to wage political warfare.
Starting on March 9th, the Pentagon Papers story will be broadcast as a made-for-TV movie on the popular F/X network. Based partially on Ellsberg's autobiography, the movie will star quirky James Spader as Ellsberg, and will feature Hayley Lochner as "the wife," Jonas Chernick as CIA connected New York Times reporter Neil Sheehan, and Paul Giamatti as Anthony Russo, the man who went to prison on Ellsberg's behalf.
Be forewarned: nowhere in this revisionist history will be audience be presented with the cast of Corsican drug smugglers and CIA agents that shaped Ellsberg's sensibilities and sent him on his path to New Left notoriety. But as the reader shall see in this article, somewhere between the official Pentagon Papers story, and the CIA's involvement in international drug trafficking, is a disturbing clash of facts from which Ellsberg will not emerge with his icon status intact.
Ellsberg And the Quiet American
The first thing the reader needs to know is that Ellsberg was not always a pacifist "dove" intent on ending the Vietnam War. At first he was an aggressive "hawk." His militant approach to the Cold War he was all for nuking the Soviet Union was shaped during a tour of duty as a Marine lieutenant, and precisely because of his hard-line attitude, and his ability to articulate it, he was offered a job as a Defense Department analyst.
Then in 1965 he was assigned as a Pentagon observer to the CIA's Revolutionary Development (RD) Program in South Vietnam. Here Ellsberg came under the influence of his mentor, CIA officer cum Air Force General Edward Lansdale. The mass murderer Graham Greene used as the model for Alden Pyle in "The Quiet American," Lansdale was the architect of the CIA's anti-terror strategy for winning the Vietnam War. When not engaged in typical RD Program "Civil Affairs" activities, such as helping the local Vietnamese build perimeter defenses around their villages, Ellsberg and his fellow RD advisors, under the tutelage of Lansdale, dressed in black pajamas and reportedly slipped into enemy areas at midnight to "snatch and snuff" the local Viet Cong cadre, sometimes making it appear as if the VC themselves had done the dirty deed, in what Lansdale euphemistically called "black propaganda" activities.
Functioning as a gruesome "shadow warrior" was not Ellsberg's only claim to fame in South Vietnam. It will not be addressed in the TV docudrama, but Ellsberg was exceedingly charming and possessed with the uncanny ability to reproduce conversations verbatim--talents that made him a highly prized asset of John Hart, the CIA station chief in Saigon. Hart and the CIA's foreign intelligence staff wanted to know what influential Vietnamese citizens and officials were privately thinking, and plotting, so they introduced Ellsberg into Saigon's elite social circles, and he began reporting directly to station chief John Hart on matters of political importance.
And if what his CIA colleagues say is true, Ellsberg was not only as a superb spy, he was also as a swashbuckling swordsman who romanced numerous women, including the exquisite Germaine. One part French and three parts Vietnamese, Germaine was the object of every red-blooded American man's desire, and when Ellsberg met her at a swinging Saigon party, the hot-blooded cocksman immediately rose to the occasion, heedless of the fact that she was engaged to an opium-addicted Corsican drug smuggler named Michel Seguin.
It is here, with Ellsberg's love affair with Germaine, that the discrepancy between fact and fiction has its origins. According to Professor McCoy, at the time Ellsberg met Germaine, Ellsberg's close friend, CIA officer Lucien Conein, was negotiating a "truce" with the Corsican gangsters who supplied South Vietnam's top military officers and government officials with that most lucrative of black market commodities, heroin.
Ellsberg's Perilous Peccadilloes
Legendary CIA officer Lou Conein was an Old Vietnam Hand. As a member of Detachment 202 of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Conein had fought with the French Special Forces in Indochina in World War II. After the war he married a Vietnamese woman and remained in Vietnam. He joined the CIA upon its creation and after a tour of duty in Europe, he returned to South Vietnam in 1954, as an aide to the aforementioned Ed Lansdale, to help organize the CIA's anti-communist forces in North Vietnam. As a measure of his knack for deceit and deception, it is worth noting that one of Conein's favorite "dirty tricks" was "to stage funerals without a corpse, and bury the coffin filled with weapons for later use by the anti-communists."1
"Black Luigi" Conein departed South Vietnam in 1958 after Lansdale had safely ensconced his Catholic protégé, Ngo Dinh Diem, as President of South Vietnam. Conein spent the next few years in the opium rich outlands of Iran as a military advisor to the Shah's special forces. In 1962 he returned to Vietnam as a "floating emissary," reporting directly to the Kennedy White House, while secretly coaching the cabal of generals that murdered President Diem and his opium-addicted brother Nhu on 2 November 1963.
After the bloody coup d'etat, Conein remained in South Vietnam, but not without further controversy. As noted, professor McCoy contends that Ellsberg and Conein formed a fast friendship at the exact same moment Conein was arranging a "truce" between the CIA and unnamed Corsican drug smugglers in Saigon.
Conein, however, adamantly denied the allegation that he arranged a drug-related "truce." In a 1972 letter to McCoy's publisher, he insisted that his meeting with the Corsicans, "had to do with ameliorating a tense situation engendered by Daniel Ellsberg's peccadilloes with the mistress of a Corsican."
Here we return to enchantress Germaine, her opium-addicted Corsican fiancé, Michel Seguin, and a new character in our passion play, Frank Scotton. In 1965 Scotton was ostensibly employed by the U.S. Information Service, though his undercover job as a CIA officer was forming assassination squads around Saigon in what was the prototype of the CIA's infamous Phoenix Program. Through this experimental "counter-terror" program, which fell under Lansdale's RD Program, Scotton and Ellsberg met and became the best of friends. In fact, it was Scotton who invited Ellsberg to the party where the fateful encounter with Germaine occurred.
What happened next is subject to conjecture--and it must be emphasized that in order to understand how the Discrepancy might occur, the reader must need be aware that rumors, whisper campaigns, and half-truths are the preferred weapons of political warriors. CIA dirty tricks and deceptions are meant to misdirect and discredit, so one must examine these statements closely to discover what is being concealed, and why. Complicating the already convoluted situation is the fact that Ellsberg's closest friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were CIA officers. Which is not meant to cast guilt through association on Ellsberg, but it is intended to warn the reader that one must carefully study their conflicting stories.
Scotton and Conein, in separate interviews with this writer, claimed they warned Ellsberg to sever his relationship with Germaine. But Ellsberg, they said, would not be kept from his lover's embrace. Scotton and Conein claimed that Michael Seguin hired a Vietnamese assassin to kill Ellsberg, but, they said, they were able to intercept the assassin before he could carry out his contract.
In an interview with this writer, Ellsberg admitted to having had the affair with Germaine, and he confessed that Seguin put a gun to his head and warned him to stay away from the woman they both cherished. But Ellsberg vehemently denied that either Scotton or Conein intervened on his behalf. Their stories, he said, were standard CIA disinformation, designed to make him seem beholden to former CIA comrades, and thus cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers.
Ulterior Motives
Theoretically, it seems logical to conclude that one of the conflicting stories hides an ulterior motive. And in a search of the recorded history of the time, there is only one source that sheds any light on the situation. All we know, according to Professor McCoy, is that CIA agent Lou Conein met with Corsican gangsters to arrange a "truce" regarding drug smuggling in South Vietnam, and that after this "truce" the Corsicans (including, one would presume, Michel Seguin) continued to serve as "contact men" for the CIA in the drug smuggling business.
This is where The Discrepancy reaches critical mass, for Ellsberg denies that his CIA mentor, Edward Lansdale, or his CIA friends, Lou Conein and Frank Scotton, were involved with Corsican drug smugglers.
Recapping: McCoy claims that Conein arranged a" truce" with the Corsican gangsters over drug smuggling in South Vietnam; Conein denied the allegation and said the meeting concerned Ellsberg's affair with Germaine; and Ellsberg denies (1) that Conein and Scotton intervened on his behalf, and (2) that Conein, Lansdale and Scotton were involved with drug smugglers.
Who is telling the truth? Could a CIA officer with a photographic memory not be aware that his colleagues were involved with drug smugglers? Or is McCoy's research fatally flawed? Did the alleged "truce" occur? Was the good professor, who has prompted so many people to question the CIA's role in international drug smuggling, misled by dirty trickster Conein. Was the ulterior motive to move McCoy toward the Corsicans and away from the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation?
Thinking the Unthinkable
It was 1970 when the mainstream American press first reported the CIA's involvement in international drug trafficking, and it was 1970 when the U.S. Senate launched a potentially explosive investigation into the CIA's Phoenix "assassination" Program, a special unit of which was providing security for the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation.
The House of Representatives launched deeper probes into CIA drug smuggling and the CIA's Phoenix Program in early 1971, and, naturally, the CIA at this critical time took extensive countermeasures in a concerted effort to conceal these facts. What is relevant to the discrepancy is the that in June 1971, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the aptly named Pentagon Papers, shifting blame for the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War from the CIA to the military, while distracting public attention from the investigations of the CIA's Phoenix Program and the CIA's involvement in drug smuggling.
Ellsberg is aware of the rumor that Conein and Scotton asked him to leak the Pentagon Papers as part of the CIA's disinformation campaign. But he shrugs off the insidious rumor as yet another instance of CIA disinformation designed to cast doubt on his motives for leaking The Pentagon Papers.
While it is definitely politically incorrect within what passes nowadays for the New Left to even make the suggestion, is it unthinkable that Ellsberg might have suffered such a whisper campaign in order to prevent his CIA friends from being indicted for drug smuggling and mass murder?
The Politics Of Heroin (And War Crimes) In America
After Ellsberg leaked The Pentagon Papers, the CIA's plot to cover-up its unilateral drug smuggling operation moved forward with greater gusto. According to the Justice Department's still classified DeFeo Report, Conein in the spring of 1971 was called out of retirement by CIA officer E. Howard Hunt and asked to become an advisor to President Nixon's "drug czar" (and Plumber) Egil Krogh, on matters regarding "problems of narcotic control in Southeast Asia and the Pentagon Papers."
Consider that in 1971 the relationship between the French intelligence service and Corsican drug smugglers in its employ was exposed after a series of spectacular drug busts made in America with the assistance of the CIA. Concurrently, Conein was called out of retirement and immediately, in June 1971, told McCoy about the "truce" with the French-connected Corsicans, one of who put a gun to Ellsberg head.
Consider also that Egil Krogh's investigators stumbled upon the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation at this time, and that in July 1971, President Nixon declared the burgeoning war on drugs to be a matter of national security. Nixon went after the CIA and quick as a flash, E. Howard Hunt (Conein's comrade from OSS Detachment 202) bungled the bugging of the Watergate Hotel. Washington Post reporter and former Naval Intelligence officer Bob Woodward, then assigned to cover Nixon's war on drugs, was approached by the still anonymous Deep Throat, and based on unsubstantiated rumors, incrementally engendered the Watergate scandal and effectively neutralized Nixon, and his war on drugs.
In the summer of 1972 came the publication of McCoy's book, which implicated the CIA in Corsican drug smuggling operation in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma and Laos. But no CIA officer was ever indicted for drug smuggling. In fact, the CIA boasted that it was actually helping, by infiltrating the Corsican operation, to wage the war on drugs. Amazing as it may sound, McCoy's exposure in 1972 of the French Connection drug smuggling operation also helped to divert public attention from the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operations.
That same summer of 1972, Lou Conein became a consultant to the newly created Office of National Narcotics Intelligence (ONNI) at the Department of Justice. After the Drug Enforcement Administration was formed in July 1973, Conein became chief of a special operations unit that in 1975 was investigated by the U.S. Senate for the dubious distinction of assassinating drug lords.
The Pentagon Papers, Drugs, and Political Assassinations
Today only questions remain. Why did Conein meet the Corsicans in 1965? Was the rumor of an assassination attempt on Ellsberg concocted to provide Conein with a plausible cover story for his "truce" with the drug smuggling Corsicans? If so, why does Ellsberg deny that his CIA comrades, Lansdale, Conein and Scotton, were involved in drug smuggling, as McCoy contends? And, finally, was McCoy deliberately led by Conein in a wide circle around the CIA's unilateral drug smuggling operation?
Unless these questions are resolved, the truth about Watergate and the Pentagon Papers will continue to elude historians, and this quiet discrepancy will serve, like the TV movie based on Ellsberg's autobiography, only to perpetuate the myths, mysteries, and half-truths that define American history--a history that hauntingly reflects standard CIA operating procedures.
Douglas Valentine is the author of The Hotel Tacloban, The Phoenix Program, and TDY. His new book The Strength of the Wolf: the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 1930-1968 will be published by Verso. Valentine was an investigator for Pepper on the King case in 1998-1999. For information about Valentine and his books and articles, please visit his website at www.douglasvalentine.com.
He can be reached at: redspruce@attbi.com
Notes
1 Bart Barnes, The Washington Post, obituary section, 6 July 1998
############################################## XXXXXXXXX PART THREE B XXXXXXXXXX############################
THE FALSE LEGEND OF THE PENTAGON PAPERS HELPS CIA ANTI NIXON PSY-OPS. I ask Mr. Colby a second time,"Do you consider Mr. Simkin a loon ??"
[NOTE: There is no physical evidence that either Liddy or Hunt had been in Los Angeles at all for the Fielding office break-in. Only the anecdotal claims of the co-conspirators account for the whereabouts of Hunt and Liddy that weekend. This is similar to the later purported Watergate first break-in that involves the same personnel.]
CIA-PENTAGON PAPERS-WATERGATE TIMELINE
Friday, 10 April 1970
Richard Helms has rubber-stamped E. Howard Hunt's "early retirement" and has written a letter to Robert R. Mullen on behalf of Hunt, urging Mullen to hire him. Mullen is head of a public relations firm in D.C. that is a front company for CIA. One of the Mullen offices, in Stockholm, Sweden, is "staffed, run, and paid for by CIA." Also at the Mullen firm is Douglas Caddy.
Monday, 13 April 1970
Daniel Ellsberg quits Rand in California, flies to Boston and signs a contract at MIT. He remains, though, a "consultant" for Rand.
Friday, 1 May 1970
E. Howard Hunt ostensibly "retires" from CIA. He goes to work for the Mullen company in D.C. There, he is told by Robert Mullen that he and Douglas Caddy have been selected by Mullen to take over running the CIA front company soon, when Mullen retires.
Tuesday, 5 May 1970
Daniel Ellsberg flies to Washington, D.C. and is there for three days, flies to St. Louis for a day, then flies back to D.C. [FORUM NOTE: Caddy wouldn't answer the question of whether he or Hunt had been in touch, either directly or through intermediaries, with Ellsberg.]
Thursday, 28 May 1970
A CIA Covert Security Approval is requested under Project QK/ENCHANT for the "retired" E. Howard Hunt.
August 1970
Just four months after E. Howard Hunt, James McCord "retires" from CIA.
September 1970
Daniel Ellsberg stops seeing Beverly Hills psychiatrist Lewis Fielding.
November 1970
Douglas Caddy leaves the Mullen firm to work for Gall, Lane, Powell and Kilcullen. Around the same time, E. Howard Hunt becomes a "client" of Caddy and of Gall, Lane. Caddy consults with Hunt regarding wills and "other matters." Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy is approached by Robert Mardian, asking Liddy to take a position that Mardian describes as "super-confidential."
February 1971
A hidden taping system is installed in the Oval Office of the White House.
Saturday, 17 April 1971
E. Howard Hunt is in Miami and meets with Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. Bernard Barker has a history of almost seven years with CIA. Eugenio Martinez is on "retainer" with CIA. [NOTE: A little over four months later, these same three men will be involved with Hunt in a purported break-in of the offices of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding, ostensibly in response to Daniel Ellsberg having leaked the Pentagon Papers. But the Pentagon Papers haven't been leaked to the press yet, and won't be for almost two months.]
Early June 1971
Daniel Ellsberg makes "a series of phone calls" to psychiatrist Lewis Fielding shortly before the Pentagon Papers are published. Around this same time, Douglas Caddy meets with E. Howard Hunt and Bernard Barker at the Army-Navy Club in Washington, D.C. [NOTE: Caddy will claim that this is the one and only time that he ever met Bernard Barker.]
Saturday, 12 June 1971
The day before the "Pentagon Papers" are published, Morton Halperin, Leslie Gelb, and Defense Department official Paul Nitze make "a deposit into the National Archives" of "a whole lot of papers." [NOTE: This turns out later to be copies of the not-yet-published Pentagon Papers that will make Daniel Ellsberg famous and launch everything that later comes to be known as "Watergate."]
Sunday, 13 June 1971
Daniel Ellsberg, having highest possible clearances from CIA, leaks the "Pentagon Papers." The New York Times publishes the first of three installments of secret documents that have been passed to Times reporter Neil Sheehan by Daniel Ellsberg. [NOTE: Ellsberg had been connected to Sheehan in Viet Nam by CIA's Edward Landsdale and CIA's Lucien Conein.]
Tuesday, 15 June 1971
G. Gordon Liddy is abruptly transferred from being "Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury" to "Staff Assistant of the President of the United States," part of the White House Domestic Council. Liddy is supplied with White House credentials.
Monday, 28 June 1971
Daniel Ellsberg is indicted for the leak of the Pentagon Papers.
Wednesday, 30 June 1971
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the government has not shown compelling evidence to justify blocking further publication of the Pentagon Papers.
Thursday, 1 July 1971
David Young—who is with NSA—is appointed to the White House Domestic Council to work with Egil Krogh. On or about the same date, Carol Ellsberg, Daniel Ellsberg's ex-wife, calls the FBI. She tells them that Daniel Ellsberg had seen a psychiatrist. She says that Ellsberg has "assured her" that he "had told this analyst all about what he had done" (referring to the Pentagon Papers). She volunteers the name of the Beverly Hills psychiatrist: Lewis Fielding. [NOTE: Daniel and Carol Ellsberg have been living apart since January 1964, divorced since 1966. Daniel Ellsberg didn't begin with Fielding until two years after the divorce, in March of 1968 (see), and had quit seeing Fielding in September 1970 (see)—nearly a year before "what he had done."] On or about the same date, John "Jack" Caulfield, Staff Assistant to President Nixon, has created a 12-page political espionage proposal called "Sandwedge." Ostensibly as part of it, Anthony Ulasewicz has rented an apartment at 321 East 48th Street (Apartment 11-C), New York City. G. Gordon Liddy is given the complete "Sandwedge" plan. [NOTE: The apartment is in close proximity to the lab and school of CIA's Cleve Backster. It provides a backstopped New York address and phone. Note, too, that the reference for date of Sandwedge is a document in the National Archives titled "7/71 Sandwedge proposal," despite most anecdotal accounts placing it later in 1971.]
Friday, 2 July 1971
CIA Director Richard Helms is pushing behind the scenes to get E. Howard Hunt into a position connected with the White House in response to the Pentagon Papers having been leaked. H. R. Haldeman tells Nixon that Helms has described Hunt: "Ruthless, quiet and careful, low profile. He gets things done. He will work well with all of us. He's very concerned about the health of the administration. His concern, he thinks, is they're out to get us and all that, but he's not a fanatic. We could be absolutely certain it'll involve secrecy... ." On the same day, Charles Colson sends a memo to H. R. Haldeman with a transcript of a phone conversation he had with E. Howard Hunt the previous day—which he happened to record. Colson says: "The more I think about Howard Hunt's background, politics, disposition and experience, the more I think it would be worth your time to meet him."
Wednesday, 7 July 1971
E. Howard Hunt is hired as a "White House consultant" while keeping his full-time job at CIA front company Mullen. Hunt is supplied with White House credentials.
Thursday, 8 July 1971
The day after starting with the White House, E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Lucien Conein, Hunt's acquaintance of almost 30 years. [NOTE: Conein had been part of the team that Daniel Ellsberg had gone with to Vietnam, headed by CIA's Edward Landsdale, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.]
Tuesday, 20 July 1971
E. Howard Hunt has a private meeting with CIA's Edward G. Landsdale. [NOTE: Landsdale had taken Daniel Ellsberg and Lucien Conein to Vietnam in 1965-66, where Ellsberg had been connected up with reporter Neil Sheehan.]
Thursday, 22 July 1971
E. Howard Hunt goes to CIA headquarters and meets privately with Deputy Director of CIA Robert Cushman.
Friday, 23 July 1971
The CIA supplies E. Howard Hunt with counterfeit ID in the name of "Edward J. Warren." Hunt meets CIA's Stephen Greenwood in a CIA safehouse where a fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, are given to Hunt.
Saturday, 24 July 1971
Based on a memorandum by Egil Krogh and NSA's David Young, the Special Investigations Unit is established at the White House under them. It comes to be known as the White House Plumbers. [NOTE: David Young gives the unit its nickname, supposedly because it is there to "stop leaks." It never stops a single leak, or accomplishes anything effective regarding security leaks. Liddy and Hunt are already established in their positions weeks before the unit is created. The creation of the Special Investigations Unit does nothing to alter the operational status or position of either of them. Young is running everything that leads to the Fielding office break-in. Young will later be given immunity by Watergate prosecutors, then will report the Fielding "burglary," backed up by CIA-supplied photos]
Friday, 30 July 1971
A highly secure facility has been set up in Room 16 of the Old Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House that G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt use. It includes a secure phone used "mostly to talk to the CIA at Langley."
Early August 1971
G. Gordon Liddy is in regular communication with "State and the CIA," having direct conversations with CIA Director Richard Helms. Liddy is briefed by CIA on "several additional sensitive programs in connection with his assignment to the White House staff." Liddy is also making regular trips to the Pentagon. E. Howard Hunt is making regular trips to the State Department. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations at the time is George H.W. Bush (Sr.)
Monday, 2 August 1971
CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt.
Friday, 6 August 1971
E. Howard Hunt again meets clandestinely in a CIA safehouse, this time with CIA's Stephen Greenwood and also with CIA's Cleo Gephart. Hunt purportedly discusses CIA providing a "backstopped address and phone" in New York city. Hunt also asks for CIA to provide phony ID and a disguise for "an associate"—G. Gordon Liddy. [NOTE: Hunt is asking for ID and disguise for Liddy prior to any proposal to break into Lewis Fielding's office. Also, there's already a backstopped address and phone in New York city at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C, New York City, set up by Anthony Ulasewicz as part of the Sandwedge proposal, which Liddy and Hunt have. See 1 July 1971.]
Wednesday, 11 August 1971
CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy again comes to Room 16 and meets privately with G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt. Soon after, Liddy and Hunt recommend an attempt at surreptitious entry for "acquisition of psychiatric materials" on Daniel Ellsberg from the files of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding. They claim the need, first, for a "feasibility study" of Fielding's Beverly Hills office
Friday, 20 August 1971
The CIA supplies G. Gordon Liddy with counterfeit ID in the name of "George F. Leonard." Hunt and Liddy meet CIA's Stephen Greenwood (called "Steve" in Hunt's account) in a CIA safehouse where a CIA-created fake driver's license and other ID material, plus a disguise, and a camera are issued to Liddy.
Thursday, 26 August 1971
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Los Angeles. Hunt takes pictures of Liddy, in his CIA-issued black wig (which doesn't disguise him), standing in front of psychiatrist Lewis Fielding's office door, with Fielding's name on the door. Liddy also takes pictures of Hunt in his CIA-supplied non-disguise. The photos are taken with the camera supplied to them by CIA.
Friday, 27 August 1971
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly back to Washington, D.C. CIA's Stephen Greenwood meets them at the airport, where Hunt gives Greenwood the film for developing by CIA. Greenwood delivers prints to Hunt the same day. The CIA keeps a copy of the photos of Liddy and Hunt (in CIA-provided "disguises" that don't disguise them at all) mugging in front of Lewis Fielding's identifiable door. [NOTE: The CIA later turns their copies of the photos over to Watergate investigators, which results in all criminal charges against Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon Papers to be dropped.]
Saturday, 28 August 1971
On a Saturday, Hunt and Liddy purportedly are in Room 16 when Liddy tells Hunt that the plan to do a break-in of Fielding's office is approved, but that the two of them are not "to be permitted anywhere near the target premises." [see 27 August 1971, immediately above.] E. Howard Hunt then purportedly calls Bernard Barker in Miami and asks if Barker can "put together a three-man entry team." Barker calls back to say it will be Barker, Eugenio Martinez, and Felipe De Diego. [NOTE: As luck would have it, this happens to be the same three men Hunt had met with in Miami two months before the Pentagon Papers were published. See 17 April 1971.]
Friday, 3 September 1971
A break-in takes place at the office of psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding in Beverly Hills, California. The break-in is made obvious by the smashing of a window. Accounts of the break-in are irreconcilably conflicting. According to Bernard Barker, E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, the three Cubans—Barker, Martinez, and De Diego—had entered the office and searched thoroughly, and there was no file on Daniel Ellsberg anywhere. According to Lewis Fielding, there was a file on Ellsberg in his office, which Fielding says he found on the floor the next morning. Fielding claims it was evident that someone had gone through the file. The same night, Hunt and Liddy are in New York City—where Hunt has made an issue of needing "a backstopped address." They check into the Pierre hotel and remain in New York through at least Sunday, 5 September 1971. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that either Liddy or Hunt had been in Los Angeles at all for the Fielding office break-in. Only the anecdotal claims of the co-conspirators account for the whereabouts of Hunt and Liddy that weekend. This is similar to the later purported Watergate first break-in that involves the same personnel.]
October 1971
E. Howard Hunt is in telephone contact with CIA Chief European Division John Hart, and has several telephone conversations with CIA Executive Officer European Division John Caswell. [NOTE: L. Patrick Gray will later order FBI to hold off on interviewing Caswell.]
Friday, 15 October 1971
E. Howard Hunt meets privately with CIA Director Richard Helms.
Early November 1971
CIA's James McCord, purportedly retired in August 1970, signs a contract with the Republican National Committee to handle "security." The contract is in the name of "McCord Associates, Inc." [NOTE: The corporation will not be created until several weeks after the contract is signed; incorporation papers are not filed until 19 November 1971 (see) in Maryland.]
Friday, 19 November 1971
CIA's E. Howard Hunt contacts CIA's Office of Security Director Robert Osborne. On the same day, CIA's James McCord files incorporation papers in Maryland for McCord Associates, Inc., ostensibly a security company, but the incorporation papers say nothing about providing security, and the company is not licensed for security. Included on the board are McCord, his wife, and his sister, Dorothy Berry, who works for an "oil company in Houston." [NOTE: Berry later claimed she had "no idea" she had been listed on the board. Also, the Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation—an "oil company in Houston" that controls half the world's supply of lithium—will later provide checks that get converted to traceable $100 bills for part of what becomes known as Watergate. See 15 April 1972.]
Wednesday, 8 December 1971
E. Howard Hunt is in touch with senior CIA officer Peter Jessup, who is with the National Security Council staff. On or about the same day, Hunt meets privately again with CIA's Lucien Conein.
Sunday, 12 December 1971
NSA's David Young meets with Egil Krogh and CIA psychiatrist Bernard Malloy.
Thursday, 16 December 1971
CIA's E. Howard Hunt is in Dallas, Texas—an airline hub. Lt. George W. Bush is living in Houston, Texas. He is a pilot trained on T-38 Talons, a type of plane used as a chase plane.
January 1972
G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt are collaborating on a "political espionage" plan to replace the Sandwedge proposal. One of the items they have factored into the budget, ostensibly for "political espionage," is a chase plane. [NOTE: Budgeting and planning for this "chase plane" comes up over and over, but it is utterly ludicrous for any kind of "political espionage" purposes.]
Monday, 10 January 1972
G. Gordon Liddy is in New York city at the apartment Ulasewicz has established at 321 East 48th Street, Apartment 11-C.
Early February 1972
G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt fly to Miami, home of Bernard Barker and other CIA-connected Cubans. Around the same time, G. Gordon Liddy "recruits" CIA's James McCord as a "wire man," purportedly to be able to do electronic eavesdropping for "political espionage" purposes. [NOTE: At the time, Liddy has no approved budget for any such activities, nor are there any approved plans for, or targets for, any such activities.]
Thursday, 17 February 1972
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy again fly to Miami, ostensibly to meet with Donald Segretti (a.k.a. "Donald Simmons"). While there, Hunt is in contact with CIA's Bernard Barker.
Tuesday, 22 February 1972
G. Gordon Liddy meets with CIA personnel at Langley in connection with CIA "special clearances" he has been granted.
Thursday, 24 February 1972
G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt meet with a "retired" CIA doctor, introduced by Hunt to Liddy as "Dr. Edward Gunn," to get briefed by him on various covert means of murder for a possible assassination.
Late February 1972
E. Howard Hunt travels to Nicaragua on an "undisclosed mission." [NOTE: See entry for 3 March 1972.]
Wednesday, 1 March 1972
Douglas Caddy, who has E. Howard Hunt as a client, begins to do "legal tasks" for John Dean and G. Gordon Liddy.
Friday, 3 March 1972
Gary O. Morris, psychiatrist of E. Howard Hunt's wife, Dorothy, vanishes while on vacation on the Caribbean island of St. Lucia. No trace is ever found of the pleasure boat he had left on for a cruise with his wife and a local captain, Mervin Augustin.
Monday, 27 March 1972
G. Gordon Liddy's job abruptly changes to general counsel of the Finance Committee to Re-elect the President.
Wednesday, 29 March 1972
Two days after Liddy's job changes, E. Howard Hunt "terminates" in his paid capacity as a White House consultant—yet he keeps his office and the safe he'd used as such, and keeps his White House credentials because he continues to "work there a few hours each week."
Early April 1972
CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Chicago and delivers an undisclosed amount of cash in a sealed envelope to W. Clement and Jessie V. Stone Foundation. [NOTE: Dorothy Hunt later will die in a plane crash en route to Chicago carrying an envelope of cash.]
Saturday, 15 April 1972
E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy fly to Miami and deliver checks drawn on a Mexico City bank to CIA's Bernard Barker. [NOTE: Several of the checks have originated from Gulf Resources and Chemical Corporation in Houston, which at the time controls half the world's supply of lithium, used in the making of hydrogen bombs and in psychiatric drugs.]
Monday, 24 April 1972
CIA's Bernard Barker cashes a cashier's check for $25,000 at his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This $25,000, from the Dahlberg check, plus two later withdrawals by Barker will equal $114,000. See 2 May and 8 May 1972.]
Monday, 1 May 1972
CIA's James McCord contacts an ex-FBI agent, Alfred Baldwin, who is living in Connecticut. McCord purportedly doesn't know Baldwin, but wants Baldwin to come to Washington, D.C. that night.
Tuesday, 2 May 1972
FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover is found dead in his home in the early morning hours. L. Patrick Gray—who has no background in law enforcement—is appointed as Acting Director of FBI. [NOTE: Hoover's death is attributed to a heart attack, and no autopsy is done. L. Patrick Gray will steer the FBI investigation of Watergate, destroy material taken from the White House safe of E. Howard Hunt, then will resign.] Alfred Baldwin meets with James McCord. McCord issues Baldwin a Smith & Wesson .38 snub-nose revolver. Baldwin is assigned to travel as a bodyguard with Martha Mitchell on "a trip to the midwest." On the same day, CIA's Bernard Barker withdraws an unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami. [NOTE: This is the second of three transactions by Barker that will total $114,000.]
Thursday, 4 May 1972
Lt. George W. Bush is ordered to "report to commander, 111 F.I.S., Ellington AFB, not later than (NLT) 14 May, 1972." [NOTE: Bush does not report as ordered. See 19 May 1972.]
Friday, 5 May 1972
CIA's James McCord rents room 419 of the Howard Johnson's motel across the street from the Watergate. The room is registered in the name of McCord Associates.
Monday, 8 May 1972
Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. from his trip with Martha Mitchell. He is told by James McCord to keep the .38 revolver because "he might be going on another trip." G. Gordon Liddy, in D.C., calls CIA's Bernard Barker in Miami. Bernard Barker withdraws another unspecified amount of cash from his bank in Miami which, with two other transactions, now totals $114,000. James McCord receives $4,000 in cash from G. Gordon Liddy.
Tuesday, 9 May 1972
Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C., ostensibly going to his home in Connecticut to "get more clothes." He takes the .38 revolver with him, purportedly because he has been told by James McCord that he might be going on another trip with Martha Mitchell that is scheduled for 11 May 1972. [NOTE: Baldwin doesn't return until 12 May 1972.]
Wednesday, 10 May 1972
CIA's James McCord is in Rockville, Maryland. He pays $3,500 cash for a "device capable of receiving intercepted wire and oral communications." [NOTE: Rockville, Maryland is about six miles from Laurel, Maryland. Five days later presidential candidate George Wallace will be shot in Laurel, Maryland by Arthur Bremer with a .38 calibur revolver. See 15 May 1972.]
Friday, 12 May 1972
Alfred Baldwin returns to Washington, D.C. James McCord tells Baldwin he won't be going with Martha Mitchell so he can "turn in his gun." Baldwin purportedly gives the .38 revovler to McCord. McCord tells Baldwin to move from the Roger Smith hotel, where Baldwin has been staying, into room 419 at the Howard Johnson's motel.
Monday, 15 May 1972
Presidential candidate George Wallace is shot by Arthur Bremer in Laurel, Maryland, ending his presidential campaign and partially paralyzing him.
Wednesday, 17 May 1972
CIA's Bernard Barker makes two calls from Miami to G. Gordon Liddy, and two calls to CIA's E. Howard Hunt.
Friday, 19 May 1972
Lt. George W. Bush (Jr.), a chase plane pilot, contacts a superior officer in the reserves to discuss "options of how Bush can get out of coming to drill from now through November." The memo recording the conversation says that Bush "is working on another campaign for his dad." The memo writer thinks Bush is "also talking to someone upstairs." [NOTE: George H. W. Bush (Sr.) is U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. at this time.] On the same day, President Richard M. Nixon, about to embark on an historic trip to the Soviet Union, writes the following in a letter to Henry Kissinger and Alexander Haig: "The performance in the psychological warfare field is nothing short of disgraceful. The mountain has labored for seven weeks and when it finally produced, it produced not much more than a mouse. Or to put it more honestly, it produced a rat. We finally have a program now under way but it totally lacks imagination and I have no confidence whatever that the bureaucracy will carry it out. I do not simply blame (Richard) Helms and the CIA. After all, they do not support my policies because they basically are for the most part Ivy League and Georgetown society oriented." On the same day, E. Howard Hunt makes two calls to Bernard Barker in Miami.
Saturday, 20 May 1972
Richard Nixon leaves Washington, D.C. on his trip to Austria, the Soviet Union, Iran, and Poland. He will not return until 1 June 1972. James McCord sends Alfred Baldwin to Andrews Air Force Base, where Nixon is leaving on Air Force One, purportedly because there might be demonstrations and McCord wants Baldwin to be there for more "surveillance activities." [NOTE: The "reason" supplied by McCord in testimony for this trip by Baldwin is too thin to slice, particularly in light of the amount of security surrounding Nixon's departure. Besides Air Force One, there is a fleet of White House planes at Andrews for use by VIPs and various staff connected with the White House.] On or about the same day, CIA's E. Howard Hunt flies to Miami and meets with Bernard Barker.
Monday, 22 May 1972
Richard Nixon arrives in Moscow and is toasting Soviet leaders at a dinner. On the same day, the CIA "Cuban contingent" arrives in Washington, D.C. from Miami: Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, Eugenio Martinez, and Virgilio Gonzalez. They are in D.C. purportedly to carry out a "first break-in" on the following weekend of Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate with G. Gordon Liddy, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and CIA's James McCord. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place. For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma. Note also that while E. Howard Hunt claims that six Cubans arrived on 22 May 1972, the referenced criminal appeals court ruling names only four.]
Tuesday, 23 May 1972
Alfred Baldwin leaves Washington, D.C. again, purportedly going to his home in Connecticut again. No reason is given for his departure.
Friday, 26 May 1972
G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a failed attempt to break into the Watergate—the "Ameritas dinner" attempt. [NOTE: There was no such attempt at a break-in See 26 May 1972: The "Ameritas Dinner" and Alfred Baldwin.]
Saturday, 27 May 1972
G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a second failed attempt to break into the Watergate. [NOTE: But there was no such "second attempt." See 27 May 1972: The "second failed attempt" and Alfred Baldwin.]
Sunday, 28 May 1972
G. Gordon Liddy, Alfred Baldwin, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, CIA's James McCord, and several Cuban CIA contract agents purportedly are engaged in a successful "first break-in" at DNC headquarters at the Watergate. According to their later claims, McCord placed two electronic bugs in the DNC headquarters during the "first break-in," and Bernard Barker purportedly had photos taken of the office of the Chairman, Lawrence O'Brien, and of documents on his desk. [NOTE: There is no physical evidence that any such "first break-in" ever took place, or the purported two earlier failed attempts on the same holiday weekend. Barker later testified that he never was in O'Brien's office at all, and a telephone company sweep found no electronic bugs in the DNC at all (see 15 June 1972). For full coverage, see The Watergate "First Break-In Dilemma and There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate. There is nothing to account for the whereabouts of Liddy, Hunt, McCord, and Baldwin over the entire Memorial Day Weekend except the conflicting and contradictory anecdotal accounts of the co-conspirators themselves, which they volunteered when "caught" inside the building on 17 June 1972, while being represented by Douglas Caddy. See also 3 September 1971 for similarities in the purported "Fielding office break-in," including personnel involved and the use of a holiday weekend, in that case the Labor Day weekend.]
AFTERWORD: Douglas Caddy will later appear in court ostensibly representing all four of the arrested CIA-connected Cubans, plus CIA's James McCord, CIA's E. Howard Hunt, and G. Gordon Liddy, who has "special CIA clearances." Later, on Wednesday, 3 January 1973, the very day that Daniel Ellsberg goes on trial, CIA's Anthony Goldin hand delivers to the Department of Justice Watergate prosecutors copies of 10 photos of E. Howard Hunt and G. Gordon Liddy taken at the office of Ellsberg psychiatrist Lewis J. Fielding, with Fielding's name on the door clearly visible. These will later be turned over to the Ellsberg court, and all charges against Ellsberg will be dropped. [NOTE: See 26 August 1971, when Liddy and Hunt flew to Los Angeles to take the photos of each other.]
Ashton Gray
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ BELOW SIMKIN POST WATERGATE SECTION EDUCATION FORUM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Over the years I have argued on the forum that Richard Nixon was removed by the CIA. The strategy used by the CIA was more sophisticated than the one used against JFK. Both men attempted to undermine the power of the CIA. The source of JFK’s demise was Cuba. Nixon’s removal was the result of appointing James Schlesinger as director of the CIA. Nixon’s removal became inevitable after Schlesinger issued a directive to all CIA employees on 9th May, 1973: “I have ordered all senior operating officials of this Agency to report to me immediately on any activities now going on, or might have gone on in the past, which might be considered to be outside the legislative charter of this Agency. I hereby direct every person presently employed by CIA to report to me on any such activities of which he has knowledge. I invite all ex-employees to do the same. Anyone who has such information should call my secretary and say that he wishes to talk to me about “activities outside the CIA’s charter”.
There were several employees who had been trying to complain about the illegal CIA activities for some time. As Cord Meyer pointed out, this directive “was a hunting license for the resentful subordinate to dig back into the records of the past in order to come up with evidence that might destroy the career of a superior whom he long hated.” Meyer, who had been deeply involved in Operation Mockingbird, was one of those who feared the consequences of Schlesinger’s directive.
Nixon backed down after three months Nixon and replaced him with William Colby. Colby did what he could to protect the CIA. However, by this time Congress had become more interested in the CIA’s illegal activities. When in 1975 both houses of Congress set up inquiries into the activities of the intelligence community, Colby handed over to the Senate committee chaired by Frank Church details of the CIA's recent operations against the left-leaning government in Chile. The agency's attempts to sabotage the Chilean economy had contributed to the downfall of South America's oldest democracy and to the installation of a military dictatorship.
His testimony resulted in his predecessor, Richard Helms, being indicted for perjury. Colby was attacked by right-wing figures such as Barry Goldwater for supplying this information to the Frank Church and on 30 January 1976, President Gerald Ford replaced him with George G. W. Bush. The “Secret Team” now led by Ted Shackley, was back in control.
In my view, to really understand what Watergate was all about the timeline needs to start with Nixon’s decision to establish an in-house investigative capability that could be used to obtain sensitive political information. Jack Caulfield was hired to do this by H. R. Haldeman in May 1968. The following year (March, 1969) Caulfield employed Tony Ulasewicz. His first job was to investigate Bobby Baker’s relationship with various Democratic politicians. However, he mainly concentrated on Edward Kennedy, the man who Nixon believed had the potential to defeat him in 1972.
According to the testimony of Tony Ulasewicz, on 19th July, 1969, he received a phone call from Jack Caulfield: "Get out to Martha's Vineyard as fast as you can, Tony. Kennedy's car ran off a bridge last night. There was a girl in it. She's dead." This phone call took place less than two hours after the body of Mary Jo Kopechne, the former secretary of Robert Kennedy, had been found in a car that Caulfield suspected Edward Kennedy had been driving.
In my view Ulasewicz was already at the scene of the crime before it took place. Ulasewicz admits that he was able to interview several key witnesses before the police got to them. This included Sylvia Malm who was staying in Dike House at the time. Dike House was only 150 yards from the scene of the accident. Malm told Ulasewicz that she was reading in bed on the night of the accident. She remained awake until midnight but no one knocked on her door.
Ulasewicz also discovered that the request for an autopsy by Edmund Dinis, the District Attorney of Suffolk County, had been denied. Dinis was told that the body had already been sent to Kopechne's family. This was untrue, the body was still in Edgartown. Ulasewicz also interviewed John Farrar, the scuba diver who pulled Mary Jo Kopechne out of Kennedy's car. Farrar told Ulasewicz that the evidence he saw suggested that she had been trapped alive for several hours inside Kennedy's car.
He also discovered that the "records of Edward Kennedy's telephone calls in the hours after the accident at Chappaquiddict were withheld by the telephone company from an inquest into the death of Mary Jo Kopechne without the knowledge of the Assistant District Attorney who asked for them".
Ulasewicz was also used to meet Timothy Gratz in December, 1972. Gratz, who used to be a member of the forum, has been linked by Richard E. Sprague with Arthur Bremer. This is what Sprague says about this relationship in “The Taking of America”.
“What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.”
My view is that Nixon was blackmailed by the CIA into taking the rap for Watergate in return for not being exposed for his role in the removal of Edward Kennedy and George Wallace from the 1972 presidential election. It was part of the deal that Nixon did not expose the CIA’s role in the assassination of JFK (Nixon had got this information from William Sullivan who carried out the investigation of the assassination on behalf of the FBI).
I also believe that an investigation of Jack Paisley is essential in understanding both the JFK assassination and Watergate. Ashton, have you done much research into Paisley? I will post what I have on him later today.
John Simkin
###############XXXXXXXXXXXXX PART FOUR XXXXXXXXX################################
The US started backing the French there in the 40’s and first sent military advisors in the 50’s and then combat troops in the 60’s. Can you point to any evidence the US knew about the petroleum there at the time? END COLBY QUOTE
The “anti-Vietnam war movement” did not become a major problem till 1967-8 but you claim the US had an idea where the “oil” was since the late 50s. How do you explain 10 years of inaction? END COLBY QUOTE
Golly those Vietcong might have stopped oil production,mighta .The area was too unstable to start oil production. Your comment lacks common sense. Yes the USA supported the FRENCH in Vietnam to gain help in ANTI-Russian European efforts. So the later oil find in Vietnam was a bonus.Facts change. Your comment again lacks common sense.
###########XXXXXXXXXXXX PART FIVE XXXXXXXX#################################
ELLSBERG WIKI http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/daniel-ellsberg-exposed-along-with-the-real-purpose-of-the-wikileaks-psyop/
Thanks Steven Gaal
-
#################################### part Ia) #########################
START COLBY QUOTE+ Nor is there any evidence the US’s involvement had anything to do with that country’s meager offshore reserves.+END COLBY QUOTE
Well ...............
In the 1950's a method of undersea oil exploration was perfected which used small explosions deep in the water and then recorded the sound echos bouncing off the various layers of rock below. The surveyor could then determine the exact location of the arched salt domes which hold the accumulated oil beneath them. But if this method were used off the Viet Nam coast on property Standard didn't own or have the rights to, the Vietnamese, the Chinese, the Japanese and probably even the French would quickly run to the United Nations and complain that America was stealing the oil, and that would shut down the operation.
In 1964, after Viet Nam was divided into North and South, and the contrived Gulf of Tonkin incident, several US aircraft carriers were stationed offshore of Viet Nam and the "war" was started. Every day jet planes would take off from the carriers, bomb locations in North and South Vietnam, and then using normal military procedure when returning would dump their unsafe or unused bombs in the ocean before landing back on the carriers. Safe ordnance drop zones were designated for this purpose away from the carriers.
Even close-up observers would only notice many small explosions occurring daily in the waters of the South China Sea and thought it was only part of the "war." The US Navy carriers had begun Operation Linebacker One, and Standard Oil had begun its ten year oil survey of the seabed off of Viet Nam. And the Vietnamese, Chinese and everybody else around, including the Americans, were none the wiser. The oil survey hardly cost Standard Oil a nickel, the US taxpayers paid for it.
In 1995, in a multi-hour BBC TV documentary broadcast about the oil industry, the president of one of the oil companies, a spin-off of Standard, stated, ".. It was quite a coincidence, that we finished our offshore oil survey on the very last day of the war, just as the last helicopter was leaving the roof of the embassy in Saigon." A coincidence?
Fifteen years later, after North and South Viet Nam were unified and all the dust settled and most people had forgotten about the "war," the Vietnamese decided they needed some cash and would allow offshore oil exploration. They divided up their coastal area into many oil lots and let foreign companies bid on the lots, with the proviso that Viet Nam got a cut of the action.
Oil companies from 12 countries put in bids. Norway's Statoil, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, even Russia, Germany and Australia all put in bids. But when those countries drilled in their oil lots they all came up with dry holes. Only the "American" company had gushers and since 1990 has pulled billions of dollars out of their Golden Dragon, Blue Lotus, and White Tiger oil fields in the South China Sea off Viet Nam. Coincidence? Were they just lucky? Or did they know something those other oil companies didn’t?
###### *** I submit that USA companies had information gathered from undersea samples (my Uncle analyzed) and the above mentioned explosion datum. *** ###########
############################################## part Ib) #############################################################
START COLBY QUOTE +Why wasn’t any oil pumped when the US was there? + END COLBY QUOTE
Mr. Colby has asked why Vietnam oil wasnt pumped out during the war. Golly, one could not think of an action that would have inlamed more the anti-Vietnam war movement. Ironic that Colby thinks I am the one who is is ,"out of it".
################################################# part II ################################################################################
Colby expounds on Colby's own defined undersized Vietnam oil production.
Two reasons that Vietnam oil production is not maximized: one) The China problem,a political problem. see http://www.stimson.org/spotlight/china-vietnam-and-the-rich-resources-of-the-gulf-of-tonkin/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
two) Major oil companies can hide the full oil reserves of a country from a countries own government, especially one not technology advanced. Small 2nd/3rd world countries are really at the mercy of major oil. If one has follows the Peak Oil debate ,one would know there is great fluctuation of oil reserve numbers and such fluctuation is connected to proprietary oil company secrecy. See below from an investment magazine.
An oil company's reserve replacement ratio is the amount added to its reserves divided by the amount extracted. A ratio of 100% means current production is sustainable, above 100% means it can grow, and below 100% means it is likely to decline.
As the amount of discoveries and changes in estimates fluctuates from year to year, it is common practice to calculate the reserve replacement ratio over several years.
The use of the proven oil reserves is common, but a case can be made for including probable reserves as well. Either way, these numbers are very susceptible to manipulation by the companies, and care needs to be taken, particularly with inter-company comparisons.
The reserve replacement ratio is also sometimes calculated at a global or national basis, usually in the context of long term industry and economic forecasting. As national numbers for reserves are even more likely to be manipulated, these numbers need to be treated with some caution.
see also
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/11/11/report-iae-hiding-truth-about-dwindling-oil-reserves/ ( I am curious about who has deep knowledge about Haiti oil ??
############################################# part III ###########################################################################
START COLBY QUOTE+ Funny that no one else seems to remember Ellsberg saying the things you claim he did.+END COLBY QUOTE.
Does this mean you have contacted Ellsberg or have contacted people close to Ellsberg ????
################## part IV ####################
http://dont-tread-on.me/wikileaks-cointelpro-psyop
propawhat ?? 
and now for the final word triki (oops) Wikileaks confirmed as GOV-PSY-OPS
THANKS Steve Gaal
-
START COLBY QUOTE= The point was you are so out of it that you unwittingly posted a link to an article that UNDERMINED your theory. Your latest article in no way supports your view either. You refer to the elite media as if it were a homogeneous cabal. For the most part the elite media: NY Times, WaPo, Time, Fox, Wired and Washington Star among others it has been critical of WL. = END COLBY QUOTE
########################################################################################################################################
PART I , PART I , PART I
I have repeatedly stated Mr.Colby has certain deficiencies : (point one) a poor reader, (point 2) being one who cannot follow a meta argument. Mr. Colby is trying to score/achieve debating points by his 'deficiencies". Note I use the polite term ,deficiencies, and not the crude perjoratives that Mr. Colby gives me,"stupid,moron,mentally lazy,out-of-it,loon,ect,ect..." In the link in question I prefaced it with the phrase," much of this is to me PSYOPS THEATER". The link is a pose, an unreality,artifice/disinformation. Mr. Colby said such link undermined my 'theory',however, it seems he didnt read my preface made in capital letters,"THEATER". This position of mine is consistent with other of my posts in this thread,in that the main stream media is in psy-ops mode in its embrace of Assange. The embrace and the disembrace of Assange will increase/potentiate his message,thus giving food to the left and the right. The whole main stream media (MSM) reaction to wikileaks is THEATER (in capital letters again). Mr. Simkin has numerous threads on MSM disinformation.If one reviews the Watergate section of this forum,one will see an illumination/dissection of a psy-ops conducted by ther MSM. Does Mr. Colby consider Mr. Simkin a loon for thinking the MSM conducts PSY-OPS ??
#######################################################################################################################################
PART II , PART II , PART II
I am going to preface a link. For some the 'preface' is a difficult concept to grasp. Daniel Ellsberg is not what others say he is,"a dangerous left rabble-rouser".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PREFACE (in capital letters) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ONE) Sam Cohen (neutron bomb father) was a favorite of radio/TV personality George Putnam. One time on TV I saw together Cohen and Ellsberg. Ellsberg noted,"Im not as liberal as you think,in fact,Im conservative. I didnt provide all the Pentagon Papers I could have." OF NOTE George Putnam was one of rightwing media that smeared RFK coroner Noguchi. (see Steve Gaal bio below)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TWO) Starting in about 1978 Ellsberg led/took antinuclear protesters to the high hot/cold desert area. He usually stayed a few weeks or more but only got two days press at most. The conditions were harsh and one protester died of exposure. The sum of all this was a distraction and diminisment of real antinuclear activity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THREE) I interacted with Ellsberg (via phone ) in the mid 1970s on a call-in talk radio program. I asked Mr. Ellsberg about oil in Vietnam. Ellsberg insisted zealously again and again that there was no oil in Vietnam. Ellsberg stated that the only important resource was Borax. My Uncle who was a CIA asset (see my William Weston interview in the JFK section) ,told me there was oil in Vietnam. In the 1960s the military gave my Uncle underwater Vietnam mineral samples . Moreover my Uncle told me that a private 1958 study by DeGloyer and MacNaughton talked about Vietnam oil. To repeat ,my Uncle said there was Vietnam oil. Mr. Ellsberg had done background research on Vietnam for the CIA at RAND. Oil and CIA are practically synonymous terms. Ellsberg must have known about the oil. Ellsberg thus would seem to be protecting the CIA and the inhuman greed surrounding the Vietnam fiasco. Oil today is flowing out of Vietnam and will do so decades to come.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOUR) Ellsberg was a very strong supporter of impeaching G"W"Bush movement. Many honest people got involved with this non-starter. This movement was a distraction from real opposition to "W" policies. Ellsberg also inflamed people with "W" police state rumors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIVE) Ellsberg was the 'Assange' of the Pentagon Papers. Said papers painted the CIA in a most favorable light. The Pentagon Papers 'story' has CIA analysis (Ellsberg being an analyst) generally giving correct and timely advice to the DOD and President on Vietnam. The darn POTUS and DOD just didnt follow this sage advice of the CIA. After reading the Pentagon Papers no one could blame the Vietnam failure on the CIA. QUI BONO ? The Pentagon Papers were a supreme MSM event. Ellsberg is a big defender of Assange.QUI BONO ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************ END PREFACE ************************************************
Wikileaks Is The Cognitive Infiltration Operation Demanded by Cass Sunstein + LINK for article below
http://theintelhub.com/2011/01/22/wikileaks-is-the-cognitive-infiltration-operation-demanded-by-cass-sunstein/ (to see video)
January 22, 2011 by Alex
Filed under Constitution / Economy, Featured, International news, U.S. News
Webster G. Tarpley
Tarpley.net
Awareness is growing around the world that the Wikileaks-Julian Assange theater of the absurd is radically inauthentic a psyop. Wikileaks and its impaired boss represent a classic form of limited hangout or self-exposure, a kind of lurid striptease in which the front organization releases doctored and pre-selected materials provided by the intelligence agency with the intent of harming, not the CIA, nor the UK, nor the Israelis, but rather such classic CIA enemies list figures as Putin, Berlusconi, Karzai, Qaddafi, Rodriguez de Kirchner, etc.
In Tunisia, derogatory material about ex-President Ben Ali leaked by Wikileaks has already brought a windfall for Langley in the form of the rare ouster of an entrenched Arab government.
Obama White House NSC Russia Director Michael McFaul Deploying IMF Shock Therapist Boris Nemtsov as Wheelhorse of Feeble Stop Putin in 2012″ Bid.
At Foggy Bottom and Langley, a manic fit has been building since the flight of Ben Ali. US imperialist planners now believe they can re-launch their shopworn model of the color revolution, CIA people-power coup, or postmodern putsch against a whole series of countries in the Arab world and far beyond, including Italy. The color revolutions had been looking tarnished lately, as a result of the failure of the Twitter Revolution in Iran back in June 2009. Previously, the Cedars Revolution of 2005 had failed in Lebanon. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine had been rolled back with the ouster of NATO-IMF kleptocrats Yushchenko and Timoshenko. In Georgia, the Roses Revolution was increasingly discredited by the repressive and warmongering regime of fascist madman Saakashvili.
US Seeks to Mobilize a New Generation of Young Nihilists Across the Globe
But now, NSC, State, and CIA believe that the color revolution has a new lease on life, thanks to their estimate that the United States, because of Wikileaks and Assange, has captured the imagination of a new generation of young nihilists across the globe who are described as the post-9/11 generation, estranged from governments and opposition parties, and thus ready to follow Langleys peroxide Pied Piper.
Assange started his intensive deployment phase this year with video of a Class A US war crime in Iraq, which was very graphic but which dealt with an incident which was already widely known. The second document dump focused on Iraq, but now the targeting had shifted to Prime Minister Maliki, and the Iranian asset whom the US by some strange coincidence was trying to oust as leader of Iraq in favor of the US puppet Allawi. With the third document dump, this time involving State Department cables, we found out much derogatory gossip about such classic CIA targets as Russian prime minister Putin, Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, the Russian-Italian strategic alliance, President Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina, and President Karzai of Afghanistan, along with jabs at supposed US allies who need to be kept off-balance and dependent, including the Saudi Arabian royal family, French President Sarkozy, and others. Wikileaks thus directs the vast majority of its fire against figures who are part of the CIAs enemies list.
No Equal Time for CIA Covert Operations
Assange also provides a splendid pretext for draconian censorship and limitations on the freedom of the internet. The totalitarian liberal Senator Feinstein wants to bring back Woodrow Wilsons infamous Espionage Act of 1917 in honor of Assange. Assange must be seen not as an activist, not as a journalist, and not as an entertainer, but rather as a spook. John Young of Cryptome, according to some reports, has denounced Wikileaks, to which he formerly belonged, as a CIA front. In a December 29 RT interview, Young described the internet as a very large-scale spying machine.1 The internet is indeed a vast battlefield, where the intelligence agencies of the US-UK, China, Israel, Russia, and many others clash every hour of the day, with commercial spies, hackers, anarchists, cultists, mercenary trolls, and psychotics all getting into the act as well. Intelligence agencies deliberately feed real and doctored material to various websites, sometimes using their own disgruntled employees as cutouts, conduits, and go-betweens. This means among other things that Bradley Manning cannot be taken at face value, although it is also clear that he like anyone else should not be tortured.
Assange is now famous, it might be argued. But the Wall Street controlled media can make anyone famous, from Lady Gaga to Justin Bieber to Snooki, and this is what they have done with Assange. It is wrong to capitulate to the demagogic power of these media by making it appear that there might be some legitimate value to Assange. Up to now, the CIA has been organizing color revolutions using Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and so forth as vehicles. Now they think they have a cult figure whom they can sell to the youth bulge in the Arab world and other developing countries, where most of the population is under 30. This is an operation which must be exposed.
Most recently, Wikileaks has played a role in the CIAs new Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia by publishing some State Department cables about the sybaritic luxury and lavish lifestyle of the Ben Ali clan, leading to the downfall of that regime. The CIA is now gloating that with the help of Wikileaks it can now topple all the Arab regimes at will, from Mubarak to Qaddafi to Bouteflika, and replace them with new and more pliable puppets eager to clash with Iran, Russia, and China
If Assange ever launches his much-touted doomsday machine against the Bank of America or some other financial institutions, we will be justified in asking that the Securities and Exchange Commission make public the extent of short interest in those stocks by certain hedge funds, especially those controlled by George Soros. And as far as Assanges attacks on the Vatican are concerned, they fit neatly into four centuries of British intelligence warfare against the Holy See, going back to Guy Fawkes and Lord Robert Cecils Gunpowder Plot of 1605 and beyond. Not much new or radical here.
Wikileaks: No Serious Derogatory Information about US, UK, Israel
It is illuminating that none of Assanges document dumps have revealed any notable scandals involving Great Britain or Israel. No US public figures have had to resign because of anything Wikileaks has done. No major ongoing covert operation or highly placed agent of influence has been blown. After all these months, there are still no US indictments against Assange, even though we know that a US grand jury will readily indict a ham sandwich if the US Attorney demands it. If the CIA had wanted to silence Assange, they could have subjected him to the classic kidnapping aka rendition, meaning that he would have been beaten, drugged, and carted off to wake up in a black site prison in Egypt, Poland, or Guantanamo Bay. Otherwise, the CIA could have had recourse to the usual extralegal wetwork. We must also assume that the new US Cybercommand with its vast resources would have little trouble shutting down the Wikileaks mirror sites, no matter how numerous they might be. The same goes for Anonymous and other flanking organizations of Wikileaks. But these considerations are purely fantastic. Assange emerges today as the pampered darling and golden boy of The New York Times, Der Spiegel. The Guardian, El Pais in short, of the entire Anglo-American official media Wurlitzer. He reclines today in baronial splendor in the country house of a well-connected retired British officer who should be quizzed by the media about his ties to British intelligence. The radical-chic world, from Bianca Jagger to Michael Moore, is at Assanges feet.
Cass Sunstein Present at the Creation of Wikileaks
Wikileaks was apparently founded in 2006. Originally, the group was programmed to attack China, and its board was heavily larded with fishy Chinese dissidents and democracy activists from the orbit of the Soros foundations. Interestingly, the first big publicity breakthrough for Wikileaks in the mainstream US media was provided by an infamous totalitarian liberal today ensconced in the Obama White House none other than Cass Sunstein. In Sunsteins op-ed published in the Washington Post of February 24, 2007 under the title Brave new Wikiworld, we read: Wikileaks.org, founded by dissidents in China and other nations, plans to post secret government documents and to protect them from censorship with coded software. How interesting that Sunstein was present at the creation of the new Wikileaks psywar operation!
This is the same Sunstein who today heads Obamas White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. In his January 2008 Harvard Law School Working Paper entitled Conspiracy Theories, Sunstein infamously demanded that the United States government deploy groups of covert operatives and pseudo-independent agents of influence for the cognitively infiltration of extremist groups meaning organizations, activists and Internet websites who espouse beliefs which Sunstein chooses to classify as false conspiracy theories.
Wikileaks = Cass Sunsteins Program for Cognitive Infiltration In Action
It should be clear that Assange and Wikileaks are precisely the practical realization of Sunsteins program for cognitive infiltration shock troops to counteract and overwhelm any real mass understanding of oligarchical domination in the modern world, and any discussion of what kind of economic policies are needed to secure a recovery from the present world depression.
In line with Sunsteins recipe, Assange is a self-declared enemy of 9/11 truth. As Assange told Belfast Telegraph reporter Matthew Bell last July, Im constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud. In other words, Assange argues that the truth about 9/11 truth is not nearly as radical as the various scandals which Wikileaks claims to expose. But the scandals Assange is offering target mostly the adversaries of the CIA.
Assange must also be seen as a deeply troubled individual and a possible psychopath. He has the ravaged emotional complexion that we might expect from an alumnus of one of the many MK-Ultra operations. He reportedly spent several years in the menticidal Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult (also known as The Family and Santiniketan) near Melbourne, Australia. Here little children were separated from their parents and made to ingest LSD, Anatensol, Diazepam, Haloperidol, Largactil, Mogadon, Serepax, Stelazine, Tegretol, Tofranil, and other potent psychopharmaca. Dozens of children were told that Hamilton-Byrne was their real mother, and had their hair dyed blond. Anne Hamilton-Byrne reportedly regarded blond hair as a sign of racial superiority. Careful observers will have noted that Assanges hair is sometimes blond, sometimes more brownish, raising the question of whether his grooming practices are a residue of his time with Hamilton-Byrne, whom he says he does not remember. When other kids were getting cookies and milk, was Assange being lobotomized by LSD and other potent psychopharmaca dished up by Hamilton-Byrne? There is evidence pointing in that direction.
With Assange, we thus have the tragic spectacle of the emotionally mutilated product of a CIA (or MI-6) covert operation of 40 years ago, who has now been given a prominent role in a key counter-insurgency ploy of the present time. Will the youth of the world, already burned by their recent fatuous obsession with Obama, be duped again by such an impaired individual?
The Precedent: Pentagon Papers Whitewashed CIA, Blamed Army, Demonized Kennedy
Assanges revelations mainly involve communications labeled Confidential or Secret, and which in reality would be over-classified if marked Official Use Only. In other words, Assange is in reality a purveyor of low level cable traffic, not of earth-shattering secrets. This reminds us of an earlier CIA limited hangout operation, the one known as the Pentagon Papers. This was a carefully screened selection of historical documents, supplemented by outright forgeries, relating to the Vietnam War and compiled by Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb, both of whom have gone on to glittering careers in the imperialist foreign policy establishment Gelb became president of the Council on Foreign Relations, while Halperin serves today as chief political officer of the Soros wolfpack of foundations. The papers were leaked by former RAND Corporation official Daniel Ellsberg, who had been a very bellicose hawk in Vietnam before a suspicious Damascus Road conversion to pacifism, and then published in the US establishment press similarly to Assange today. There was nothing in the Pentagon papers which a casual reader of LeMonde or Corriere della Sera did not already know. But, as Mort Sahl later said, left liberals have generally had very few heroes, so they battened on to Ellsberg and lionized him led by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and some others. (This is a syndrome which we see again today: at the moment when Obamas treacherous sellout on the Bush tax cuts was providing a final disillusionment for many gullible left libs, Assange arrived on the scene as their new Savior. Not by chance, Ellsberg has now designated Assange as his own reincarnation, and thus surely the new Messiah.)
The Pentagon papers had been carefully selected by the CIA itself to cover up CIA war crimes in Vietnam, blaming these on the US Army wherever possible, while also obscuring the CIAs massive program of drug production and narcotics smuggling. The Pentagon Papers systematically hid the salient political fact of the entire Vietnam era, which is that President John F. Kennedy before he was assassinated was preparing to end the de facto US combat role in that country. Instead, Kennedy was systematically demonized and smeared, emerging as the villain of the piece. Needless to say, the Pentagon papers throw no light whatsoever on the CIA role in the Kennedy assassination in the same way that Assanges various document dumps tell us nothing of importance about 9/11, the Rabin assassination, Iran-contra, the 1999 bombing of Serbia, the Kursk incident, the various CIA color revolutions, or many of the other truly big covert operations of the past decades.
The limited hangout is not new; it was described in a secret memorandum by Venetian intelligence chief Paolo Sarpi to the Venetian Senate in 1620 as the art of saying something good about somebody while pretending to be saying something bad. That is the common denominator of the CIAs limited hangout operations from Ellsberg to Philip Agee to Assange, with so many other former CIA operatives turned whistleblowers along the way.
___________________________
1John Young of Cryptome, Internet a very large-scale spying machine info leaking site co-founder, RT, 29 December, 2010, at http://rt.com/news/cryptome-classified-secret-wikileaks/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Once there was a way, to get back homeward,
Once there was a way, to get back home
Sleep pretty darling do not cry, and I will sing a lullaby
Golden slumbers fill your eyes, smiles awake you when you rise
Sleep pretty darling do not cry, and I will sing a lullaby
Once there was a way, to get back homeward,
Once there was a way, to get back home
Sleep pretty darling do not cry, and I will sing a lullaby
Boy you're gonna carry that weight, carry that weight for a long time
Boy you're gonna carry that weight, carry that weight for a long time
I never give you my pillow, I only send you my invitations
And in the middle of the celebrations, I break down
Boy you're gonna carry that weight, carry that weight for a long time
Boy you're gonna carry that weight, carry that weight for a long time
Oh yeah, all right, are you gonna be in my dreams tonight?
Love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you,
Love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you,
Love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you, love you,
Love you, love you, love you
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love, you make, Ah
SEE
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2011/01/mossad-ran-911-arab-hijacker-terrorist.html
and related
-
Like I said you're a loon. You're right I forgot about the "2 Gary Macks" thread, it seems to have been made invisible for obvious reasons. So now 2 wrongs make a right? He has gotten better but Jack was put on moderation a few times for his trollish behavior of which that thread was an example.
As for the Chossudovsky essay, I often disagree with him but this one seems to be fairly reasonable but I don't have the time or inclination to check his facts and figures. The funny thing is you failed to realize it undermines your theory; if Ben Ali was indeed the IMF's poodle why would the the PTB/MIBH want to boot him out of power?! Like I said you're a loon.
############################################################################################
if Ben Ali was indeed the IMF's poodle why would the the PTB/MIBH want to boot him out of power?! Like I said you're .....END COLBY QUOTE POINT 1) All Kings know there is a differance between being on ones own knees and the obeisance position. 100% obediance may be needed by elites at certain times. The Bankers know that to their power some are standing up straight (Iceland) ,some bowing,some knees, an others face/belly down. Point 2)
We dont know the end game of Tunisia and other places of food riots. Dont judge the first government to come out of the chaos as the final outcome. Happy,joy,people celebration !!!,
jujitsu move,opps, regular people lose......
############################################################## update wikilinks (as you may guess , much of this is to me PSYOPS THEATER, Forbes magazine ,now there is an elite rag !!)
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/01/25/wikileaks-hackers-and-conspiracy-theories/
-
From the net . January 21-22,2011 from one site.
SO called left Media http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4705386
SO CALLED left wing POTUS http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Better%20Believe%20It/583
So called left congress http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/7253
-
Mack is a public figure and I don’t remember seeing any posts about his personal life or anyone writing/adapting songs about him. Like I said you are an obsessed loon. Ironic that you do what you complain the government does.
I never claimed to be a victim.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
POINT 1) You must not have read the thread with the Jack White Quote,"the two Gary Macks" regarding the personal life of Gary Mack. . This of course is also a pun of Jack's on his own work on the "Many Faces of LHO". You are also ignorant of the many posts in internet JFK forums about Mack and also his,'Global Connection' ,the 6th Floor. The law firm of the 6th floor today is a new version of the Parade Route law firm (which was assassinated related via Wallace Investments) and the firm that handled the personal affairs of "W" Bush. The so called Alcohol arrest of "W" was really a harder drug arrest. Said firm handled the cover up. The universrse of JFK research doesnt just exist on this internet site. You bask in the darkness of ignorance when you think Lone Nutters are not all looked into by serious JFK researchers. POINT 2) Compose a song for you ?? You dont know were I got the lyric ? Is the whole Colby family a clan of nerdish trolls,I ask ?? The song is a display of witticism. Nerdy trolls IMHO either lack said trait or have a miniscule amount. 3) You state I put the CIA into the issue. Well I put up two links sir.You glob on to one thing and again ignore other data I post. This said purposeful ignoring of datum inforces the idea I posted in this thread that you cannot (or will not to nitpick) follow the thrust of a meta argument. The price manipulation of food was not connected to the CIA,but finance speculators.This cuts to the heart of the main core of my coinspiarcy postings , that BANKING ELITES are driving events.Now I like Chossudovsky (follow his papers/ideas/books) and if you find him stupid ==then I am stupid as you continue to post.Now below the IMF and World Bank working to destabilize Tunisia. Said events in Tunisia were connected by some to wikileaks.This wikileaks connection can diffuse a look at the real culprits being the financers. To the point , there was a movement ,'50 years is enough !!'. Said movement decried the austerity measures imposed by the World Bank and stated that said "MEASURES" caused the death of 50 million people. I really havent found any empathy or sympathy displayed by you for other people. I find these traits the sine qua non of being a real human being. You know in retrospect you maybe a victim, a victim of your upbringing. SGaal
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22867
Tunisia and the IMF's Diktats: How Macro-Economic Policy Triggers Worldwide Poverty and Unemployment
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, January 20, 2011
General Zine el Abidine Ben Ali , the defunct and deposed president of Tunisia is heralded by the Western media, in chorus, as a dictator.
The Tunisian protest movement is casually described as the consequence of an undemocratic and authoritarian regime, which defies the norms of the "international community".
But Ben Ali was not a "dictator". Dictators decide and dictate. Ben Ali was a servant of Western economic interests, a faithful political puppet who obeyed orders, with the active support of the international community.
Foreign interference in Tunisia's domestic affairs is not mentioned in the media reports. The food price hikes were not "dictated" by the Ben Ali government. They were imposed by Wall Street and the IMF.
The role of Ben Ali's government was to enforce the IMF's deadly economic medicine, which over a period of more than twenty years has served to destabilize the national economy and impoverish the Tunisian population.
Ben Ali as head of state did not decide on anything of substance. National sovereignty was foregone. In 1987, at the height of the debt crisis, the left nationalist government of Habib Bourguiba was replaced by a new regime, firmly committed to "free market" reforms.
Macroeconomic management under the helm of the IMF was in the hands of Tunisia's external creditors. Over the last 23 years, economic and social policy in Tunisia has been dictated by the Washington Consensus.
Ben Ali stayed in power because his government obeyed and effectively enforced the diktats of the IMF, while serving the interests of both the US and the European Union.
This pattern has occurred in numerous countries.
Continuity of the IMF's deadly reforms requires "regime replacement". The installation of a political puppet ensures the enforcement of the neoliberal agenda while also creating conditions for the eventual demise of a corrupt and unpopular government which has been draw upon to impoverish an entire population.
The Protest Movement
It is not Wall Street and the Washington based international financial institutions which are the direct target of the protest movement. The social implosion was directed against a government rather than against the interference of foreign powers in the conduct of government policy.
At the outset, the protests were not the result of an organized political movement directed against the imposition of the neoliberal reforms.
Moreover, there are indications that the protest movement was manipulated with a view to creating social chaos as well as ensuring political continuity. There are unconfirmed reports of armed militias conducting acts of repression and intimidation in major urban areas.
The important question is how will the crisis evolve? How will the broader issue of foreign interference be addressed by the Tunisian people?
From the standpoint of both Washington and Brussels, an unpopular authoritarian regime is slated to be replaced by a new puppet government. Elections are envisaged under the supervision of the so-called international community, in which case candidates would be pre-selected and approved.
Were this process of regime change to be carried out on behalf of foreign interests, the new proxy government would no doubt ensure the continuity of the neoliberal policy agenda which has served to impoverish the Tunisian population.
The interim government led by acting president Fouad Mebazza is currently in an impasse, with fierce opposition emanating from the trade union movement (UGTT). Mebazza has promised to "break with past", without however specifying whether this signifies a repeal of the neoliberal economic reforms.
Historical Background
The media in chorus have presented the crisis in Tunisia as an issue of domestic politics, without a historical insight. The presumption is that with the removal of "the dictator" and the instatement of a duly elected government, the social crisis will eventually be resolved.
The first "bread riots" in Tunisia date back to 1984. The January 1984 protest movement was motivated by a 100 percent hike in the price of bread. This hike had been demanded by the IMF under Tunisia's structural adjustment program (SAP). The elimination of food subsidies was a de facto condition of the loan agreement with the IMF.
President Habib Bourguiba, who played a historical role in liberating his country from French colonialism, declared a state of emergency in response to the riots:
While gunfire sounded, police and army troops in Jeeps and armored personnel carriers fanned out through the city to quell the "bread riot." The show of force finally brought an uneasy calm, but only after more than 50 demonstrators and bystanders were killed. Then, in a dramatic five-minute radio and television broadcast, Bourguiba announced that he was reversing the price hike. (Tunisia: Bourguiba Lets Them Eat Bread - TIME, January 1984)
Following president Bourguiba's retraction, the hike in the price of bread was reversed. Bourguiba fired his Minister of the Interior and refused to abide by the demands of the Washington Consensus.
The neoliberal agenda had nonetheless been instated, leading to rampant inflation and mass unemployment. Three years later, Bourguiba and his government were removed in a bloodless coup d'Etat, "on the grounds of incompetence", leading to the instatement of General Zine el Abidine Ben Ali as president in November 1987. This coup was not directed against Bourguiba, it was largely intended to permanently dismantle the nationalist political structure initially established in the mid-1950s, while also privatizing State assets.
The military coup not only marked the demise of post-colonial nationalism which had been led by Bourguiba, it also contributed to weakening the role of France. The Ben Ali government became firmly aligned with Washington rather than Paris.
Barely a few months following Ben Ali's November 1987 instatement as the country's president, a major agreement was signed with the IMF. An agreement had also been reached with Brussels pertaining to the establishment of a free trade regime with the EU. A massive privatization program under the supervision of the IMF-World Bank was also launched. With hourly wages of the order of Euro 0.75 an hour, Tunisia had also become a cheap labor haven for the European Union.
Who is the dictator?
A review of IMF documents suggests that from Ben Ali's inauguration in 1987 to the present, his government had faithfully abided by IMF-World Bank conditionalities, including the firing of public sector workers, the elimination of price controls over essential consumer goods and the implementation of a sweeping privatization program. The lifting of trade barriers ordered by the World Bank was conducive to triggering a wave of bankruptcies.
Following these dislocations of the national economy, cash remittances from Tunisian workers in the European Union became an increasingly important source of the foreign exchange earnings.
There are some 650,000 Tunisians living overseas. Total workers' remittances in 2010 were of the order of US$1.960 billion, an increase of 57 percent in relation to 2003. A large share of these remittances in foreign exchange will be used to service the country's external debt.
The Speculative Hike in World Food Prices
In September 2010, an understanding was reached between Tunis and the IMF, which recommended the removal of remaining subsidies as a means to achieving fiscal balance:
Fiscal prudence remains an overarching priority for the [Tunisian] authorities, who also see the need for maintaining a supportive fiscal policy in 2010 in the current international environment. Efforts in the last decade to bring down the public debt ratio significantly should not be jeopardized by a too lax fiscal policy. The authorities are committed to firmly control current expenditure, including subsidies,... IMF Tunisia: 2010 Article IV Consultation - Staff Report; Public Information Notice on the Executive Board Discussion; and Statement by the Executive Director for Tunisia http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2010/cr10282.pdf
It is worth noting that the IMF's insistence on fiscal austerity and the removal of subsidies coincided chronologically with a renewed upsurge in staple food prices on the London, New York and Chicago commodity exchanges. These price hikes are in large part the result of speculative trade by major financial and corporate agribusiness interests.
These hikes in food prices, which are the result of outright manipulation (rather than scarcity) have served to impoverish people Worldwide. The surge in food prices constitutes a new phase of the process of global impoverishment.
"The media has casually misled public opinion on the causes of these price hikes, focusing almost exclusively on issues of costs of production, climate and other factors which result in reduced supply and which might contribute to boosting the price of food staples. While these factors may come into play, they are of limited relevance in explaining the impressive and dramatic surge in commodity prices.
Spiralling food prices are in large part the result of market manipulation. They are largely attributable to speculative trade on the commodity markets. Grain prices are boosted artificially by large scale speculative operations on the New York and Chicago mercantile exchanges. ...
Speculative trade in wheat, rice or corn, can occur without the occurrence of real commodity transactions. The institutions speculating in the grain market are not necessarily involved in the actual selling or delivery of grain.
The transactions may use commodity index funds which are bets on the general upward or downward movement of commodity prices. A "put option" is a bet that the price will go down, a "call option" is a bet that the price will go up. Through concerted manipulation, institutional traders and financial institutions make the price go up and then place their bets on an upward movement in the price of a particular commodity.
Speculation generates market volatility. In turn, the resulting instability encourages further speculative activity.
Profits are made when the price goes up. Conversely, if the speculator is short-selling the market, money will be made when the price collapses.
This recent speculative surge in food prices has been conducive to a Worldwide process of famine formation on an unprecedented scale." (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Famine, Global Research, May 2, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8877)
From 2006 to 2008, there was a dramatic surge in the prices of all major food staples including rice, wheat and corn. The price of rice tripled over a five year period, from approximately 600$ a ton in 2003 to more than 1800$ a ton in May 2008.
(Michel Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9191, For further details, see Michel Chossudovsky, Chapter 7 Global Poverty and the Economic Crisis in Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, editors, The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the XXI Century, Global Research, Montreal 2010, http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20425 )
The recent surge in the price of grain staples is characterized by a 32 percent jump in the FAO's composite food price index recorded in the second half of 2010.
"Soaring prices of sugar, grain and oilseed drove world food prices to a record in December, surpassing the levels of 2008 when the cost of food sparked riots around the World, and prompting warnings of prices being in "danger territory".
An index compiled monthly by the United Nations surpassed its previous monthly high – June 2008 – in December to reach the highest level since records began in 1990. Published by the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the index tracks the prices of a basket of cereals, oilseeds, dairy, meat and sugar, and has risen for six consecutive months." (Jill Treanor, World food prices enter 'danger territory' to reach record high, The Guardian, January 5, 2011)
Bitter irony: Against a background of rising food prices, the IMF recommends the removal of the subsidies with a view to reaching the goal of fiscal austerity.
Manipulating the Data on Poverty and Unemployment
An atmosphere of social despair prevails, people's lives are destroyed.
While, the protest movement in Tunisia is visibly the direct result of a process mass impoverishment, the World Bank contends that the levels of poverty have been reduced as a result of the free market reforms adopted by the Ben Ali government.
According to the World Bank's country report, the Tunisian government (with the support of the Bretton Woods institutions) was instrumental in reducing the levels of poverty to 7 percent (substantially lower than that recorded in the US and the EU).
Tunisia has made remarkable progress on equitable growth, fighting poverty and achieving good social indicators. It has sustained an average 5 percent growth rate over the past 20 years with a steady increase in per capita income and a corresponding increase in the welfare of its population that is underscored by a poverty level of 7% that is amongst the lowest in the region.
The steady increase in per capita income has been the main engine for poverty reduction. ... Rural roads have been particularly important in helping the rural poor connect to urban markets and services. Housing programs improved the living conditions of the poor and also freed up income and savings to spend on food and non-food items with resulting positive impacts on poverty alleviation. Food subsidies, which have been targeted to the poor, albeit not optimally, have also helped the urban poor. (World Bank Tunisia - Country Brief)
These poverty figures, not to mention the underlying economic and social "analysis", are outright fabrications. They present the free market as the engine of poverty alleviation. The World Bank's analytical framework is used to justify a process of "economic repression", which has been applied Worldwide in more than 150 developing countries.
With a mere 7 percent of the population living in poverty (as suggested by the World Bank "estimate") and 93 percent of the population meeting basic needs in terms of food, housing, health and education, there would be no social crisis in Tunisia.
The World Bank is actively involved in cooking the data and distorting the social plight of the Tunisian population. The official rate of unemployment is 14 percent, the actual level of unemployment is much higher. Recorded youth unemployment is of the order of 30 percent. Social services, including health and education have collapsed under the brunt of the IMF-World Bank economic austerity measures.
Tunisia and the World
What is happening in Tunisia is part of a global economic process which destroys people's lives through the deliberate manipulation of market forces.
More generally, "the harsh economic and social realities underlying IMF intervention are soaring food prices, local-level famines, massive lay-offs of urban workers and civil servants and the destruction of social programs. Internal purchasing power has collapsed, health clinics and schools have been closed down, hundreds of millions of children have been denied the right to primary education." (Michel Chossudovsky, Global Famine, op cit.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order
by Michel Chossudovsky
In this new and expanded edition of Chossudovsky’s international best-seller, the author outlines the contours of a New World Order which feeds on human poverty and the destruction of the environment, generates social apartheid, encourages racism and ethnic strife and undermines the rights of women. The result as his detailed examples from all parts of the world show so convincingly, is a globalization of poverty.
This book is a skilful combination of lucid explanation and cogently argued critique of the fundamental directions in which our world is moving financially and economically.
In this new enlarged edition –which includes ten new chapters and a new introduction-- the author reviews the causes and consequences of famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, the dramatic meltdown of financial markets, the demise of State social programs and the devastation resulting from corporate downsizing and trade liberalisation.
Michel Chossudovsky is Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), which hosts the critically acclaimed website www.globalresearch.ca . He is a contributor to the Encyclopedia Britannica. His writings have been translated into more than 20 languages.
-
A LaRouche groupie makes undocumented claims, they must be true! Odd that the peaceful overthrow of a corrupt and oppressive despot is considered a bad thing. The ben-Ali regime repressed the Islamists and was an ally on the War on Terror so it is unlikely that overthrowing it was a CIA objective
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/washington-media-group-tunisia-pr-firm
http://www.truth-out.org/protest-suicide-highlights-economic-and-political-oppression-tunisia66631
######################################
LEN U HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR ME>
You finally got something right!
MY ARGUMENTS ARE ABOUT BANKING ELITES> (not the straw man CIA argument u just injected)You cited Tarpley he said the CIA via Wikileaks was responsible for the Tunisian "Putsch"
COLBY QUOTE = to have developed a bizarre obsession with me == END COLBY QUOTE. ## Now I ask every member of this forum where I ever (EVER) followed COLBY at FAKE APOLLO THREADS. NO SIR !...never !! If I post on 911, COLBY comes......its really Colby who is obsessed...really.....THANKS Steve Gaal
I rebut stupidity or points I disagree with. Your posts are about 100% stupid. But if you check again you will see that I did not reply to a few of your threads. You have obviously spent quite a bit of time researching me, my city of residence and even a Colombian company with the same name as mine, thus you are obsessed
#####################################################################
The coincidence kook AKA Lone Nutter AKA No coinspiracy AKA Colby people are all (all) researched by the JFK community. I have looked into Gary Mack as have many,many other JFK researchers. This is very common knowledge that lone nutters are researched into. This is very common knowledge that lone nutters are researched into . This is very common knowledge that lone nutters are looked into. Your surprise at being looked into must be a pose to acquire sympathy as a sooooo called "victim ". Did you miss this TEN PAGE THREAD ??
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16495&st=135 ??? or this ???
http://www.ctka.net/2009/target_car_jd3.html
Yes Gary Mack's ideas are followed as are yours.....LONE NUTTERED posts/info need to rebuffed. In the parlance of the street ,you are a poser.
1750 returns this site alone .#######################################88888888888888######### COLBY'S SONG
Saint CIAeve, Saint CIAeve
It's COLBYere, remember me?
Saint CIAeve, Saint CIAeve
I'm over here beneath this tree!
You know how faithful and devout I am
You must admit I've always been a lamb
But CIAeve, Saint CIAeve
I won't obey you anymore
You've gone a bit too far
I won't be bid and bargained for
Like beads at a bazaar
Saint CIAeve, I've run away
Eluded them and fled
And from now on I intend to pray
To someone else instead!
Oh, CIAeve, Saint CIAeve
Where were you when my youth was sold?
Dear CIAeve, Sweet CIAeve
Shan't I be young before I'm old?
Where are the simple joys of victimhood?
Where are all those adoring daring post readers?
Where's the poster followers pining so for me
they leap to death in woe for me?
Oh where are a victim's simple joys?
Shan't I have the normal life a poser should?
Shall I never be rescued in the wood?
Shall two poster followers never tilt for me
and let their blood be spilt for me?
Oh where are the simple joys of victimhood?
Shall I not be on a pedestal,
Worshipped and competed for?
Not be carried off, or better st'll,
Cause a little war?
Where are the simple joys of victimhood?
Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
Shall a feud not begin for me?
Shall kith not kill their kin for me?
Oh, where are the simple joys of victimhood?
Shall I never be disputed for
Or on any minstrel's lips
Never have my face recruited for
Launching countless posts
Where are the simple joys of victimhood?
Are those sweet, gentle pleasures gone for good?
Shall two poster followers never tilt for me?
Or let their blood be spilt for me?
Oh, where are the trivial joys,
Harmless, convivial joys
Where are the simple joys of victimhood?
-
A LaRouche groupie makes undocumented claims, they must be true! Odd that the peaceful overthrow of a corrupt and oppressive despot is considered a bad thing. The ben-Ali regime repressed the Islamists and was an ally on the War on Terror so it is unlikely that overthrowing it was a CIA objective
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/01/20111981222719974.html
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01/washington-media-group-tunisia-pr-firm
http://www.truth-out.org/protest-suicide-highlights-economic-and-political-oppression-tunisia66631
######################################
LEN U HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR ME> MY ARGUMENTS ARE ABOUT BANKING ELITES> (not the straw man CIA argument u just injected) SAID ELITES DO USE THE MANY INTEL SERVICES OF THE WEST AND THEIR OWN ASSETS LIKE THE DALLAS JFK CONNECTIONS TO EMPIRE TRUST OR SOROS TODAY> COLBY QUOTE +You are obviously mentally unbalanced and seem to have developed a bizarre obsession with me. None of your drooling has anything to do with Wikileaks. + END COLBY QUOTE Now to me its either you can't understand a meta-argument,the thrust of/larger implications of an argument OR (OR) you have another motivation to nitpick. Steven Gaal who professes I am not a ,"idiot,stupid ,moron,fool,uneducated,mentally lazy,mentally unbalanced,ect,ect..." as Colby has repeatedly posted on this forum.You are IMHO Mr. Colby a very ,very mean person.
#############################
Now back to the topic at hand. In a previous post in this thread tricky (eh,eh SOOO sorry,oops) wikileaks connected to Tunisian events.################################Uprising in Tunisia SEE http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/tuni-j19.shtml
At least five ministers have been forced to quit Tunisia's National Unity Government, less than a day after it was formed, in the face of mass hostility to its domination by the party of deposed President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.
############################ also see
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jan2011/npat-j18.shtml
Tunisian events expose pro-imperialist policy of France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party
By Kumaran Ira, 18 January 2011
#########################
COLBY QUOTE = to have developed a bizarre obsession with me == END COLBY QUOTE. ## Now I ask every member of this forum where I ever (EVER) followed COLBY at FAKE APOLLO THREADS. NO SIR !...never !! If I post on 911, COLBY comes......its really Colby who is obsessed...really.....
THANKS Steve Gaal
-
COLBY WROTE
Dr. Edward Flaherty, a professor of economics at the College of Charleston, thinks “Jaikaran's model contains two gaping holes which collapse his entire thesis”
http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/antidote.htm END COLBY QUOTE
#################*************************########################
Mr Flaherty is easily debunked.
MEET EDWARD FLAHERTY, CONSPIRACY POO-POOIST
A response to a critic of The Creature from Jekyll Island
© 2004 by G. Edward Griffin
Edward Flaherty is a Ph.D. of Economics who has been critical of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second look at the Federal Reserve. Periodically I receive inquiries from readers who have visited Flaherty's web site, and they want to know if I can rebut what he says. I put this off for a long time because, first, his critique is lengthy and loaded with minutia that requires considerable time to respond properly and, second, the number of inquiries has been so small as to place the importance of this task far down on my list of priorities. Nevertheless, whenever I get an inquiry, I dread that my reader may think that a lack of response is a sign of not being able to defend my work; so, at last, I decided to step up to the plate and swing at the ball that Flaherty has thrown in my direction.
The essence of Flaherty's critique is that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve must be some kind of a kook, totally lacking in scholarship. He lumps all Fed critics together, those who bring scholarship to the topic as well as those who do not, and the mixture tends to discredit everyone. It is an old tactic of dumping garbage into the grocery bag so that it all smells like garbage and is rejected in total.
On September 5, 2004, I received an email from a reader who had compared comments made in my recorded lecture with what Flaherty's web site says and asked for clarification. What follows is his inquiry with my reply embedded at appropriate locations.
My reader begins by quoting from my recorded lecture, followed by a quote from Eustace Mullins:
My lecture: I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I’d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking so that, hopefully, you’ll remember them:
1. The Fed is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
3. It is the supreme instrument of usury.
4. It generates our most unfair tax through inflation and bailouts.
5. It encourages war.
6. It destabilizes the economy.
7. It discourages private capital formation.
Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve: “...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 BILLION dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks.”
My reply: I stand firmly behind my seven points but I do not agree with Mullins on this. Please do not lump my work with other writers. Flaherty does this a lot. Guilt by association is a ploy that must be challenged and rejected.
Flaherty: It would be a mistake to examine these conspiracy theories....
My reply: Stop right there. There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us.
Flaherty continued: ... outside the context in which they were written.
My reply: I try hard not to present text outside its context. When searching through hundreds of documents and thousands of pages, it is inevitable that some subtleties of context may be missed, but so far I have not yet been advised of any instances of this. I welcome any corrections; but, until specifics are brought to my attention, I stand firm on everything I have written. Furthermore, I resent the implication that my work could not stand without taking text out of context.
Flaherty: All the conspiracy authors whose work I study here profess a belief in the alleged ‘New World Order’ conspiracy, or some variant thereof.
My reply: An informed reader would not waste time beyond this point. It is absurd to claim that a blueprint for a New World Order based on the model of collectivism is merely “alleged.” The evidence that this is a demonstrable fact of modern history abounds. Some of that evidence is presented in my work, The Future Is Calling, found in the Issues section of this web site.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good. Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board.
My reply: Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control. One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false.
Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation’s money supply. Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks.
My reply: Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly “break the grip of the money trust,” the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected. What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for “big-business Republicans” and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, “defenders of the working man.” It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that “the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks” cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it. Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank’s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
My reply: Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank’s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let’s say 6.5% interest. That’s a spread of 5%. Although that’s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn’t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don’t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well. Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous “competitive” amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that “This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money,” one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid. Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily.
My reply: I agree with Flaherty on this issue and often have said so in the Q&A portions of my lectures. Please note that this is not contradictory to what I wrote in The Creature. What I said there is an accurate historical fact. There is little doubt in my mind that the vote would have passed eventually, but by slipping it through as they did, it circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate. I have never commented on the Constitutionality question, although I tend to think that a strict interpretation would have made this vote invalid. The problem here, however, has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Act but with the rules of Congress.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of “debt-free” money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran’s book, The Debt Virus. Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of “debt-free” money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt.
My reply: I object to being lumped together with other analysts on this issue. I did not write The Debt Virus, I wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth
Flaherty: Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery. Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
My reply: I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that “any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery.” What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.
My reply: Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Creature from Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait! You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story — which it really is. But it's all true. This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change. You'll never trust a politician again — or a banker. The Creature from Jekyll Island
An address by G. Edward Griffin
This is Mr. Griffin's acclaimed lecture based on his book by the same title. Heard by over a million people around the world. Audio cassette or CD. 74 minutes. The Federal Reserve
A discource by G. Edward Griffin
Mr. Griffin, founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island addresses these issues.
What is the Federal Reserve System?
Who drafted the plan for the Fed
When and where did it occur?
How is money created?
What impact has this on the American dollar?
Should our currency be backed by gold or silver?
Where does Congress get most of its funding?
What is the solution to the problem of fiat money?
Why do bankers get away with it?
What might happen if we continue on our current path?
What might come from a return to constitutional money?
What can concerned citizens do to help?
DVD. 42 minutes.
##############################################################################################################################
FSK
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx
Table of Contents
Overview
The Federal Reserve
Free Market Banking
A List of Monetary Systems
Examples
Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx
Summary
I read SO MANY people citing Edward Flaherty that I feel obligated to write a specific post refuting his false arguments.
This is the most frequently cited article by Edward Flaherty. Here is a shorter version of the same thing.
Here is a point-by-point debunking of Edward Flaherty's false debunking.
Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.
Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks.
Based on the sources I read, there *WAS* a secret meeting regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve. It's impossible to go back in time and check, so there's no way to resolve this disagreement.
Under the Federal Reserve, the New York City branch is firmly in control of the US monetary system. The regional banks are a decoy. The "open market operations" are performed by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. This is where the real power of the Federal Reserve lies. On the "Open Market Committee", which sets the Fed Funds Rate target, there are 12 total members. There are the 7 members of the Board of Governors, appointed by the President for 14 year terms, and 5 presidents of the district banks, with the New York branch *ALWAYS GETTING A SEAT* (the other 4 positions rotate).
The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. Executives must be approved by the Board of Governors, but the executives are always appointed by the private investors who own the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, the President *ALWAYS* chooses the nominee from a short list of candidates chosen by financial industry insiders. Someone who isn't part of the "in crowd" of the financial industry has NO CHANCE of being nominated. A President who disobeyed the financial industry would probably be unable to get his nominee confirmed by the Senate. Further, the Federal Reserve can cause recessions at will. A President that is hostile to the Federal Reserve will be unable to get reelected (or even survive long without being assassinated).
Besides, the argument against the Federal Reserve is unrelated to the means by which it was created. It's obvious that the Federal Reserve is immoral. Whether it was created as part of a conspiracy or not is irrelevant.
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, therefore the Act is null and void.
Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid.
Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily.
I don't recognize any government laws as having legitimacy. The legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is the same as all other aspects of the government: ZERO. If you want a full technical analysis of the Federal Reserve's legality, there are several aspects.
First, the Federal Reserve Act was passed immediately before Christmas. Several influential Congressmen who were opposed to the Federal Reserve had already left for holiday. Congress had a tradition that says important legislation is not passed immediately before Christmas. Of course, government is arbitrary and can do whatever it chooses.
Second, the Constitution grants control over money to Congress. Congress does not have the right to delegate this power to a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. Similarly, it would be just as unconstitutional to turn over control of the US military to a private corporation. (Has that happened also? Is Blackwater effectively the US military now?)
Third, the Constitution says that states may only declare gold or silver as money. This ban does not extend to the Federal government. However, the intent is obvious. Further, states have been disallowed from issuing their own metal-based money that competes with the Federal Reserve. The false reasoning the Supreme Court used is that usurps Congress' money-printing authority.
Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless. At this point, the Supreme Court isn't going to declare that the government has been operating illegitimately for 100 years. Government has no legitimacy, so arguing the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is pointless in comparison.
The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument.
Myth #3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.
Hypothesis: The constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to create a central bank, therefore it cannot legally do so. The constitution also forbids paper money and requires all money to be either gold or silver coin. Therefore, both the Federal Reserve and its paper money currency are unconstitutional.
Opinion: A central bank is a reasonable use of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause, according to many federal court and Supreme Court rulings. Although the constitution forbids States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender, it places no such restriction on Congress.
I addressed this point immediately above.
The framers of the US Constitution forbade states from declaring anything other than gold or silver as money. They did not put this restriction on the Federal government, but I consider that to be a technicality. The intent is obviously that only gold or silver were to be money.
Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless.
Remember: Just because the Supreme Court or a Federal appeals court says something is acceptable, doesn't automatically mean it's true. Just like Congress and the President were subverted, the court system was also subverted.
The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument.
Myth #4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank out to make a profit at the taxpayers' expense.
Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good.
Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
This is entirely missing the point. The point of the Federal Reserve is not profits to the Federal Reserve banks themselves. The point is the massive subsidy to the financial industry and large corporations in the form of negative real interest rates.
I address interest on the national debt it "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?"
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit.
Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.
It is unknown who actually owns the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is probably mostly owned by US corporations. However, with anonymous corporate ownership, how could you tell who are the true owners of the Federal Reserve?
For example, Citigroup could own shares in the Federal Reserve, and foreigners could own a controlling interest in Citigroup.
Unless you provide a full list of which corporations own the Federal Reserve *AND* a full list of the shareholders of each such corporation, you DON'T KNOW who really owns the Federal Reserve.
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed's treachery.
Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
The Federal Reserve's open market operations have never been audited. The full details are carefully kept secret.
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
Hypothesis: Federal Reserve Notes, the currency we use in the United States, are evidence of the debt of the U.S. government to the Federal Reserve. The central bank charges the government interest for this currency, thereby diverting billions of dollars from the Treasury that could be used for other things. The government could print its own money and avoid the Fed's interest.
Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.
This is entirely the whole point of the Compound Interest Paradox. Every dollar in circulation only exists due to a loan. The principal is created but not the interest.
The interest the Federal Reserve receives on Treasuries it owns is only a small slice of the massive subsidy the financial industry receives.
The Federal Reserve is not a check against abuse of the monetary system. The 12 people on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee wield more economic power than the Politburo in the Soviet Union. Anyone who knows in advance what the Federal Reserve is going to do has the opportunity to profit immensely. In January 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a surprise 0.75% decrease in the Fed Funds Rate. People who knew in advance profited immensely.
Similarly, government directly printing and spending its own money is also abusable. However, free-market interest rates would be far preferable to the Federal Reserve negative interest rate subsidy.
The only fair monetary system is to completely remove all government regulation of money and banking. This would effectively mean a return to a gold standard or a gold/silver standard. Of course, this will not happen until the government collapses completely.
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
Hypothesis: When the government runs a budget deficit, it borrows the money from the Fed at interest. If the Fed did not charge interest or if the government simply printed its own interest-free currency, then we would have a balanced budget and no national debt.
Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.
I address this in "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?"
The national debt is a legal fiction. The US government is the issuer for dollars. You can have unlimited debt is the money you issue, without being forced into bankruptcy. Deficit spending by the Federal government is inflationary. However, more money is printed by the Federal Reserve and financial industry than is printed by Federal deficit spending.
Most of the benefit of printing new money accrues to the financial industry, and not the Federal government. Without the Federal Reserve, the government could directly print and spend money into circulation. Whenever Congress wants to, it could pass a law allowing it to directly print and spend money to pay down the national debt. The only problem with this method is fractional reserve banking. If Congress directly printed and spent $10 trillion, this would lead to $100 trillion in new money after the effect of fractional reserve banking.
The correct solution is a complete repeal of the Federal Reserve and all regulation of the banking industry. All the taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold or silver as money also should be repealed. That is never going to happen.
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.
Hypothesis: In the months before Dallas, President Kennedy signed E.O. 11,110 which instructed the Treasury to issue about $4 billion of interest-free 'silver certificate' currency, thereby circumventing the Federal Reserve and the interest it charges. The Federal Reserve, fearful of further encroachments on its powers, had Kennedy killed.
Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.
I have no idea why President Kennedy was killed. The people who organized it aren't going to come forward and admit it, now are they?
The motivations for killing Kennedy are independent of whether or not the Federal Reserve is evil.
E.O. 11,110 was an attempt to abolish/compete with the Federal Reserve. By issuing "United States Notes" directly into circulation, this runs contrary to the Federal Reserve's policy of negative real interest rates and economic debt enslavement.
When President Kennedy issued extra money, that caused interest rates to fall. Fractional reserve banking multiplies this extra money by 10x. With surplus bank reserves, the Fed Funds Rate falls. Normally, when the Federal Reserve "monetizes the debt", it makes a guaranteed riskless profit and subsidizes negative real interest rates at the same time. With extra money in circulation, the Federal Reserve would have to do the opposite to raise interest rates. It would have to sell Treasuries it had in reserve, losing money.
If the Federal government directly issues and spends money, without repealing or amending the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve could be bankrupted. The Federal Reserve would lose its ability to manipulate interest rates. Money directly printed and spent by the government prevents the Compound Interest Paradox from enslaving everyone.
Myth #10: Congressman Louis T. McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve scam in the Congressional Record.
Hypothesis: On the floor of the House in 1932, McFadden accused the Federal Reserve of costing the government enough money to repay the national debt several times over, of causing the Great Depression, and of many other terrible things.
Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?
The Federal Reserve does cost the Federal government money. The profit gained by printing new money accrues primarily to the financial industry and large corporations, and not to the Federal government. Everyone pays the cost of inflation, but only a handful of people are the beneficiaries of inflation.
I read that Congressman McFadden *DID WANT* to reform or abolish the Federal Reserve. As only one vote, he was powerless to do anything. That's like asking "Why doesn't Ron Paul abolish or reform the Federal Reserve? He's on the House Banking Committee!"
There is evidence that insiders intentionally used the Federal Reserve to line their own pockets. A ton of people lost their homes and businesses during the Great Depression. A handful of insiders profited immensely. Insiders knew that interest rates would be jacked up in 1929, causing the Depression. Some large banks stopped issuing loans and converted their holdings to cash before the crash.
Myth #11: The Antidote to the Debt Virus
Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of "debt-free" money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran's book, The Debt Virus.
Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of "debt-free" money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt.
This is entirely the Compound Interest Paradox. If you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, work out an example. Edward Flaherty says "The balance sheet of each individual bank balances. Therefore, there is no Compound Interest Paradox or Debt Virus." If you look at the books of society as a whole, the Paradox is obvious.
Whenever someone cites Edward Flaherty saying there is no Debt Virus, show them my page of examples. I have not seen any evidence that my examples are incorrect.
The reason the economy does not collapse immediately due the Compound Interest Paradox is that there is continuous inflation. There is always a shortfall of money to pay the interest, but new money is always being created. The people who get first dibs on this new money are the recipients of a massive government subsidy.
Myth #12: Exposing the Debt Virus fallacies
This article is a much more detailed critique of The Debt Virus than the previous article. The file is in PDF, so you will need to download your free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it.
I didn't bother reading this article. Let me know if you're interested in a detailed analysis of this nonsense.
Myth #13: Banks charge interest on money they costlessly create out of thin air.
Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it.
Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
A bank's ability to create money is completely decoupled from customer deposits. Banks with surplus reserves lend them to other banks. Banks with a shortage of reserves can borrow from other banks. The rate large banks charge each other for reserves is called the "Fed Funds Rate". Practically every day, the Federal Reserve repurchases Treasury Notes to increase the supply of bank reserves. The Federal Reserve will always create enough new bank reserves so that the Fed Funds Rate equals its target rate.
All a bank accomplishes by taking customer deposits is that it can lend them to other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or it avoids having to borrow at the Fed Funds Rate.
A bank is restricted by its "net capital requirement". Suppose a bank is allowed to use a leverage ratio of 20x. This means that for every $1M in book value a bank has, it is allowed to issue $20M in loans. Leverage ratios are typically in the range of 10x-100x, depending on the type of debt. Bank regulations determine how much leverage banks are allowed to use for each type of asset. Since money is ONLY created by banks, this means that a certain % of the economy's capital is GUARANTEED to be owned by banks; otherwise, that money could not be created.
Myth #14: "Lawful money" is only gold or silver coin as prescribed by the constitution.
Hypothesis: The constitution specifies that only gold or silver coin may be used as money, also known as 'lawful money.' All other forms of money, particularly paper money, are illegal.
Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.
This is a legal technicality. I don't recognize the US Constitution as having legitimacy, so why should I care if it allows unbacked fiat money or not.
The requirement that only gold and silver are money applies to states. The Constitution does not say what the Federal government is allowed to use as money. It's implied that the Federal government is also restricted to only allowing gold or silver as money, but a corrupt Congress, President, and Supreme Court think otherwise. A Constitution is useless when the people who make laws and sit in courts are corrupted.
Arguing the Constitutionality of unbacked fiat debt-based money is missing the point. The current monetary system is immoral, which is sufficient reason to boycott Federal Reserve Points.
When arguing against the Federal Reserve and the income tax, a "Constitutional" argument is missing the real point. The Federal Reserve and income tax are *IMMORAL*. The Constitutional argument is much less important than the morality argument.
I've also seen this article by Edward Griffin frequently cited. Surprisingly, Edward Griffin says "There's no such thing as the Debt Virus." Edward Griffin is wrong.
June 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Contact Information FSK
If you want to contact me, you can post a comment or E-Mail me fsk2006@gmail.com.
-
COLBY WROTE
Dr. Edward Flaherty, a professor of economics at the College of Charleston, thinks “Jaikaran's model contains two gaping holes which collapse his entire thesis”
http://inclusion.semitagui.gov.co/Subjects/MoneyBanking/FederalReserve/FRconspire/antidote.htm END COLBY QUOTE
#################*************************########################
Mr Flaherty is easily debunked.
++ see below Debunking in two parts. THANKS Steve Gaal ++++++++++
PART 1 Debunking the Debunker Flaherty ***************
###########################
MEET EDWARD FLAHERTY, CONSPIRACY POO-POOIST
A response to a critic of The Creature from Jekyll Island
© 2004 by G. Edward Griffin
Edward Flaherty is a Ph.D. of Economics who has been critical of my book, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second look at the Federal Reserve. Periodically I receive inquiries from readers who have visited Flaherty's web site, and they want to know if I can rebut what he says. I put this off for a long time because, first, his critique is lengthy and loaded with minutia that requires considerable time to respond properly and, second, the number of inquiries has been so small as to place the importance of this task far down on my list of priorities. Nevertheless, whenever I get an inquiry, I dread that my reader may think that a lack of response is a sign of not being able to defend my work; so, at last, I decided to step up to the plate and swing at the ball that Flaherty has thrown in my direction.
The essence of Flaherty's critique is that anyone who opposes the Federal Reserve must be some kind of a kook, totally lacking in scholarship. He lumps all Fed critics together, those who bring scholarship to the topic as well as those who do not, and the mixture tends to discredit everyone. It is an old tactic of dumping garbage into the grocery bag so that it all smells like garbage and is rejected in total.
On September 5, 2004, I received an email from a reader who had compared comments made in my recorded lecture with what Flaherty's web site says and asked for clarification. What follows is his inquiry with my reply embedded at appropriate locations.
My reader begins by quoting from my recorded lecture, followed by a quote from Eustace Mullins:
My lecture: I came to the conclusion that the Federal Reserve needed to be abolished for seven reasons. I’d like to read them to you now just so that you get an idea of where I’m coming from, as they say. I put these into the most concise phrasing that I can to make them somewhat shocking so that, hopefully, you’ll remember them:
1. The Fed is incapable of accomplishing its stated objectives.
2. It is a cartel operating against the public interest.
3. It is the supreme instrument of usury.
4. It generates our most unfair tax through inflation and bailouts.
5. It encourages war.
6. It destabilizes the economy.
7. It discourages private capital formation.
Eustace Mullins, Secrets of the Federal Reserve: “...the increase in the assets of the Federal Reserve banks from 143 million dollars in 1913 to 45 BILLION dollars in 1949 went directly to the private stockholders of the [federal reserve] banks.”
My reply: I stand firmly behind my seven points but I do not agree with Mullins on this. Please do not lump my work with other writers. Flaherty does this a lot. Guilt by association is a ploy that must be challenged and rejected.
Flaherty: It would be a mistake to examine these conspiracy theories....
My reply: Stop right there. There is nothing about my work that merits being classified as a conspiracy theory. In modern context, it is customary to associate the phrase “conspiracy theory” with those who are intellectually handicapped or ill informed. Using emotionally loaded words and phrases to discredit the work of others is to be rejected. If I am to be called a conspiracy theorist, then Flaherty cannot object if I were to call him a conspiracy poo-pooist. The later group is a ridiculous bunch, indeed, in view of the fact that conspiracies are so common throughout history. Very few major events of the past have occurred in the absence of conspiracies. To think that our modern age must be an exception is not rational. Facts are either true or false. If we disagree with a fact, our job is to explain why, not to use emotionally-loaded labels to discredit those who disagree with us.
Flaherty continued: ... outside the context in which they were written.
My reply: I try hard not to present text outside its context. When searching through hundreds of documents and thousands of pages, it is inevitable that some subtleties of context may be missed, but so far I have not yet been advised of any instances of this. I welcome any corrections; but, until specifics are brought to my attention, I stand firm on everything I have written. Furthermore, I resent the implication that my work could not stand without taking text out of context.
Flaherty: All the conspiracy authors whose work I study here profess a belief in the alleged ‘New World Order’ conspiracy, or some variant thereof.
My reply: An informed reader would not waste time beyond this point. It is absurd to claim that a blueprint for a New World Order based on the model of collectivism is merely “alleged.” The evidence that this is a demonstrable fact of modern history abounds. Some of that evidence is presented in my work, The Future Is Calling, found in the Issues section of this web site.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good. Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board.
My reply: Basically, Flaherty is correct as far as he goes. But, as we shall see in so many of his statements, he stops short of the entire truth. A half-truth is just as much of a deception as an outright lie. Flaherty says that the Board of Governors is politically appointed. This is true and it is supposed to make us feel safe in the thought that the President responds to the will of the people and that he selects only those who have the public interest at heart. The part of the story omitted by Flaherty is that the President does not select these people from his own personal address book, nor does he ask the public to submit nominations. With few exceptions, he makes appointments from lists given to him by the staffs of banking committees of Congress and from private sources that have been influential in his election campaign. The most powerful of all these groups are the financial institutions (including prominent members of the Fed itself) and the media corporations over which they have effective control. One does not have to be a so-called conspiracy theorist to recognize the tremendous influence that these institutions have over the outcome of presidential campaigns, and anyone with knowledge of how our current political system works will understand why the President makes exactly the appointments that the banks want him to make. All one has to do to see the accuracy of this appraisal is to examine the backgrounds and attitudes of the men who receive the appointments. While there is an occasional token individual who appears to come from the consumer sector of society, the majority are bankers deeply committed to the perpetuation of the system that sustains them. Anyone who would seriously challenge the power of the banking cartel would never be appointed. So, while Flaherty is correct in what he says, the implication of what he says (that the Fed is subject to control of the people through the political process) is entirely false.
Flaherty: Nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
My reply: Here is another half-truth that is a whopper deception. It is true that most of the money paid by the government for interest on the national debt is returned to the government. That is because the Fed’s charter requires any interest payments in excess of the Fed’s actual operating expenses to be refunded. However, before we jump to the conclusion that this is a wonderful benefit, we must remember that the banking cartel is able to use tax dollars to pay 100% of its operating expenses with few questions asked about the nature of those expenses. After all of those expenses are paid, what is left over is rebated to the Treasury, as Flaherty says. There is no secret about this, and you will find an explanation of it in my book. Technically, there is no “profit” on this money. However, remember that creating money for the government is only one of the functions of the Fed. The real bonanza comes, not from money created out of nothing for the government, but from money created out of nothing by the commercial banks for loans to the private sector. That’s where the real action is. This is the famous slight-of-hand trick. Distract attention with one hand while the coin is retrieved by the other. By focusing on the supposed generosity of the Fed by returning unused interest to the Treasury, we are supposed to overlook the much larger river of gold flowing into the member banks in the form of interest on nothing as a result of consumer and commercial loans.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation’s money supply. Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks.
My reply: Here again we have a half-truth that functions as a deception. Plans for a return to central banking, indeed, were already known, but they were unpopular with the voters and large blocks of Congress. That was the very problem that led to the great secrecy. Frank Vanderlip, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting, later confirmed that, if the public had known that the bankers were the ones creating legislation to supposedly “break the grip of the money trust,” the bill would never have been passed into law. The facts presented in my book, and fully documented by references from original sources, show that my version is historical fact. Flaherty attempts to minimize these facts by implying that the original, secret meeting was not important because the first draft of the legislation was rejected. What he does not say is that the second draft that was passed into law was essentially the same as the first. The primary difference was that Senator Aldrich’s name was removed from the title of the bill and replaced by the names of Carter Glass and Robert Owen. This was to remove the stigma of Aldrich as an icon for “big-business Republicans” and replace it with the more popular image of Democrats, “defenders of the working man.” It was a strategy advocated by Paul Warburg, one of the participants at the Jekyll Island meeting. The fact that Flaherty makes no mention of this suggests that he has not made an objective analysis but, instead, has presented a biased critique in the guise of scholarship. His statement that “the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks” cannot be taken seriously. The Federal Reserve is not a public body in any meaningful sense of the phrase.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it. Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank’s ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
My reply: Flaherty presents facts that in no way contradict what I said in my book. I speak of rotten apples, and he speaks of sweet oranges. My book makes it clear that the bank’s ability to create money is tied to its reserves. The current average ratio (it varies depending on the bank) is about ten-to-one. In other words, for every one dollar on deposit and held in reserve, the bank can create up to an additional nine dollars out of nothing for the purpose of lending. The statement that the banks must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits is humorous when one considers the math. For example, let us assume for the sake of illustration that the bank pays 1.5% interest. Then it turns around and charges, let’s say 6.5% interest. That’s a spread of 5%. Although that’s a pretty good brokerage commission, it doesn’t sound exorbitant. But, here is another of those half-truths. Don’t forget that the bank uses each deposited dollar as a so-called reserve for creating up to an additional nine dollars in loans. It collects interest on these loans as well. Let us assume that the bank is not fully loaned up, as they call it, and has an average of only eight dollars in magic-money loans for every one dollar on deposit. In that case, it will collect 6.5% interest on all eight of those dollars. That means, based on each dollar placed on deposit, the bank will collect 52% in interest. After paying the original depositor the generous “competitive” amount of 1.5%, the bank actually receives a brokerage fee of approximately 50%. When Flaherty says that “This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank’s operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money,” one can only wonder what banking system he is describing. It certainly is not the one in the United States.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid. Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily.
My reply: I agree with Flaherty on this issue and often have said so in the Q&A portions of my lectures. Please note that this is not contradictory to what I wrote in The Creature. What I said there is an accurate historical fact. There is little doubt in my mind that the vote would have passed eventually, but by slipping it through as they did, it circumvented the possibility of challenges and debate. I have never commented on the Constitutionality question, although I tend to think that a strict interpretation would have made this vote invalid. The problem here, however, has nothing to do with the Federal Reserve Act but with the rules of Congress.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of “debt-free” money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran’s book, The Debt Virus. Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of “debt-free” money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt.
My reply: I object to being lumped together with other analysts on this issue. I did not write The Debt Virus, I wrote The Creature from Jekyll Island. On page 191, I explained why I consider the claim that there is not enough money to pay off interest to be a myth
Flaherty: Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery. Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
My reply: I never wrote or implied, as Flaherty says, that “any independent inspection would reveal the Fed’s treachery.” What I wrote is: (1) The Fed resists external audit; (2) If it were audited by an independent party, I suspect there would be nothing illegal found; (3) The problem is not that it steals from the American people illegally but that it does so legally; (4) Therefore, we do not need to audit the Fed, we need to abolish it.
Flaherty: Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit. Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank’s district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publicly-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.
My reply: Flaherty is basically correct, and I have never claimed in my book or in my lectures that it was otherwise. I do not appreciate being lumped together with those who claim foreign control over the Fed. The real danger in this line of reasoning is that it is often coupled with the argument that, if we could only get control away from foreigners and put it into the hands of Congress or the Treasury, then everything would be all right. In truth, even if the Fed were in the hands of foreigners, placing it into the hands of American bankers and politician would make little difference. The Fed does not need to be converted into a government agency. It needs to be abolished.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Creature from Jekyll Island
A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
by G. Edward Griffin
Where does money come from? Where does it go? Who makes it? The money magicians' secrets are unveiled. We get a close look at their mirrors and smoke machines, their pulleys, cogs, and wheels that create the grand illusion called money. A dry and boring subject? Just wait! You'll be hooked in five minutes. Reads like a detective story — which it really is. But it's all true. This book is about the most blatant scam of all history. It's all here: the cause of wars, boom-bust cycles, inflation, depression, prosperity. The Creature from Jekyll Island is a "must read." Your world view will definitely change. You'll never trust a politician again — or a banker. The Creature from Jekyll Island
An address by G. Edward Griffin
This is Mr. Griffin's acclaimed lecture based on his book by the same title. Heard by over a million people around the world. Audio cassette or CD. 74 minutes. The Federal Reserve
A discource by G. Edward Griffin
Mr. Griffin, founder of Freedom Force International and author of The Creature from Jekyll Island addresses these issues.
What is the Federal Reserve System?
Who drafted the plan for the Fed
When and where did it occur?
How is money created?
What impact has this on the American dollar?
Should our currency be backed by gold or silver?
Where does Congress get most of its funding?
What is the solution to the problem of fiat money?
Why do bankers get away with it?
What might happen if we continue on our current path?
What might come from a return to constitutional money?
What can concerned citizens do to help?
DVD. 42 minutes.
###################################
PART 2 Debunking the Debunker Flaherty
************************************* ##############################################################################################################################
FSK
Saturday, June 14, 2008
The Compound Interest Paradox Revisited - Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx
Table of Contents
Overview
The Federal Reserve
Free Market Banking
A List of Monetary Systems
Examples
Edward Flaherty is a xxxxx
Summary
I read SO MANY people citing Edward Flaherty that I feel obligated to write a specific post refuting his false arguments.
This is the most frequently cited article by Edward Flaherty. Here is a shorter version of the same thing.
Here is a point-by-point debunking of Edward Flaherty's false debunking.
Myth #1: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was crafted by Wall Street bankers and a few senators in a secret meeting.
Hypothesis: Bankers and senators met in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 to design a central bank that would give New York City banks control over the nation's money supply.
Facts: The meeting did take place, but plans for a return to central banking were already widely known. Regardless, the proposal that came out of the Jekyll Island meeting never passed Congress. The one that did, the Federal Reserve Act, placed control over monetary policy with a public body, the Federal Reserve Board, not with commercial banks.
Based on the sources I read, there *WAS* a secret meeting regarding the creation of the Federal Reserve. It's impossible to go back in time and check, so there's no way to resolve this disagreement.
Under the Federal Reserve, the New York City branch is firmly in control of the US monetary system. The regional banks are a decoy. The "open market operations" are performed by the New York branch of the Federal Reserve. This is where the real power of the Federal Reserve lies. On the "Open Market Committee", which sets the Fed Funds Rate target, there are 12 total members. There are the 7 members of the Board of Governors, appointed by the President for 14 year terms, and 5 presidents of the district banks, with the New York branch *ALWAYS GETTING A SEAT* (the other 4 positions rotate).
The Federal Reserve Banks are privately owned. Executives must be approved by the Board of Governors, but the executives are always appointed by the private investors who own the Federal Reserve. The Board of Governors is chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. However, the President *ALWAYS* chooses the nominee from a short list of candidates chosen by financial industry insiders. Someone who isn't part of the "in crowd" of the financial industry has NO CHANCE of being nominated. A President who disobeyed the financial industry would probably be unable to get his nominee confirmed by the Senate. Further, the Federal Reserve can cause recessions at will. A President that is hostile to the Federal Reserve will be unable to get reelected (or even survive long without being assassinated).
Besides, the argument against the Federal Reserve is unrelated to the means by which it was created. It's obvious that the Federal Reserve is immoral. Whether it was created as part of a conspiracy or not is irrelevant.
Myth #2: The Federal Reserve Act never actually passed Congress. The Senate voted on the bill without a quorum, therefore the Act is null and void.
Hypothesis: Supporters of the Federal Reserve Act knew they did not have the votes to win, so they waited to vote until its opponents left for Christmas vacation. Since a majority of senators were not present to vote on the bill, its passage is not constitutionally valid.
Facts: The voting record clearly shows that a majority of the senate did vote on the bill. Although some senators had left Washington for the holiday, the Congressional Record shows their respective positions on the legislation. Even if all opponents had all been present to vote, the Federal Reserve Act still would have passed easily.
I don't recognize any government laws as having legitimacy. The legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is the same as all other aspects of the government: ZERO. If you want a full technical analysis of the Federal Reserve's legality, there are several aspects.
First, the Federal Reserve Act was passed immediately before Christmas. Several influential Congressmen who were opposed to the Federal Reserve had already left for holiday. Congress had a tradition that says important legislation is not passed immediately before Christmas. Of course, government is arbitrary and can do whatever it chooses.
Second, the Constitution grants control over money to Congress. Congress does not have the right to delegate this power to a private corporation, the Federal Reserve. Similarly, it would be just as unconstitutional to turn over control of the US military to a private corporation. (Has that happened also? Is Blackwater effectively the US military now?)
Third, the Constitution says that states may only declare gold or silver as money. This ban does not extend to the Federal government. However, the intent is obvious. Further, states have been disallowed from issuing their own metal-based money that competes with the Federal Reserve. The false reasoning the Supreme Court used is that usurps Congress' money-printing authority.
Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless. At this point, the Supreme Court isn't going to declare that the government has been operating illegitimately for 100 years. Government has no legitimacy, so arguing the legitimacy of the Federal Reserve is pointless in comparison.
The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument.
Myth #3: The Federal Reserve Act and paper money are unconstitutional.
Hypothesis: The constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to create a central bank, therefore it cannot legally do so. The constitution also forbids paper money and requires all money to be either gold or silver coin. Therefore, both the Federal Reserve and its paper money currency are unconstitutional.
Opinion: A central bank is a reasonable use of the constitution's 'necessary and proper' clause, according to many federal court and Supreme Court rulings. Although the constitution forbids States from making anything but gold or silver a legal tender, it places no such restriction on Congress.
I addressed this point immediately above.
The framers of the US Constitution forbade states from declaring anything other than gold or silver as money. They did not put this restriction on the Federal government, but I consider that to be a technicality. The intent is obviously that only gold or silver were to be money.
Arguing the legality or Constitutionality of the Federal Reserve is pointless.
Remember: Just because the Supreme Court or a Federal appeals court says something is acceptable, doesn't automatically mean it's true. Just like Congress and the President were subverted, the court system was also subverted.
The *MORAL* argument against the Federal Reserve is much more important than the legal argument.
Myth #4: The Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank out to make a profit at the taxpayers' expense.
Hypothesis: Each of the 12 Federal Reserve banks is a privately owned corporation. Like any firm, their main objective is to maximize profits. They do so by lending the government money and charging interest. They manipulate monetary policy for their own gain, not for the public good.
Facts: Yes, the Federal Reserve banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors. The Federal Reserve banks merely execute the monetary policy choices made by the Board. In addition, nearly all the interest the Federal Reserve collects on government bonds is rebated to the Treasury each year, so the government does not pay any net interest to the Fed.
This is entirely missing the point. The point of the Federal Reserve is not profits to the Federal Reserve banks themselves. The point is the massive subsidy to the financial industry and large corporations in the form of negative real interest rates.
I address interest on the national debt it "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?"
Myth #5: The Federal Reserve is owned and controlled by foreigners.
Hypothesis: Major European banks and investment houses own the Federal Reserve. From across the Atlantic they dictate monetary policy for their own benefit.
Facts: No foreigners own any part of the Fed. Each Federal Reserve bank is owned exclusively by the participating commercial banks and S&Ls operating within the Federal Reserve bank's district. Individuals and non-bank firms, be they foreign or domestic, are not permitted by law to own any shares of a Federal Reserve bank. Moreover, monetary policy is controlled by the publically-appointed Board of Governors, not by the Federal Reserve banks.
It is unknown who actually owns the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is probably mostly owned by US corporations. However, with anonymous corporate ownership, how could you tell who are the true owners of the Federal Reserve?
For example, Citigroup could own shares in the Federal Reserve, and foreigners could own a controlling interest in Citigroup.
Unless you provide a full list of which corporations own the Federal Reserve *AND* a full list of the shareholders of each such corporation, you DON'T KNOW who really owns the Federal Reserve.
Myth #6: The Federal Reserve has never been audited.
Hypothesis: The Federal Reserve consistently resists attempts to audit its books. This is because any independent inspection would reveal the Fed's treachery.
Fact: Independent accounting firms conduct full financial audits of the Federal Reserve banks and the Board of Governors every year. The Fed is also subject to certain types of audits from the Government Accounting Office.
The Federal Reserve's open market operations have never been audited. The full details are carefully kept secret.
Myth #7: The Federal Reserve charges interest on the currency we use.
Hypothesis: Federal Reserve Notes, the currency we use in the United States, are evidence of the debt of the U.S. government to the Federal Reserve. The central bank charges the government interest for this currency, thereby diverting billions of dollars from the Treasury that could be used for other things. The government could print its own money and avoid the Fed's interest.
Facts: The Federal Reserve rebates its net earnings to the Treasury every year. Consequently, the interest the Treasury pays to the Fed is returned, so the money borrowed from the Fed has no net interest obligation for the Treasury. The government could print its own currency independent of the Fed, but there would be no effective safeguards against abuse of this power for political gain.
This is entirely the whole point of the Compound Interest Paradox. Every dollar in circulation only exists due to a loan. The principal is created but not the interest.
The interest the Federal Reserve receives on Treasuries it owns is only a small slice of the massive subsidy the financial industry receives.
The Federal Reserve is not a check against abuse of the monetary system. The 12 people on the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee wield more economic power than the Politburo in the Soviet Union. Anyone who knows in advance what the Federal Reserve is going to do has the opportunity to profit immensely. In January 2008, the Federal Reserve announced a surprise 0.75% decrease in the Fed Funds Rate. People who knew in advance profited immensely.
Similarly, government directly printing and spending its own money is also abusable. However, free-market interest rates would be far preferable to the Federal Reserve negative interest rate subsidy.
The only fair monetary system is to completely remove all government regulation of money and banking. This would effectively mean a return to a gold standard or a gold/silver standard. Of course, this will not happen until the government collapses completely.
Myth #8: If it were not for the Federal Reserve charging the government interest, the budget would be balanced and we would have no national debt.
Hypothesis: When the government runs a budget deficit, it borrows the money from the Fed at interest. If the Fed did not charge interest or if the government simply printed its own interest-free currency, then we would have a balanced budget and no national debt.
Facts: The Federal Reserve banks have only a small share of the total national debt (about 7%). Therefore, only a small share of the interest on the debt goes to the Fed. Regardless, the Fed rebates that interest to the Treasury every year, so the debt held by the Fed carries no net interest obligation for the government. In addition, it is Congress, not the Federal Reserve, who is responsible for the federal budget and the national debt.
I address this in "The National Debt - Who is the Creditor?"
The national debt is a legal fiction. The US government is the issuer for dollars. You can have unlimited debt is the money you issue, without being forced into bankruptcy. Deficit spending by the Federal government is inflationary. However, more money is printed by the Federal Reserve and financial industry than is printed by Federal deficit spending.
Most of the benefit of printing new money accrues to the financial industry, and not the Federal government. Without the Federal Reserve, the government could directly print and spend money into circulation. Whenever Congress wants to, it could pass a law allowing it to directly print and spend money to pay down the national debt. The only problem with this method is fractional reserve banking. If Congress directly printed and spent $10 trillion, this would lead to $100 trillion in new money after the effect of fractional reserve banking.
The correct solution is a complete repeal of the Federal Reserve and all regulation of the banking industry. All the taxes and regulations that prevent people from using gold or silver as money also should be repealed. That is never going to happen.
Myth #9: President Kennedy was assassinated because he tried to usurp the Federal Reserve's power. Executive Order 11,110 proves it.
Hypothesis: In the months before Dallas, President Kennedy signed E.O. 11,110 which instructed the Treasury to issue about $4 billion of interest-free 'silver certificate' currency, thereby circumventing the Federal Reserve and the interest it charges. The Federal Reserve, fearful of further encroachments on its powers, had Kennedy killed.
Facts: Kennedy wrote E.O. 11,110 to phase out silver certificate currency, not to issue more of it. Records show Kennedy and the Federal Reserve were almost always in agreement on policy matters. He even signed legislation to give the Fed more authority to issue currency.
I have no idea why President Kennedy was killed. The people who organized it aren't going to come forward and admit it, now are they?
The motivations for killing Kennedy are independent of whether or not the Federal Reserve is evil.
E.O. 11,110 was an attempt to abolish/compete with the Federal Reserve. By issuing "United States Notes" directly into circulation, this runs contrary to the Federal Reserve's policy of negative real interest rates and economic debt enslavement.
When President Kennedy issued extra money, that caused interest rates to fall. Fractional reserve banking multiplies this extra money by 10x. With surplus bank reserves, the Fed Funds Rate falls. Normally, when the Federal Reserve "monetizes the debt", it makes a guaranteed riskless profit and subsidizes negative real interest rates at the same time. With extra money in circulation, the Federal Reserve would have to do the opposite to raise interest rates. It would have to sell Treasuries it had in reserve, losing money.
If the Federal government directly issues and spends money, without repealing or amending the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve could be bankrupted. The Federal Reserve would lose its ability to manipulate interest rates. Money directly printed and spent by the government prevents the Compound Interest Paradox from enslaving everyone.
Myth #10: Congressman Louis T. McFadden exposed the Federal Reserve scam in the Congressional Record.
Hypothesis: On the floor of the House in 1932, McFadden accused the Federal Reserve of costing the government enough money to repay the national debt several times over, of causing the Great Depression, and of many other terrible things.
Facts: McFadden was incorrect regarding the Fed costing the government money. However, later economic analysis agrees with him that Federal Reserve policy blunders had a substantial role in causing the Depression. However, his implication that this was done deliberately has no basis in fact. Moreover, for a dozen years prior to his rant, McFadden had been the chairman of the House subcommittee that oversaw the Federal Reserve. Why didn't he do anything to reform or abolish the Fed while he had the chance?
The Federal Reserve does cost the Federal government money. The profit gained by printing new money accrues primarily to the financial industry and large corporations, and not to the Federal government. Everyone pays the cost of inflation, but only a handful of people are the beneficiaries of inflation.
I read that Congressman McFadden *DID WANT* to reform or abolish the Federal Reserve. As only one vote, he was powerless to do anything. That's like asking "Why doesn't Ron Paul abolish or reform the Federal Reserve? He's on the House Banking Committee!"
There is evidence that insiders intentionally used the Federal Reserve to line their own pockets. A ton of people lost their homes and businesses during the Great Depression. A handful of insiders profited immensely. Insiders knew that interest rates would be jacked up in 1929, causing the Depression. Some large banks stopped issuing loans and converted their holdings to cash before the crash.
Myth #11: The Antidote to the Debt Virus
Hypothesis: All money is created only when someone takes out a loan. Therefore, there can never be enough of this debt-money in circulation to repay all principal and interest. This imbalance causes inflation, financial crises, social maladies, and will eventually destroy the economy unless there is a massive injection of "debt-free" money. This idea is from Dr. Jacques Jaikaran's book, The Debt Virus.
Facts: The hypothesis shows an incomplete view of how the banking system interacts with the economy. The system necessarily creates an amount of "debt-free" money equal to the interest on its loans. It does this whenever it pays operating expenses, dividends, or purchases assets. As a result, there is more than enough money in circulation to retire all bank-related debt.
This is entirely the Compound Interest Paradox. If you don't understand the Compound Interest Paradox, work out an example. Edward Flaherty says "The balance sheet of each individual bank balances. Therefore, there is no Compound Interest Paradox or Debt Virus." If you look at the books of society as a whole, the Paradox is obvious.
Whenever someone cites Edward Flaherty saying there is no Debt Virus, show them my page of examples. I have not seen any evidence that my examples are incorrect.
The reason the economy does not collapse immediately due the Compound Interest Paradox is that there is continuous inflation. There is always a shortfall of money to pay the interest, but new money is always being created. The people who get first dibs on this new money are the recipients of a massive government subsidy.
Myth #12: Exposing the Debt Virus fallacies
This article is a much more detailed critique of The Debt Virus than the previous article. The file is in PDF, so you will need to download your free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it.
I didn't bother reading this article. Let me know if you're interested in a detailed analysis of this nonsense.
Myth #13: Banks charge interest on money they costlessly create out of thin air.
Hypothesis: Through fractional reserve banking and double-entry accounting, banks are able to create new money with the stroke of a pen (or a computer keystroke). The money they lend costs them nothing to produce, yet they charge interest on it.
Facts: The banking system is indeed able to create money with a mere computer keystroke. However, a bank's ability to create money is tied directly to the amount of reserves customers have deposited there. A bank must pay a competitive interest rate on those deposits to keep them from leaving to other banks. This interest expense alone is a substantial portion of a bank's operating costs and is de facto proof a bank cannot costlessly create money.
A bank's ability to create money is completely decoupled from customer deposits. Banks with surplus reserves lend them to other banks. Banks with a shortage of reserves can borrow from other banks. The rate large banks charge each other for reserves is called the "Fed Funds Rate". Practically every day, the Federal Reserve repurchases Treasury Notes to increase the supply of bank reserves. The Federal Reserve will always create enough new bank reserves so that the Fed Funds Rate equals its target rate.
All a bank accomplishes by taking customer deposits is that it can lend them to other banks at the Fed Funds Rate, or it avoids having to borrow at the Fed Funds Rate.
A bank is restricted by its "net capital requirement". Suppose a bank is allowed to use a leverage ratio of 20x. This means that for every $1M in book value a bank has, it is allowed to issue $20M in loans. Leverage ratios are typically in the range of 10x-100x, depending on the type of debt. Bank regulations determine how much leverage banks are allowed to use for each type of asset. Since money is ONLY created by banks, this means that a certain % of the economy's capital is GUARANTEED to be owned by banks; otherwise, that money could not be created.
Myth #14: "Lawful money" is only gold or silver coin as prescribed by the constitution.
Hypothesis: The constitution specifies that only gold or silver coin may be used as money, also known as 'lawful money.' All other forms of money, particularly paper money, are illegal.
Fact: The term 'lawful money' does not refer to gold or silver coin, but to types of money which the government would permit banks to use when tabulating their reserves. These types of money included, but were not limited to, gold and silver coin.
This is a legal technicality. I don't recognize the US Constitution as having legitimacy, so why should I care if it allows unbacked fiat money or not.
The requirement that only gold and silver are money applies to states. The Constitution does not say what the Federal government is allowed to use as money. It's implied that the Federal government is also restricted to only allowing gold or silver as money, but a corrupt Congress, President, and Supreme Court think otherwise. A Constitution is useless when the people who make laws and sit in courts are corrupted.
Arguing the Constitutionality of unbacked fiat debt-based money is missing the point. The current monetary system is immoral, which is sufficient reason to boycott Federal Reserve Points.
When arguing against the Federal Reserve and the income tax, a "Constitutional" argument is missing the real point. The Federal Reserve and income tax are *IMMORAL*. The Constitutional argument is much less important than the morality argument.
I've also seen this article by Edward Griffin frequently cited. Surprisingly, Edward Griffin says "There's no such thing as the Debt Virus." Edward Griffin is wrong.
June 15, 2008 10:27 AM
Contact Information FSK
If you want to contact me, you can post a comment or E-Mail me fsk2006@gmail.com.
-
EDITED UPDATED POST (See part 3 for updates)
ONE HAS TO ASK,How would it benefit anyone to deny the reality of false flag events...???
???...unless they were part of the false flag operation....QUI BONO ?? sg############################################################################################################################## PART 1
The Hariri Assassination: The Role Of Israel?
By Rannie Amiri
Global Research, January 17, 2011
The following article was first pblished by Global Research in July 2010
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20233
In the Middle East , the link between political machinations, espionage and assassination is either clear as day, or clear as mud.
As for the yet unsolved case of the February 2005 murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, the underpinnings of this covert operation including the role of Israel have now surfaced.
A crackdown on Israeli spy rings operating in Lebanon has resulted in more than 70 arrests over the past 18 months. Included among them are four high-ranking Lebanese Army and General Security officers—one having spied for the Mossad since 1984.
A significant breakthrough in the ongoing investigation occurred in late June and culminated in the arrest of Charbel Qazzi, head of transmission and broadcasting at Alfa, one of Lebanon ’s two state-owned mobile service providers.
According to the Lebanese daily As-Safir, Qazzi confessed to installing computer programs and planting electronic chips in Alfa transmitters. These could then be used by Israeli intelligence to monitor communications, locate and target individuals for assassination, and potentially deploy viruses capable of erasing recorded information in the contact lines. Qazzi’s collaboration with Israel reportedly dates back 14 years.
On July 12, a second arrest at Alfa was made. Tarek al-Raba’a, an engineer and partner of Qazzi, was apprehended on charges of spying for Israel and compromising national security. A few days later, a third Alfa employee was similarly detained.
Israel has refused to comment on the arrests. Nevertheless, their apparent ability to have penetrated Lebanon ’s military and telecommunication sectors has rattled the country and urgently raised security concerns.
What does any of this have to do with the Hariri assassination?
Outside the obvious deleterious ramifications of high-ranking Lebanese military officers working for Israel , the very legitimacy of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) is now in question. The STL is the U.N.-sanctioned body tasked with prosecuting those responsible for the assassination of the late prime minister. On Feb. 14, 2005, 1,000 kg of explosives detonated near Hariri’s passing motorcade, killing him and 21 others.
It is believed the STL will issue indictments in the matter as early as September—relying heavily on phone recordings and mobile transmissions to do so.
According to the AFP, “A preliminary report by the U.N. investigating team said it had collected data from mobile phone calls made the day of Hariri's murder as evidence.”
The National likewise reported, “The international inquiry, which could present indictments or findings as soon as September, according to unverified media reports, used extensive phone records to draw conclusions into a conspiracy to kill Hariri, widely blamed on Syria and its Lebanese allies ...”
In a July 16 televised speech, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sayyid Hassan Nasrallah speculated the STL would use information gleaned from Israeli-compromised communications to falsely implicate the group in the prime minister’s murder:
“Some are counting in their analysis of the (STL) indictment on witnesses, some of whom turned out to be fake, and on the telecommunications networks which were infiltrated by spies who can change and manipulate data.
“Before the (2006) war, these spies gave important information to the Israeli enemy and based on this information, Israel bombed buildings, homes, factories and institutions. Many martyrs died and many others were wounded. These spies are partners in the killings, the crimes, the threats and the displacement.”
Nasrallah called the STL’s manipulation an “Israeli project” meant to “create an uproar in Lebanon .”
Indeed, in May 2008 Lebanon experienced a taste of this. At the height of an 18-month stalemate over the formation of a national unity government under then Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, his cabinet’s decision to unilaterally declare Hezbollah’s fixed-line communication system illegal pushed the country to the brink of civil war.
Recognizing the value their secure lines of communication had in combating the July 2006 Israeli invasion and suspecting that state-owned telecoms might be compromised, Hezbollah resisted Siniora’s plans to have its network dismantled. Their men swept through West Beirut and put a quick end to the government’s plan. Two years later, their suspicions appear to have been vindicated.
Opposition MP and Free Patriotic Movement head Michel Aoun has already warned Nasrallah that the STL will likely indict “uncontrolled” Hezbollah members to be followed by “… Lebanese-Lebanese and Lebanese-Palestinian tension, and by an Israeli war on Lebanon ..”
Giving credence to Nasrallah and Aoun’s assertions, Commander in Chief of the Israel Defense Forces Gabi Ashkenazi, predicted “with lots of wishes” that the situation in Lebanon would deteriorate in September after the STL indicts Hezbollah for Hariri’s assassination.
Ashkenazi’s gleeful, prescient testimony to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs Committee betrays what Israel hopes the fallout from the STL’s report will be: fomentation of civil strife and discord among Lebanon ’s sectarian groups, generally divided into pro- and anti-Syria factions. Ashkenazi anticipates this to happen, of course, because he knows Israel ’s unfettered access to critical phone records will have framed Hezbollah for the crime.
Israel’s agents and operatives in Lebanon and its infiltration of a telecom network have been exposed. At the very least, the STL must recognize that evidence of alleged Hezbollah involvement in Hariri’s death (a group that historically enjoyed good ties with the late premier) is wholly tainted and likely doctored.
The arrest of Qazzi and al-Raba’a in the breakup of Israeli spy rings should prompt the STL to shift its focus to the only regional player that has benefited from Hariri’s murder; one that will continue to do so if and when their designs to implicate Hezbollah are realized.
It is time to look at Tel Aviv.
Rannie Amiri is an independent Middle East commentator
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 2
###################################################################################################################################
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
first published by Voltaire.net in December 2010
Translated from French
While western media have announced that indictments against Hezbollah will be issued shortly by the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Russian magazine Odnako challenges the entire UN investigation. Thierry Meyssan posits that the weapon used to assassinate former Prime Minister Rafik Hairiri was supplied by Germany. Former German prosecutor and first commissioner in charge of the UN probe, Detlev Mehlis, seemingly doctored evidence to cover up his country’s involvement. These revelations embarrass the Tribunal and reverse the tide in Lebanon.
All the conflicts rocking the Middle East today crystallize around the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). Peace hinges on it, and so does war. For some, the STL should bring about the dissolution of the Hezbollah, quell the Resistance and establish a Pax Americana. Others consider that the STL is flouting the law and subverting the truth to ensure the takeover of a new colonial order in the region.
The Tribunal was created on 30 May 2007, pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 1757, to prosecute the alleged sponsors of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s assassination. In the political context at that time, this implied nothing more and nothing less than bringing to trial serving Presidents Bashar el-Assad of Syria and Emile Lahoud of Lebanon, not exactly favourites of the neo-conservatives. However, the charges were not pursued since they were based on flimsy evidence planted by false witnesses. With no accused left, the Tribunal could easily have disappeared in the meanders of bureaucracy were it not for a turn of events that catapulted it back into the epicenter of the turbulent Middle East political scene.
On 23 May 2009, Atlanticist journalist Erick Follath disclosed on Der Spiegel Online that the prosecutor was poised to indict new suspects: certain Hezbollah military leaders. For the past 18 months, Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, has been proclaiming his party’s innocence. He maintains that the real aim of the proceedings is to decapitate the Resistance and clear the region for the Israeli army. For its part, the U.S. administration in a sudden surge of righteousness pledged that no one would be allowed to shun international Justice.
In any event, the indictment - which all believe to be imminent - against Shia leaders for the assassination of a Sunni leader is of such a nature as to spark off a fitna, namely a Muslim civil war, plummeting the region into new depths of bloodshed and violence.
During his 15 and 16 November official visit to Moscow, Saad Hariri - current Lebanese Prime Minister and son of the deceased - reiterated that the political exploitation of the Tribunal exposes his country to the risk of a new conflagration. President Medvedev retorted that Russia wants Justice to be served and reproves any attempt to discredit, weaken or delay the Tribunal’s proceedings. This position of principle arises from the confidence that the Kremlin decided to place in the STL. But it risks being severely eroded by Odnako’s revelations.
Indeed, we deemed it desirable to delve into the circumstances of Rafik Hariri’s assassination. The data we unearthed has opened a new avenue, making one wonder why it had never been explored until now. In the course of our lengthy investigation, we encountered a great number of actors, too many no doubt, so that the news of our work spread quickly, alarming those for whom the assassination trail implicating the armed Lebanese Resistance represents a real godsent. Aiming to intimidate us, the Jerusalem Post on 18 October launched a preventive attack through a piece referring to our work. In a purely libelous vein, it accuses the author of this article of having received 1 million dollars from Iran to exonerate Hezbollah.
Getting down to facts, Rafik Hariri’s convoy was attacked in Beirut on 14 February 2005. Twenty-three people were killed and one hundred injured. A preliminary report commissioned by the Security Council calls attention to the unprofessional conduct of the Lebanese magistrates and police. To redress the situation, the SC assigned its own investigators, providing them with the important means that Lebanon was unable to offer. From the outset of the investigation, it was generally accepted that the attack had been perpetrated by a suicide bomber driving a van packed with explosives.
Having been established to compensate for the Lebanese lack of professionalism, one would have expected the United Nations mission to scrupulously observe the classical criminal procedures. Not so! The crime scene - on the basis of the topography still intact as well as the photos and video footage shot on that day - was not examined in detail. The victims were not exhumed and no autopsies were performed. For a long time, no attempt was made to ascertain the modus operandi. After discarding the hypothesis of a bomb buried in the ground, the investigators espoused the one involving the van withough bothering to verify it.
And yet, this version is implausible: looking at the crime scene, anyone can easily observe the very large and deep crater that a surface explosion could not have dug out. Faced with the adamancy of the Swiss experts who refused to endorse the official version, on 19 October the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) recreated the crime scene behind closed doors. It didn’t take place in Lebanon, nor in the Netherlands which is the seat of the STL, but in France, one of the countries funding the Tribunal. The buildings surrounding the crime scene were reconstructed and earth was brought in from Beirut. The convoy was reconstituted, including the armoured vehicle. The aim was to demonstrate that the height of the concrete buildings had confined the explosion, making it possible for the blast to produce the crater. The results of this costly experiment have never been divulged.
When looking at the photos and videos taken immediately after the attack, the first most striking feature is the blaze. Car parts and various types of objects are burning all around. Then, the bodies of the victims: they are charred on one side and intact on the other. An astonishing phenomenon which bears no resemblance to what is normally caused by conventional explosives. The theory that the van was transporting a mix of RDX, PETN and TNT does not account for the damages occurred.
What is more, from the photos showing Rafik Hariri’s corpse one can observe that his solid gold wristwatch has melted, whereas the collar of his luxury shirt still hugs his neck in pristine condition.
So, what really happened?
The explosion generated a blast of an exceptionally intense heat and exceptionally brief duration. Thus, the flesh exposed to the blast was instantly carbonized, while the body underneath was not burnt.
High-density objects (such as the gold watch) absorbed the heat and were destroyed. Conversely, low-density objects (like the delicate fabric of Hariri’s shirtcollar) didn’t have enough time to absorb the heat and were unaffected.
Rafik Hariri’s remains. Moreover, the videos show that a number of limbs were severed by the explosion. Oddly, the cuts are clean, as if made on clay statues. There is no sign of shattered or jutting bones, nor of any torn flesh. The reason is that the explosion sucked up all the oxygen and dehydrated the bodies, rendering them friable. In the hours that followed, several on-the-spot witnesses complained of breathing ailments. Wrongfully, the authorities interpreted them as a psychosomatic reaction following their psychological trauma.
Such observations constitute the abc of any criminal inquiry. They should have been the starting point, yet they do not figure in any of the reports submitted by the "professional experts" to the Security Council.
When we asked a number of military experts what kind of explosives would be capable of generating such damage, they mentioned a new type of weapon which has been developed over several decades and is featured in reports appearing in scientific journals. The combination of nuclear and nonotechnology science can trigger an explosion the exact strength of which can be regulated and controlled. The weapon is set up to destroy everything within a given perimeter, down to the nearest centimeter.
Always according to the same military specialists, this weapon can also produce other types of effects: it exerts a very strong pressure on the area of the explosion. The minute it stops, the heaviest objects are propelled upwards. Accordingly, cars were sent flying through the air.
There is one unequivocal fact: this weapon is equipped with a nano-quantity of enriched uranium, emanating radiations which are quantifiable. Now, it just so happens that one of the passengers in Rafik Hariri’s armoured car survived the explosion. Former Minister Bassel Fleyhan was taken to a topnotch French military hospital for treatment. The doctors were astounded to discover that he had been in contact with enriched uranium. But no one linked this to the attack.
Technically speaking, the weapon is shaped like a small missile, a few tens of centimeters long. It must be fired from a drone. Actually, several witnesses assured they had heard an aircraft flying over the scene of the crime. The investigators asked the United States and Israel, whose surveillance satellites are permanently switched on, to provide them with the pertinent images. On the day of the attack, the United States had deployed AWACS aircraft over Lebanon. The live feeds could help to establish the presence of a drone and even to determine its flight path. But Washington and Tel Aviv - which indefatigably urge all parties to cooperate with the STL - turned down the request.
Hezbollah intercepted and released videos from Israeli drones surveying Rafik Hariri’s movements and the scene of the crime. At a press conference held on 10 August 2010, Hassan Nasrallah showed a video which, according to him, was shot by Israeli military drones and intercepted by his organisation. All of Rafik Hariri’s movements had been registered for months, until the final day when all the surveillance converged on the bend in the road where the attack was staged. Thus, Tel-Aviv had been surveying the area prior to the assassination. Which is not to say, as Mr Nasrallah himself points out, that they were the authors of the crime.
So, who fired the missile?
This is where things get complicated. According to the military experts, in 2005, Germany was the only country which had a handle on this new technology. It is, therefore, Berlin which supplied and set up the crime weapon.
Hence, it is easy to understand why former Berlin Attorney General Detlev Mehlis - a very controversial figure within his own profession - was eager to preside the UN Investigation Commission. He is, in fact, notoriously linked to the German and U.S. secret services. Assigned in 1986 to shed light on the attack against the La Belle disco in Berlin, he diligently covered up all Israeli and U.S. fingerprints to falsely accuse Libya and justify the bombing of Mouammar Khadafi’s palace by the U.S. Air Force. In the early 2000s, Mr Mehlis was lavishly paid for his stint as researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (think-tank linked to AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby) and at the Rand Corporation (think-tank attached to the U.S. military industrial complex). All elements which cast a shadow over his impartiality in the Rafik Hariri affair and should have sufficed to have him taken off the case.
Mehlis was seconded by Commissioner Gerhard Lehmann, who is also a well-known German and U.S. secret services agent. He was formally identified by a witness as having taken part in the programme run by the Bush Administration in Europe, involving the abduction, detention and torture of prisoners in "black holes". His name is mentioned in the ad hoc Report by the Council of Europe. Notwithstanding, he managed to dodge all judicial proceedings on the strength of a strong though unlikely alibi provided by his colleagues in the German police.
Mehlis and Lehmann propagated the theory of the explosives-laden suicide van to deflect the investigation from the German weapon that was used to commit the crime.
Various earth samples were taken from the scene of the crime. They were first mixed, then divided into three jars that were sent to three different laboratories. In the first two no trace of explosives was found. The third jar was kept by Mehlis and Lehmann, who personally sent it to the third laboratory. Here, remnants of explosives were detected. In principle, if the decision is made to resort to three judiciary experts, in case of disagreement it is the majority opinion that prevails. No way! Mehlis and Lehmann violated the protocols. They deemed that theirs was the only reliable sample and embarked the Security Council on a false trail.
The profoundly flawed character of the Mehlis-Lehmann investigations has amply been proven. Their successors acknowledged as much sotto voce and declared entire sections of proceedings nul and void.
Amidst their manipulations, the most famous one relates to the false witnesses. Five individuals purported to have seen the preparations for the attack and incriminated Presidents Bashar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud. While these allegations were fueling the drums of war, their lawyers exposed the lies and the prosecution backed down.
Detlev Mehlis, President of the UN Investigation Commission violated all the rules of the criminal procedure, fabricated evidence and used false witnesses to exonerate Germany and accuse Syria. Based on these false testimonies, Detlev Mehlis arrested - in the name of the international community - four Lebanese generals and had them incarcerated for four years. Pushing his way with his cow-boys into private homes, without a warrant from the Lebanese authorities, he also detained for questioning members of their entourage. With his assistants - who spoke Hebrew to each other - he manipulated the families. Thus, on behalf of the international community, he showed the wife of one of the generals a doctored picture to prove that her husband had not only obscured his implication in the murder, but was also two-timing her.
Concurrently, he tried the same maneuver on the son of the "suspect"’, but in this case to convince him that his mother was a woman of loose morals, a situation which had plunged his desperate father into a murderous folly. The aim was to induce a family crime of honour, thereby tarnishing the image of respected and respectable people.
Even more incredible is Lehmann’s proposition to libertate one of the four imprisoned generals in exchange for his false testimony against a Syrian leader.
Moreover, German journalist Jürgen Cain Külbel highlighted a disturbing detail: it would have been impossible to trigger the explosion by remote control or by marking the target without first disactivating the powerful interference system built into Rafik Hariri’s convoy. A system among the most sophisticated in the world, manufactured in ... Israel.
Külbel was approached by a well-known pro-Palestinian advocate, Professor Said Dudin, to promote his book. However, the outrageous declarations frequently made by Dudin served to torpedo it instead. Külbel, a former East German criminal police officer, was quick to find out that Dudin had a long-standing reputation for being a CIA mole within the German left-wing. The journalist published a number of old East-German reports attesting to this fact and was sentenced and briefly imprisoned for illicit dissemination of documents; meantime, Dudin was settling into the German Embassy in Beirut for the purpose of infiltrating the families of the four generals.
Overlooked in the Middle East, Germany’s role in this region is worth spotlighting. After Israel’s war of aggression against Lebanon in the Summer of 2006, Chancellor Angela Merkel deployed a very large contingent to join the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). The 2 400 soldiers from Germany control the maritime infrastructure to prevent arms supplies from reaching the Resistance via the Mediterranean. On that occasion, Ms Merkel declared that the mission of the German army was to protect Israel. A wind of rebellion arose among the officers. By the hundreds, they sent letters to remind her that they had enlisted to defend their homeland not a foreign country, be it an ally.
An unprecedented development took place on 17 March 2008 and 18 January 2010, when the German and Israeli governments held a joint Council of Ministers meeting where various programmes were adopted, especially in the defense sector. At this stage, there shouldn’t be too many secrets left between the Tsahal and the Bundeswehr.
The investigation conducted by Detlev Mehlis is both steeped in ridicule as regards the false witnesses, and tainted with the illegal detention of the four generals. To the extent that the UN Human Rights Council’s Working Group on Arbitrary Detention formally and firmly condemned this excess of power.
This being said, the opprobrium that befalls Mr Mehlis’ work should not reflect on the Special Tribunal for Lebanon which is in no way responsible for his manipulations. But here, again, things get complicated. The credibility of the STL rests on its ability to curb, in the first place, all those who attempted to mask the truth and falsely accused Presidents Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud, with the intention of provoking a war.
Now, it transpires that the Tribunal refuses to try the false witnesses, giving the impression that it is covering up the manipulations under Mehlis’ watch and is in fact pursuing the similar political objectifs (this time against the Hezbollah, and perhaps against others in future). Even worse, the Tribunal will not hand over to Jamil Sayyed (one of the four generals illegally detained) the minutes of his accusers’ hearings, thereby barring him from requesting compensation and making it look as if it condones four years of arbitrary detention.
In more prosaic terms, the Tribunal is shirking its responsabilities. On the one hand, it must judge the false witnesses to thwart further manipulations and to make plain its impartiality; on the other hand it refuses to undertake a "clean-up" operation which might force it to arrest Prosecutor Mehlis. However, Odnako’s revelations on the German lead render this posture untenable. All the more since it’s already too late: General Jamil Sayyed filed a complaint in Syria and a Syrian examining magistrate has already indicted Detlev Mehlis, Commissioner Gerahrd Lehmann plus the five false witnesses. One can imagine the commotion at the STL should Syria decide to call on Interpol to have them arrested.
Just as the Mehlis commission was supposed to compensate for the lack of professionalism on the part of the Lebanese forces of law and order, the STL should equally have ensured the impartiality that the Lebanese courts may have been short of. But things are far off target, which raises the question of the Tribunal’s legitimacy.
Kofi Annan didn’t want the Lebanon Tribunal to exert international jurisdiction, but to function as a national Lebanese tribunal with an international character. It would have been subjected to Lebanese law while half of its members would have been nationals of other countries. The plan did not materialize because the negotiations came to a sudden end. More precisely, an agreement was reached with the Lebanese government presided at the time by Fouad Siniora, the former authorised representative of the Hariri estate, but it was never ratified either by Parliament or by the president of the Republic. Hence, the agreement was endorsed unilaterally by the UN Security Council (Resolution 1757 of 30 May 2007). The end result is a hybrid and fragile entity.
As pointed out by Kofi Annan, this Tribunal is not analogous to any other so far created within the purview of the United Nations. "It is neither a subsidiary organ of the UN, nor a component of the Lebanese judiciary system"; it is simply "a conventional organ" sitting between the executive authority of the Lebanese government and the UN. Judging by the international rule of separation of powers and independence of the judiciary, the STL cannot be regarded as a genuine tribunal, but rather as a joint disciplinary commission within the executive frameworks of the UN and the Lebanese Government. Whatever decision it may make will inevitably be coated with suspicion.
Worse still, any Lebanese government can terminate it since, not having been ratified, the related agreement was binding only on the previous government. As a result, the present Lebanese coalition government has become a battlefield between partisans and foes of the Tribunal. In an attempt to maintain governmental stability, week after week Lebanese President Michel Sleimane has been dissuading the Council of Ministers from taking a vote on any issue linked with the STL. This embargo cannot hold out forever.
Bad news coming in pairs, suspicions have now extended to the President of the STL, Antonio Cassese. This reputable international jurist was President of the International Criminal Tribunal For the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). He happens to be a ardent supporter of the Jewish colonialisation of Palestine. A personal friend of Elie Wiesel, Cassese received and accepted an honorary award, presented by Wiesel himself. He should normally have withdrawn and resigned when Hassan Nasrallah disclosed that Israeli drones had been reconnoitering the crime scene as well as the victim’s movements for months.
According to the President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Antonio Cassese, the armed resistance in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan should be tried for "terrorism". Worst of all, Judge Cassesse personifies an interpretation of international law that causes division in the Middle East. Although his official curriculum vitae obscures it, he took part in the 2005 negotiations between member states of the European Union and those bordering the Mediterranean Sea ("Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean"). His definition of terrorism blocked the discussions. According to him, terrorism is exclusively the act of individuals or private groups, never states. It follows that a struggle against an occupying army would not be considered as "resistance" but as "terrorism". In the local context, this juridical view is consistent with a colonial framework and disqualifies the STL.
The methods of the Special Tribunal do not differ from those applied by the Mehlis Commission. STL investigators collected mass files on Lebanese students, social security recipients and subscribers of public utility services. On 27 October, in the absence of the Lebanese judges, they even tried to snatch medical records from a gynecological clinic frequented by the wives of Hezbollah members. It is obvious that these probes have no link whatsoever with the Rafik Hariri assassination. Everything leads the Lebanese to believe that the information is actually earmarked for Israel, of which, in their eyes, the TSL is merely an offshoot.
All these problems had clearly been foreseen by President Putin when, in 2007, he had vainly made a pitch for a different wording of the STL founding resolution. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin had denounced the "juridical loopholes" of the system. He deplored that the Security Council should threaten to resort to force (Chapter VII) to achieve unilaterally the creation of this "conventional organ". He had emphasised that while the Tribunal should be working towards the reconciliation of the Lebanese people, it was devised in such a way as to divide them even more. Finally, Russia - as China - refused to endorse Resolution 1757.
The truth ultimately seeps through. The Israeli drone videos released by the Hezbollah expose Israel’s involvement in the crime preparations. The facts revealed by Odnako point to the use of a sophisticated German weapon. The puzzle is nearly complete.
Thierry Meyssan is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Thierry Meyssan
##############################
UPDATES PART 3
##########################################################################################
ADDITION END
####################################################################Original post below
##########################################################
Voltairenet.org
On 15 January NewTV, an independent Lebanese television network, released an audio tape of a secret meeting, held in Marbella (Spain) in 2005. It was attented by (from left to right on the still used to illustrate the audio tape): Saad el-Hariri (son of the slain former Prime Minister), Mohamed Zahair as-Siddik (the principal false witness), Commissioner Gerhard Lehmann (deputy-chief investigator of the UN Commission) and Wissam el-Hassan (Saad Hariri’s right-hand man and head of Lebanese intellegence).
During the meeting, the conspirators decided to frame four Lebanese generals and nine Syrian key figures for the murder of Rafik el-Hariri. They also discussed the payment and the protection of the false witness.
Let us recall that in the aftermath of that meeting four Lebanese generals were arbitrarily incarcerated for four years. Israel took advantage of the Lebanese security services’ decapitation to attack the country. On the basis of M. as-Saddik’s false testimony, the Commission accused the serving Presidents of Syria and Lebanon, Bachar el-Assad and Emile Lahoud, while the United States threatened to intervene militarily to arrest them. The scheme fell apart when the Syrian secret services demonstrated the inanity of the false testimony.
To the present, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has refused to delve into “the affair inside the affair” (the false witnesses) and has failed to supply the four unjustly incarcerated generals with the documents that would enable them to rebut their accusers.
German commissioner Lehmann has been charged in his country for being a CIA agent implicated in the abduction, detention and torture of prisoners in “black holes” around Europe. He was formally identified by one of the victims.
After some time in France, Mohammed Zuhair as-Saddik vanished until he was picked up in the United Arab Emirates and briefly jailed for illegal entry and use of a false passport. During a press conference after his release, he stated his counterfeit Czech passport had been handed to him personally by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
Anticipating its imminent debacle, several high officials of the Tribunal have been selling at abusive prices the documents they have had access to.
According to the Lebanese press, in breach of the secrecy of investigation, the indictment was apparently presented last week in New York by the U.S. State Department to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, to French President Nicolas Sarkoza and to Saad Hariri (then Lebanese Prime Minister). Its publication had been scheduled for Saturday, 15 January, but it was postponed to the 17th in view of the Lebanese Government’s resignation. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her French counterpart Michèle Alliot-Marie commented on the indictment in public, thereby confirming that they had been illegally informed in advance.
-
You are obviously mentally unbalanced and seem to have developed a bizarre obsession with me. None of your drooling has anything to do with Wikileaks.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Obession ????????????????????????? No I feel otherwise. No for it seems its ye old POT KETTLE BLACK.
NOW BACK TO THE important topic of tricky (OPPS again) wikileaks. SG
http://tarpley.net/2011/01/16/tunisian-wikileaks-putsch/
++++++++++++++++++++RELATED ?
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article25655.html (Price manipulation creating instability ? see above link)
-
Of course though, I would hope that it was true. If cold fusion were a reality, much of our energy concerns would be addressed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OVERVIEW OF 2010 alternative energy news. Evan you might like this.
SGaal
http://pesn.com/2011/01/06/9501744_Top_Free_Energy_News_Stories_2010/#RedIceCreations_Interview
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare
Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on an historic repeal of the Obamacare law. While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.
Individual Mandate Excise Tax(Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
1 Adult
2 Adults
3+ Adults
2014
1% AGI/$95
1% AGI/$190
1% AGI/$285
2015
2% AGI/$325
2% AGI/$650
2% AGI/$975
2016 +
2.5% AGI/$695
2.5% AGI/$1390
2.5% AGI/$2085
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS)
Employer Mandate Tax(Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income
Capital Gains
Dividends
Other*
2010-2012
15%
15%
35%
2013+ (current law)
23.8%
43.4%
43.4%
2013+ (Obama budget)
23.8%
23.8%
43.4%
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.
Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000
($250,000 Married)
Employer/Employee
All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
Obamacare Tax Hike
1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed
1.45%/2.35%
3.8% self-employed
Medicine Cabinet Tax($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)
HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.
Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap of $2500 (Indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited). . There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.
Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI; it is waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only.
Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D($4.5 bil/Jan 2013)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services
Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals(Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS
Tax on Innovator Drug Companies($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.
Tax on Health Insurers($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.
$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives($0.6 bil/Jan 2013)
Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting($17.1 bil/Jan 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers
“Black liquor” tax hike(Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.
Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.
Permalink | Email | Print | Tags: TAXES, HEALTHCARE, CONGRESS, OBAMA, Federal
Comments
Endless tax hikes, yet another violation of our rights. Add it to the list of gov’t violations of our right: They violate the 1st Amendment by placing protesters in cages, banning books like “America Deceived II†and censoring the internet. They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns. They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by molesting airline passengers. They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars for foreign countries. Impeach Obama and sweep out the Congress, except Ron Paul. (Last link of Banned Book): http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000190526
>> Allen Friday, January 14, 2011 1:08 PM Report Comment
This is great. The bill will be paid for and 30 million people will have coverage that never had it before. Not to mention no more cap on benefits or pre-existing conditions.
>> Joel Friday, January 14, 2011 1:10 PM Report Comment
I was going through family files at the end of the year, readying for the new tax year. I noticed that our medical file was by far the largest of all records we must keep. We are not sick people, rarely visit the doctor, and do not rely on any prescription drugs. It is proof that the government already has too much control over the delivery of medical services. I have had enough; give us our freedom and let the free market do what it does better than government.
>> L. Holloway Friday, January 14, 2011 1:14 PM Report Comment
STOP this crazy Health Bill NOW......
>> Dr Robert Danneman Friday, January 14, 2011 1:18 PM Report Comment
Not with MY money, Joel. Move to Canada if you want socialized medicine, pal.
>> Rich Friday, January 14, 2011 1:18 PM Report Comment
So,illegal aliens and prisoners get an exemption but hardworking taxpayers are given the shaft.... as usual. Sure wish my two tone-deaf senators from Virginia would start listening to their constituents for a change and vote to repeal this disaster.
>> RealityBites Friday, January 14, 2011 1:23 PM Report Comment
Is there any wonder why Obama and drones have a 30-40% approval rating...in all types of polls? I went to school for 12 extra years to pay for a high school dropout so he can have his methadone paid for? My sacrifice goes to pay for dinglebats like Joel who are so entrenched in their 'Entitlement Money' way of thinking...
>> Ben Friday, January 14, 2011 1:31 PM Report Comment
Teabagging bigots ignore these lies! The real villian is Sarah Palin -- satan's spawn. Google it -- she even killed Rudoph The Red Nosed Reindeer!!!! What is more evil than that???
>> Garu Friday, January 14, 2011 1:31 PM Report Comment
Looters and thieves. I especially liked the Surtax = Sell your house and the thugs in Washington take 3.8% from you, and if you do not pay they will send the IRS with guns to take it from you. LOOTERS. Start the chant now: RESIST THE LOOTERS!!!!
>> Dagney Friday, January 14, 2011 1:32 PM Report Comment
If you aren't doing anything to keep this healthcare reform sham from continuing, then stop complaining. Also, if you voted for Obama, stop complaining - you got who you voted for.
>> Joe Friday, January 14, 2011 1:34 PM Report Comment
Did King Barry, Leader Harry and Princess Nancy mention any of these taxes when they were pushing their Healthcare bill down our throats? Well we know Princess nancy didn't because she told us we wouldn't know what was in the bill until it was passed, that way saving us from all the worry about reading the 2,000 plus pages. Long live the King! He is taking us down the path to destruction, blaming it all on others, forbidding us to drill for oil and smiling with his Arab cronies as oil prices rise and rise and rise.
>> Kimdi01 Friday, January 14, 2011 1:34 PM Report Comment
I think www.kittycatchats.com has a say about this and a lot more.
>> Mr. K. Katz Friday, January 14, 2011 1:34 PM Report Comment
Joel, those 30 million people will now have coverage because they are forced to buy it using their own money. Or more accurately, they will not be purchasing health insurance and take the mandate tax until they are sick, which is going to severely damage insurance companies. Since when did congress have the right to tell businesses how much their CEOs can earn? Where is that in the constitution? Don't say commerce clause, as that is a total crock of feces. How about inter-state insurance purchasing? THAT would be covered by the commerce clause, if congress cared about the actual costs.
>> Ignoramous Friday, January 14, 2011 1:35 PM Report Comment
Won't happen. Americans will not buy something the govt tells them they must buy. Enforcement won't happen either. Americans will find ways around it. Real Americans, (not welfare lifers), are far too smart to get cornered by a corrupt government.
>> Mike Friday, January 14, 2011 1:41 PM Report Comment
Note to Joel: Look at what the government record is- #1 Bankrupted Social Security- 3 people now pay in to cover 1 person. This is an unsustainable ponzi scheme. In the free market people go to jail for this. #2 Bankrupted Medicare and Medicaid- Now paid for with money stolen from the so-called Social security trust Fund #3 Government Employee Pensions- Bankrupted #4 The Post Office - Bankrupted They say this "program" creates a budget surplus. They are taxing us 10 years to pay for 6 years of services. Why do you think that is? What happens when you look at a year of taxes to pay for a year of services? It's quite a bit higher isn't it? And it certainly is not a surplus.
>> Alan Friday, January 14, 2011 1:44 PM Report Comment
10% Tax on tanning booths? Unless some race other than Caucasians uses tanning booths this is clearly a racist, Obama tax.
>> Danbury Friday, January 14, 2011 1:45 PM Report Comment
join the church of scientology then quit repeat year after year send barry packing
>> Smirkster Friday, January 14, 2011 1:46 PM Report Comment
Divide health care services like Construction services in two. Diagnostic branch and treatment branch. Providers bid on treatments designed by diagnosticians. Physicians either work at diagnosis or at treatment. This rearrangement of professional services will have no cost to the government. Free market will make efficiencies similar like the construction industry makes efficiencies. Health care and health insurance will plummet to less than 50 percent of today's cost. Demand it from the AMA.
>> lark Friday, January 14, 2011 1:48 PM Report Comment
I have been waiting for a list of all the terrible things to be brought upon us by Obamacare. Thanks. This is a list of perfectly reasonable market-based incentives to get more Americans covered by health insurance. Please note those of you who decry the government take over of health care delivery- there is no government health care delivery. Only a mechanism to keep private providers in the lead. I do agree about the unreasonable exemptions for religious objectors & illegal immigrants. They too use services.
>> Trebla Friday, January 14, 2011 1:50 PM Report Comment
No wonder the Left came after Palin, Limbaugh and all conservatives this week with libel and lies connecting them to the Tucson massacre. They were obviously hoping to divert our attention from debate over these looming and onerous tax hikes! Don't anyone go to sleep now that there was one victory in November. Don't be commanded to be "civil" (code word for censored). We need to take our country back!
>> John Friday, January 14, 2011 1:57 PM Report Comment
What's wrong with health care is that the physician that makes the diagnosis is the same that provides treatment. Break that ungodly cycle and everything will change. Medicine should mimic construction industry. Architect-designer vs. contractor builder. Diagnostician physician vs. treatment physicians. Barrow from banks to pay for health care in incremental bank issued vouchers. See health care drop 70 percent from present cost.
>> lark Friday, January 14, 2011 1:58 PM Report Comment
Fight in 2012!
>> Leroy Friday, January 14, 2011 5:36 PM Report Comment
Thank God, I did not vote for this guy. People get what they deserve when they don't take the time to think.
>> Gary Friday, January 14, 2011 5:47 PM Report Comment
I just went in for my physical and got charged a co-pay but in my package from Blue Cross Blue Shield it suppose to be no co-pay. I had to speak to the billing department whom was almost in tears. Saying things keep changing soo much and it change this year with the new law that a Physical is just seeing the doctor. No blood test, heart exam, breathing test, etc. Now if a doctor could just figure things out what is wrong with you then why the need for all those test ?? *We pay $500/month for our medical coverage.
>> Sonja Friday, January 14, 2011 5:49 PM Report Comment
If only the warheads at the Pentagon would find the TRILLION$$$ they misplaced then maybe our tax bills wouldn't be so high...
>> Pogo Friday, January 14, 2011 5:52 PM Report Comment
Wow, undocumented, ie illegal aliens exempt. Another example how liberals are punishing the legal residents by spreading the wealth to the illegals. We need to throw them all out. This country is failing, while China is rising. The best days of America are GONE!
>> Mike Crystal Friday, January 14, 2011 5:52 PM Report Comment
Why don't you make it more complicated than it already is? I am not an accountant. Give me a break. Why don't you make it simple so we can understand it?
>> Lawrence A. Tubbiolo Friday, January 14, 2011 5:54 PM Report Comment
THEY WILL ALSO CHARGE YOU 3.8% ON THE SALE OF YOUR HOME. WHERE IS THAT IN YOUR ARTICLE
>> JAY BURKE Friday, January 14, 2011 5:56 PM Report Comment
Why is it that TAX on Part D Medicare is taken from my Social Security? Why is Part B tax taken out but no tax for my Medicare B of Advantage Plan that is taken from my SS check?
>> optomist Friday, January 14, 2011 5:59 PM Report Comment
We all pay for the uninsured in the end. This reform act is not much different than Romney, Bob Dole or Richard Nixon had enacted/envisioned. As a home care nurse, I see many good decent people who are poor and sick and need our help- what do you plan to do to help them survive? Aren't we better than this? Why do you have to demonize people who are less fortunate than you, or who disagree with you? Im interested to see your responses....Aren't we all in this together? What has happened to US- why so angry?
>> Margi Friday, January 14, 2011 6:01 PM Report Comment
If this lurch into socialism is allowed to stand you will get to see how the third world lives...up close and personal.
>> pompey Friday, January 14, 2011 6:01 PM Report Comment
hang em high
>> deepak Friday, January 14, 2011 6:05 PM Report Comment
Everyone is missing the BIG enchilada here. The NHS (UK's health service)...which Obamacare is modeled after...employs 1.2 million people (about 75% of which are administrators), which equates to 1 admin per 40 citizens. In the US, that would mean employing 7.5million administrators! At average gov't wage of $70k, that's over $500billion per year in wage disbursements at taxpayer expense! And, of course, they will unionize and demand higher wages as the program progresses. It won't be long before it's $1trillion per year!! The BIG wealth transfer is hidden here. Repeal the bill NOW!!!!!
>> GoodGolly Friday, January 14, 2011 6:08 PM Report Comment
Don't trust the Government? They ripped off Social Security for 2.5 TRILLION. Hasn't the Government earned your trust? The Obamacare is the death of our freedom of choice! And the ironic part it that Obama is not even a citizen! You got no "President", What you got is a pretender who can't wait to steal your rights and your money!
>> mark Friday, January 14, 2011 6:09 PM Report Comment
You had a choice, you voted for it, now spend the rest of your life behaving like EUROPEANS AND FIND WAYS TO MAKE MONEY WITHOUT PAYING ANYTHING. ANYONE WHO IS CAPABLE OF EARNING $200-250,000 PER YEAR WILL FIND A WAY TO EARN IT IN A PLACE WHERE THEY LET YOU KEEP IT
>> gregario Friday, January 14, 2011 6:12 PM Report Comment
IRS pays ZERO bills, stated President Reagan. Please listen to
for details and documentation. All IRS tax goes down a rat hole. With all the increases herein, we are doomed. We MUST audit the IRS by the GAO, who must report directly to we people. 44forest44>> Forest Friday, January 14, 2011 6:12 PM Report Comment
...to continue my rant...the NHS is the third largest employment ‘agency’ on the planet behind the Chinese Red Army and India’s national railway service. All things being equal, a US socialized health system would, conservatively, employ about 7 million people (vaulting it into first place!). Each voting cycle, Dems and Repubs will be tripping over themselves to get this voting block in their corner. And, how do they do this you ask? Well, they promise higher wages and lavish pension plans for these folks. And who’s paying for that? We are! Higher taxes. Worse health care. Massive rationing. Unbelievable nightmare. REPEAL NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> GoodGolly Friday, January 14, 2011 6:14 PM Report Comment
For all of you "dying for" socialized medicine (and you will be dying) I have a real time story of how bad it is. I work in an ER near an airport. Family from England lands with a daughter crying because of a headache. Come to ER, and have a CAT scan in 30 minutes. Father say "She's had headaches like this for over a year and we've been on a CAT scan waiting list for a year, wondering if she had a tumor, and in 30 minutes she has a CAT scan in the US? And you Americans want OUR health care?"
>> Paul 30 year RN Friday, January 14, 2011 6:14 PM Report Comment
I currently have health insurance through my employer. When the mandate kicks in I will drop my coverage. Since at that point they wont be able to deny pre-existing conditions I will not have coverage unless I get sick. I will then get coverage until I am done with whatever treatment I need when I will again drop my coverage. And they wont be able to punish me because the punishment is a tax that can really only be collected from people who are owed a refund. Since I pay taxes every year I simply wont pay the extra tax. The law prohibits them from throwing me in jail for not not paying and it prohibits them from adding further fines, penalties and interest.
>> Brian Friday, January 14, 2011 6:16 PM Report Comment
This Tax hike is only bad for the people with jobs, by 2014 there won't be many of those folks left.
>> Marcus Friday, January 14, 2011 6:19 PM Report Comment
"The last official act of any government is to loot the treasury.†~ George Washington http://911essentials.com
>> Aunt Bee Friday, January 14, 2011 6:20 PM Report Comment
People have lost focus, there is a government run health care system in place already. It's the VA, and look how good of job the government runs that. And if you need any clarification ask anyone in the military.
>> Michael Friday, January 14, 2011 6:21 PM Report Comment
Thank goodness this is going to be repealed...if not now then after 2012..hopefully before it gets it's claws further into our government.....It's great to know we finally have people in congress who have the power to fight this.....Can you imagine if Pelosi was still running the House???....It gives me the shivers!!..
>> Bob Friday, January 14, 2011 6:25 PM Report Comment
Makes me smile only for a second when I hear people complaining about Obamacare. I sure do wish people would have made an effort to find out what Obama was all about BEFORE the election. I hope the repubs can muster up enough momentum to repeal this huge steaming pile of bull manure, I won't be suprised if they don't though. Here we are getting INTO socialized medicine and the european are going towards getting OUT of socialized medicine because it don't work. On top of that, Obamacare was patterned after Michigan's already failed system. I just SMHL.
>> harold Friday, January 14, 2011 6:30 PM Report Comment
That last one. Folks really need to read that one carefully. It gives the IRS the power to deem that your deductions do not apply as you're just trying to reduce your tax obligation. Think about it.
>> LeRoy Friday, January 14, 2011 6:30 PM Report Comment
Margi, Health Insurance and Heath care are two totaly separate things. EVERYONE can get health care FREE by waking into any hospital, but the productive, and responsible members of our society go to the expense and effort of obtaining insurance to help pay the bills, instead of stiffing the hospital. I understand that there are poorer people in our society that cannot provide for themselves, but dragging the country into a socialist model only gurantees all of us, including you, a much lower quality of care. Disagree? Point out a successful gvt run system anywhere else in the world that does not take more from the citizens than it gives.
>> Opie Friday, January 14, 2011 6:33 PM Report Comment
Margi, these people are not entitled to my money. These people are victims of welfare. Get rid of welfare, get the government out of our way and these people will find ways to survive. By the way, I'm from Massachusetts and Romney Care is bankrupting our state.
>> Paul Hickey Friday, January 14, 2011 6:34 PM Report Comment
This mess of a bill is based on just so many lies. How could so many people far for it?! Repeal now, impeach next!
>> Jon Carry Friday, January 14, 2011 6:35 PM Report Comment
Worst. President. Ever. Time he was removed from power, as the Libs say, "By any means necessary".
>> LibsAreCommies Friday, January 14, 2011 6:48 PM Report Comment
MARGI - i agree. We are better than this. We are BETTER than this government atrocity! I am all FOR helping the poor and disadvantaged. I assume most Americans are, but this bill is a total horror. Case in point: in 2009, Texas enacted massive TORT reform. Since then, the # of doctors moving to the state has nearly tripled and the health costs have been cut by nearly 40%. In fact, Texas now has THOUSANDS of applicants for doctors who want to move there and practice. Why in the world did this Obama-nightmare-care bill not have TORT reform first and foremost??? Well, in the words of Howard Dean: "Congress would rather take on the insurance companies than the lawyer lobby"
>> GoodGolly Friday, January 14, 2011 6:52 PM Report Comment
And just think..he stopped ALL oil drilling for Americans but Cuba/China start drilling next week in Florida Gulf..he just killed the biggest COAL contract in US history!!-thx Lisa Jackson (EPA)..he talks, smiles then behind the scenes he stabs Americans in the back!! Now $1B to run for office again!!! WOW--they LOVE that POWER over US. OBAMACARE sucks!!! DEMO-RATS have destroyed everything good..for our grandchildren!!IMPEACH!!! ALL of THEM!! GET RID of liberal media!!!
>> saxton Friday, January 14, 2011 6:54 PM Report Comment
Page 360 of Obamacare (HR 4872) states that the US Govt and Insurance Companies will be forced to pay for physician assisted suicides. If forced onto my medical practice I will immigrate to another county elsewhere.
>> Doc Ed Friday, January 14, 2011 6:57 PM Report Comment
EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH THIS: RE: TORT REFORM
>> GoodGolly Friday, January 14, 2011 6:57 PM Report Comment
A service/skill perfomed by an individual is now a 'right' for all. Intersting.
>> Sean Friday, January 14, 2011 7:02 PM Report Comment
Impeach first... Then Repeal. IRS will disallow deductions that reduce tax liability... What MOR0N gave them that ability? The only reason for the deductions is to reduce your taxes! So the IRS is working against the Tax Code!!
>> James Wood Friday, January 14, 2011 7:08 PM Report Comment
Socialized medicine like Britain or even Canada is not a reasonable model by any standard... notice the whiners that post their love for socialized medicine do not address the many taxes... as usual, liberals (aka secular socialists) are the worst at debate or reality. They never stop pushing OzLand policies that have failed worldwide. Why? They must be the dumbest humans God ever made.
>> The Reelman Friday, January 14, 2011 7:16 PM Report Comment
I just looked up ONE of the things they will be taxing "black liquor" guess what it is something that 80% of the paper companies use to POWER their plants.. it is the waste from making paper.. So it appears that Now Obama is taxing actual GREEN tech. since the power it creates to run it's plants is STEAM.. So now there will be NO full time jobs available and Obama has made it more appealing to hire Illegals..
>> HPS Friday, January 14, 2011 7:17 PM Report Comment
"I'm from Massachusetts and Romney Care" Why is it referred to as 'Romney Care"? Isn't the majority of Massachusetts Democrats and isn't that what the majority of the Democrats wanted? Could it be that that is why the govenor signed the bill. So could we say, perhaps, that it's a Massachusetts Healthcare? Understand that there is a back story to this healthcare program...does anyone know or care to know what it is?
>> FactChk Friday, January 14, 2011 7:20 PM Report Comment
Clueless Joel Friday, January 14, 2011 1:10 PM says "This is great. The bill will be paid for and 30 million people will have coverage that never had it before. Not to mention no more cap on benefits or pre-existing conditions. >> The aircraft is going down in flames but let me get you another pillow Joel so you are more comfortable!
>> BraceForImpact_NOW Friday, January 14, 2011 7:27 PM Report Comment
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
>> supersniffy Friday, January 14, 2011 7:34 PM Report Comment
First Obama said it wasn't a tax (in order to keep a campaign promise.) Then in court, his Administration insisted it is a tax. What is it, Mr. President. Is it a tax? Yes or No?
>> Tastes Like Chicken Friday, January 14, 2011 7:37 PM Report Comment
Joel, the democrat leaders love people like you. They simply love you. You will believe what you want to believe so they will tell you what you want to hear. There is a ZERO chance that this "program" will pay for itself. ZERO.
>> Gary Friday, January 14, 2011 7:41 PM Report Comment
As to Joel, there are not anywhere near 30 million uninsured who want government health care. Probably closer to 8 million. Just giving them a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy would by 1/10 of what Obamacare costs. As to the the concerned home health nurse. Same answer. Those who are truly needy after the billions we all spend on medicaid, medicare fraud, and illegals getting health care, could still be covered at a fraction of the cost of Obamacare. Obamacare is not about helping the truly needy. We Americans will take it upon ourselves to do that when we know what is needed. It is about power and control.
>> Alan Friday, January 14, 2011 7:45 PM Report Comment
Good thing the Repubs will never get the votes to repeal the bill! And even if they do, Obama can just veto it! LOL!!! I love watching the crazies get riled up. Although, for the way the cons call this a "christian" nation...the cons sure do hate their fellow man, all the while collecting government welfare themselves (medicare, social security)...but I guess they deserve their welfare, as they say.
>> TeaPartyAmerican1776 Friday, January 14, 2011 7:50 PM Report Comment
Having read all this, I never again want to hear, " we have to pass this bill so we can see what's in it". Our Republic is in mortal danger, and as Thomas Jefferson said, "out republic must occasionally be refreshed by the blool of tyrants and patriots". As Patrick Henry said, "is life so sweet or peace so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" We must take back our government, peacefully if at all possible, but take it back nevertheless.
>> Sam Friday, January 14, 2011 7:55 PM Report Comment
Your government was democratically elected. Just because your team isn't in power doesn't mean its a tyranny. And based on the latest polls...most of the country has a favorable rating of Obama, so please, tone down the rhetoric. The only moral danger to the republic I see is from the massive corporations that the Republicans continue to deregulate and give corporate welfare to. Your politicians are not listening to you, only the corporations that buy them off. Its really a simple concept...look at who accepts donations from which industry, see how they vote. Your representatives are bought and paid for.
>> RandomGuy11231 Friday, January 14, 2011 7:59 PM Report Comment
Democrats did all this in secret. This Socialism Scam is all their fault. This will ruin the "world's best medical system". Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should be held accountable. We need Congressional Hearing on this travesty.
>> Oh Grover Friday, January 14, 2011 8:02 PM Report Comment
our website: jknew.com BEST QUALITY GUARANTEE!! SAFTY & HONESTY GUARANTEE!! FAST & PROMPT DELIVERY GUARANTEE!! Packing: All the products are packed with original boxes and tags also retro cards/ code numder A ir jo rdan (1-24) sh oes ($33) Ha ndba gs(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) ($35) Bik ini (Ed har dy,polo) ($25) dtuk fyuksdty ukdtyuk
>> dtukldtulkt Friday, January 14, 2011 8:11 PM Report Comment
Let me understand. Obamacare is covering 30 Million who weren't covered? How many aren't covered by choice? How many aren't covered because of legal status? Of the aforementioned, how many simply haven't applied? Nobody is refused care. Obama says all rates are going down because everyone is now covered. But wait, the latest is "of course rates are going up, you're adding 30 Mil to the rolls". We have to add 16K+ IRS agents to the already bloated gov't. payroll to "enforce" insurance laws? I'm very confused. Final question: If an Obamacare patron has an abortion (I know its legal), would that not be income tax evasion, as the law is written?
>> kelly Friday, January 14, 2011 8:13 PM Report Comment
Un friggin believable. Actually, it's quite believable with O in office
>> Magnus13 Friday, January 14, 2011 8:21 PM Report Comment
This should never happened if private insurance and private health care wasn't so deceptive and expensive at the same time.
>> Deon Warwick Friday, January 14, 2011 8:26 PM Report Comment
@teapartyamerican1776: you mention 'collecting govt welfare (medicare, soc programs are not govt welfare..they are programs that we have been forced to pay into for many years, with the govt's promise of receiving benefits in our senior years. It is not welfare to those that have paid for it, but I'm sure you knew that and only want to antagonize the honest, hardworking taxpayers. By the way, you do realize the govt skims trillions of dollars from these programs for whatever they want...It is theft in my opinion and those funds should be lockboxed.
>> Fossey Friday, January 14, 2011 8:39 PM Report Comment
Joel, If you're so pleased with being screwed by this boondoggle, perhaps you would be willing to take over my part of the payment for it as well, ya liberal putz.
>> 1GregM Friday, January 14, 2011 8:41 PM Report Comment
The tax increases with health care for all are inevitable. Unfortunately Canadians and politicians are quickly beginning to realize that universal health care is unsustainable. In 2010 the premier of Ontario stated that 46% of the budget was allocated to health care expenses. The real stinging admission is that health care expenses are projected to increase to 70% in 12 years! This kind of increase is unsustainable and run the rest of the provinces services. What are the options? Reduced services - health care - other services - increased taxes. For our neighbors to the south, please be careful what you wish. http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/844586--mcguinty-urges-provinces-to-join-forces-on-drug-regimes
>> Canuck Friday, January 14, 2011 8:41 PM Report Comment
Reelman said: ". notice the whiners that post their love for socialized medicine do not address the many taxes..." The liberals who think this pile of crap called ObamaCare is so wonderful are those who for the most part don't pay taxes as they are the welfare bums who sit around with their hand out wanting the rest of the working people to pay for their stupidity and laziness.
>> Buzz Friday, January 14, 2011 8:42 PM Report Comment
These taxes are minuscule, and most of them only affect 250K+ earners. Big deal. I am looking forward to the new health plan, and the better coverage for all, and bye bye pre existing condition denials.
>> Eric Friday, January 14, 2011 8:49 PM Report Comment
TeaPartyAmerican1776, I have actually BEEN to several TeaParty events you DEAD FROM THE NECK UP PROGESSIVE PARASITE. I'm sick and tired of non-thinking elitist like you making BASELESS ASSERTIONS using ONLY EMOTIONS to back up your IRRATIONAL points!!! As for your BASELESS ASSERTION that Conservatives HATE their fellow man, lets look at that F word Progessives HATE- FACTS. You don't offer EVEN one specific example of behavior that proves conservatives HATE their fellow man, again you just make BASELESS EMOTIONAL, IRRATIONAL ASSERTIONS.
>> Carl Friday, January 14, 2011 8:50 PM Report Comment
Joel is a sickeningly deluded Democrat. The comment about 30 million newly covered is a joke... what happened to the 48 million number all the Democrats used to throw around? Also, HIPAA (enacted back in the 90s)dramatically rolled back the rule about pre-exisiting condition exclusions quite a long time ago. So when this President talks about fixing "pre-ex" I can't help but wince at his blatent dishonesty. If Congress was serious about pre-ex they could have enacted a more precise, HIPAA II type legislative approach and incrementally improved coverage rather than gut a private care system, that while certainly imperfect, served the vast majority beautifully -- and much better than what the saps in the rest of the world receive.
>> Dennis Fisher Friday, January 14, 2011 8:59 PM Report Comment
repeal.....
>> Don Grimes Friday, January 14, 2011 9:07 PM Report Comment
IRS does not write the tax laws or tax codes - Congress does that. The IRS only enforces the tax laws. Also , I bet there will be a ton of insurance fraud if Obamacare passes - oh wait, we already have that right now - I mean insurance fraud x 100.
>> land of the not so free Friday, January 14, 2011 9:10 PM Report Comment
So, the new CEO of Duke Power will be making 8 million per year and an health insurance executive may make only 500 K??
>> VaughnHathaway Friday, January 14, 2011 9:12 PM Report Comment
All those in favor of Obamacare, if these market based incentives are to entice people into buying their own healthcare at their own expense, did you not stop to wonder where they are spending the money they collect from all these tax increases. It isn't to cover the over 40 million that will still be without health insurance. The Obamacare proposals violate the constitution and one by one at someone other than your expense they will fall in the courts.
>> Tjp Friday, January 14, 2011 9:18 PM Report Comment
Great Joel, and you can continue to live in your parents basementand get health care without ever having to grow up and get a job.
>> mike Friday, January 14, 2011 9:20 PM Report Comment
As to feeling bad about collecting social security and medicare? If they were privatized and invested conservatively over the average workers lifetime, they'd retire a multi-millionaire. Instead under the careful supervision of the government the program faces bankruptcy where current workers retirement depends not on what they have paid into social security, but on what some future generation pays into social security. The money you pay in to the fund today gets paid out rather quickly to current retirees. You have no money in the social security fund. You have a promise of future money that can be negated by law at any time.
>> Tjp Friday, January 14, 2011 9:23 PM Report Comment
The Democratic machine of zero transparency pushed this scam of the century into the American sector. While you sleep your civil liberties are eroding, your taxes increasing higher, the demographics of citizenry changing for third world and Islamic demands, more police powers over your life. This illegitimate elected official has an agenda to socialize us and strip rights away; once the public wake up and rise up he and the ghetto wife will flee to another country. This country is pushed towards a civil conflict whether it's legal, physical or moral..something will break.
>> blah blah Friday, January 14, 2011 9:24 PM Report Comment
This is in response to Joel. Why not just insure the people who have no insurance and leave the rest of us alone. This is so stupid and complicated and so un-American.
>> Jim C. Friday, January 14, 2011 9:29 PM Report Comment
Hey, Margie. Those people you speak of are not my dependents. I did not beget them. I stopped at 2 children because that is all I felt I could support. Now you want me to support every Tom, Dick, and Harry that walks in the door? Sorry, I have my own bills to take care of, and my own set of problems. Keep your hands out of my wallet.
>> ImBigMo Friday, January 14, 2011 9:35 PM Report Comment
Obamacare is as bad a proposal as Clinton's healthcare proposal was, only Obama and his blind followers spent a legislative year pushing it through into law at the expense of needed regulations and laws being considered at a time when creation of new jobs was vastly more important than any provision of this healthcare law.
>> Tjp Friday, January 14, 2011 9:37 PM Report Comment
This is more than socialization. This is frightening. This must be repealed now.
>> Belleburgh Friday, January 14, 2011 9:39 PM Report Comment
The House of Representatives is set to vote to repeal this disastrous healthcare bill next Wednesday, January 19th. Obamacare was created and passed for one reason: to drive every American citizen into a public option health care system that will ration health care. If the House of Representatives cannot repeal Obamacare, it will bankrupt our nation. It will be the end of freedom in America. If the government can force you to buy health care insurance, it can force you to buy anything. It can also take anything away from you that it wants in the name of health care. America is at a crossroad. Pray for our nation today.
>> Scott Friday, January 14, 2011 9:42 PM Report Comment
Under "Flexible Spending Account Cap" section, the last line should denote current law, but it only says: "Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education." For clarification, this should read: "Under current tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education."
>> GregE Friday, January 14, 2011 9:43 PM Report Comment
E X E M P T P A Y E R S MUSLIMS ARE E X E M P T from Obama c a r e because it is against their religion!!!!!!
>> Bill Friday, January 14, 2011 9:53 PM Report Comment
It is very simple: insure everyone to bring down costs. I have little respect for those who wish to settle for the status quo system of an inefficient and wasteful system, and admire those like President Obama who are trying to fix the dire healthcare crisis. This bill is not perfect and I don't agree with everything that is in it, but it is progress towards a more affordable system for our children.
>> Andrew Friday, January 14, 2011 9:54 PM Report Comment
I have heard no solutions on this page to 30M uninsured (which you all pay for anyway!) Only hysteria. Republicans have had years - years! - in power to address this national disgrace - and did nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. And now you all complain when the Democrats try to do something. So think about it - if Republicans did something, say 10 years ago, "Obamacare" is a non issue. If you don't like it, nobody to blame but you.
>> robert Friday, January 14, 2011 10:04 PM Report Comment
Its only no more pre-existing conditions for children not adults and children already could stay on most plans to age 26 so what it is, is a plan to make insurance companies go out of business cause they are no longer allowed to cap the expenses at 5 million and have to cover all the mental and nervous as well as drugs and alcohol treatment. This will drive rates up extremely high for all. It also will result in rationed healthcare. Good job huh Joel? All so we have to install a government option so the government can control us cause a few elites know better than we do. Joel people like you should move to France or Canada so you can have your healthcare rationed dont force this crap down our throats we dont deserve it!
>> cheryl Friday, January 14, 2011 10:09 PM Report Comment
Robert we couldnt do anything cause the house was controlled by the commiecrats for the last 4 years and they would not entertain any of the ideas that our people came up with so dont say we didnt do anything, we couldnt do anything. We had good ideas and I work in the industry yet the ideas were thrown out for the lousy ideology of the brother of William Ayers and John Podesta, Van Jones and the other card carrying self-admitted communists that make up the Appollo Alliance that wrote the healthcare and stimulas bills. Look it up oh thats right you commiecrats refuse to do any research you listen to staterun media and think its the gospel truth.
>> cheryl Friday, January 14, 2011 10:14 PM Report Comment
I don't see what the problem is. Obama said it would be paid for. He just never said how. Doesn't seem any different then the bank bailouts, the wars, and all the humanitaian aid we give out. If these things were paid for we wouldn't have debt as a country. How obamacare has managed to get this far by violating law is beyond me. What happened to equal protection? Why is mcdonalds treated differently then any other business? How do you exempt one company and not the next?
>> James Woods Friday, January 14, 2011 10:17 PM Report Comment
We didn't need this. We could have made a law that insurance companies could not have caps. Though,why do we need one? Most policies cover up to 1 million. We could have made a single law to sell insurance across state boundaries. Republicans tried to put through these enhancements but the Dems. wouldn't let them because they cared more about politics than the people. This was nothing but a grab to nationalize every sector of our country. That's what Fabian socialists do.
>> Karen Friday, January 14, 2011 10:17 PM Report Comment
From experience: We have been health insurance brokers for the past 8 years, building a business for our family and our future. That business is now gone. We are losing our home. We have always paid for our own health insurance as self-employed people. Obamacare has destroyed what we have worked night and day to build, our own business. I have helped hundreds of individuals, self-employed people and small business owners with coverage over the years. Fortunately, we are not too old and we can start over with a lot of sweat and tears. Many cannot. People who support this bill are ignorant of what it really does. You can't fix stupid.
>> Paul Friday, January 14, 2011 10:19 PM Report Comment
Repeal this insane, Marxist redistribution of wealth bill! Barry needs to be a 1 term president before he destroys this country!
>> Michael Friday, January 14, 2011 10:20 PM Report Comment
As far as I am concerned Republican or Democrat has nothing to do with it, they are all the same. This country is becoming more and more socialistic every day. On top of this, the bail out money that went to the big banks, like Chase, is not being used for what it was supposed to be used for, to help with mortgages. I have not heard of one person they have actually helped. Have only heard of people who have been booted out of their homes. They just want to keep all of that money and all of the properties as well. Not much of a surprise. All we can do is take things one day at a time until the Lord comes back. I for one can't wait! And all of the evil in this world will be judged!! Yeah!!!!!!!!!
>> Patricia Gough Friday, January 14, 2011 10:25 PM Report Comment
Andrew, you libtard, I have long since paid for my children and grandchildren. Why should I pay for yours? My money is not yours to spend, nor is it the governments to spend. I'll keep my money, you keep the change..
>> Tony Friday, January 14, 2011 10:28 PM Report Comment
cheryl - 1) The republicans controlled both houses of congress for 12 years and the presidency for 6 of those 12 years. No solution ever offered. 2) You really should stop listening to Glen Beck. And stop name calling. I can disagree with you - but that doesn't mean I'm a communist.
>> robert Friday, January 14, 2011 10:31 PM Report Comment
If you failed to buy house insurance, and it burns to the ground, should you be able to go and get insurance after the fact and have the insurance company pay for your loss? The pre-existing condition is going to cost the rest dearly. How can anyone be expected to pay for someone else's problem...who never contributed in the first place? This is not an equal world and it cannot be legislated to be equal.
>> jason Friday, January 14, 2011 10:31 PM Report Comment
Right, insure everyone to bring down the costs. The government who can't keep its own finances in order is now opening up a health care business. And what do you think will be the long term result? Just look at the post office, social security, the list goes on. All these services are just a shell now, and it's a matter of time before they belly up. And you trust them in healthcare business? Borrowing is their model, and we can only borrow from China and other countries for so long. And if you take into account all the interest that will need to be paid for all the borrowed money required to fund this constitutionally illegal program, it will cost "everyone" (to use your words) a hell of a lot more than what we're paying now!
>> Obama Care = Welfare Friday, January 14, 2011 10:50 PM Report Comment
The above comment was directed to Andrew. And let's not forget, more government programs = more opportunity for corruption... so while we have to repay another country for all this borrowed money (+ interest) for substandard health care (that a majority of Americans reject... look at the last election), Chicago style politics will kick in and somebody's going to get a kickback, if they haven't already. Sounds like a *loose* *loose* (and *loose* more) proposition to me... Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme style. BTW, did Obama used to hang out with Bernie? The reason I ask is I'm wondering where he got this idea : )
>> Obama Care = Welfare Friday, January 14, 2011 10:54 PM Report Comment
Seems like a good deal to me. Adds 30-40 million people to insurance, helps you buy insurance if you make less than $80k per year and your insurance costs more than ~10% of your income, ends pre-existing conditions, and ends lifetime caps on coverage (what good is insurance if it ends when you most desperately need it?). Repealing it would shorten lives, kick people off insurance, and continue the pattern of incredible increases in premiums that we have seen over the last 20 years.
>> Justin Friday, January 14, 2011 10:54 PM Report Comment
There will be "death Panels." no doubt about it. There is not an endless supply of money to cure everything on everyone. Just common sense. There is only so much "skin in the game."
>> mark Friday, January 14, 2011 11:09 PM Report Comment
I like the comments regarding pre-existing, especially from those who clearly haven't a clue. A pre-existing condition clause applies when you have had no prior coverage or a lapse in coverage, and I think that is pretty legit. I work my full time job, pay a ridiculous amount for health insurance, and I prefer it that way. I want options. I want to choose my doctor. I don't want to wait 2 hours in his office while he sees the same 4 munchausen syndrome-hypochondriacs before me, who are probably there every other week. As it stands now, physicians are allowed to choose their patients and the insurances they will accept. I think the level of care will drop once that right has been taken from them.
>> Barbara Friday, January 14, 2011 11:26 PM Report Comment
Why are undocumented aliens given an exception? They are allowed to attend school for free, they can collect welfare, they can use all of the services of the country (with few exceptions.) but they don't have to pay for any of it? Granted, it would be next to impossible to enforce or collect any of the fines and taxes, but giving an outright exemption to a group that puts massive strain on the current health system is just plain stupid.
>> TonyB Friday, January 14, 2011 11:33 PM Report Comment
I would rather the situation that I have a disease whose cure I can’t afford and therefore I must die than the situation where the government says you have a disease whose cure we can’t afford therefore you must die.
>> Doug Friday, January 14, 2011 11:36 PM Report Comment
Got to love entitlements. Check out Obama-Poker's post on the subject. They are new to the game, but the blog shows promise. Plus, their Obama-Poker meme is picking up a bit. Heard it on the radio the other day.
>> ZLudlum Friday, January 14, 2011 11:40 PM Report Comment
#1 if you walk into a hospital and get free care, they will attach your wages if you dont pay it, its only free if your indigent or dont care about having your wages attached. #2 as a senior im already finding my co pays going up, my SS not increaing, the tax on my SS up to 85% taxable. #4the medicare advantage(the only good thingout there) will be done away with under this program and all seniors will have basically medicade (which ive been on to) adn is only accepted by nurse practicioners and alows no visits to specialits like heart Drs. ect!
>> mr tolson Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:13 AM Report Comment
To TeaPartyAmerican1776........YOU NEED TO GET SOME "LEARNING"!!
>> Leo Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:19 AM Report Comment
goodgolly - I am not questioning your texas stats for the purpose of challenging you .. I am questioning because I would like to use your stats in arguments with others. Do you have a reference I can site about the texas tort reform and the effect of lower costs?
>> aaron armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:22 AM Report Comment
$2,000 to $3,000 per employee will bankrupt my company and many others. This is ridiculous.
>> jefft Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:30 AM Report Comment
Andrew, precisely how does insuring everyone bring down costs?
>> Aaron Armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:31 AM Report Comment
This is one more PONZI scheme created by Obama and Co. What did Pelosi say? We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it! Well now that we know what's in it the Dems are going to pay a SEVERE price in 2012 and you can take that to the bank!
>> Richard Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:33 AM Report Comment
Actually TeaParty American, it is people who want this healthcare bill that hate their fellow human being. I can't even count how many people I know on medicare and medicaid that can't get treatment because their government plan won't pay for care. Perhaps you should reearch what conditions are actually covered under other nationalized programs. They all have exclusions, as do ours. If you'd like to educate youself. Study the term statistical value of life, or value of a statistical life - those are the standards by which care will be doled out.
>> aaron armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:37 AM Report Comment
This is good stuff. Like Joel says, it's paid for and not being able to be denied care is a huge deal. One day we may even get a disconnect of health care from our employers. (Employers would love this) Aaron, it brings down costs because there are more people in the insurance pool.
>> cgp Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:39 AM Report Comment
Repeal this UNCONSTITUTIONAL Obamacare NOW!
>> Cat Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:43 AM Report Comment
Like Obama, I agree with the phrase "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." If someone else wants to work 90 hour weeks, then let them. It doesn't mean they should make more money than me. I choose not to work because I have 7 children at home that need a mama. Why should I have any less of a lifestyle, and any less healthcare, than anyone else? Please explain WHY?
>> Diedrelene Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:43 AM Report Comment
What they are "promising" is health insurance it is not CARE ... you may "say" that people have "insurance" but they will not have the CARE...you will get only what the government deems "necessary" .. as Obama said famously during the election ... "take a pill don't get a pacemaker".
>> Cat Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:46 AM Report Comment
The administration and the democrats continue to toe the party line that Obama care will lower cost and reduce the deficit. The assertions are ludicrous....Obama care is a budget buster with monumental tax increases and an expansion of government never before seen....Read: Is The GOP Getting Outsmarted....at...... http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/
>> cooperscopy Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:56 AM Report Comment
I am 64 years old. I have never had medical insurance and don't want any now. I have learned how to take care of my health and do so. When the FDA outlaws herbs and other supplements that work better than anything Big Pharma makes, I will have to leave to some country I can buy my homeopathic supplements. Anyone who thinks they need to have the gov't take care of them because they couldn't or didn't take care of themselves can die now. We all are going to die, sometime, some earlier than others. It's all about taking care of your own body and learning what keeps you healthy. And with that said, I will have another beer!
>> Chuck Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:59 AM Report Comment
Listen up moonbats. I will pay this over my CORPSE. You got me? I will refuse to pay your unconstitutional garbage, and I will tell the IRS to shove it. I will then make you clowns throw me in jail when I REFUSE to pay my fines. In jail I will come up with lawsuit after lawsuit to bring, and waist tax payer money - not to mention the fact that I will make sure I am constantly injured - I will transform myself into an absolute MAXIMUM drain on the system - purely to spite you Obamabots. I will cost you millions. You won't get a red cent outta me.
>> OverMyCorpse Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:00 AM Report Comment
I remember in the 2008 primaries, Obama said that his health care plan differed from Hillary's because his plan only focused on the poor. What ever happened to that? Why is he taking over everyone's health care instead? This is nothing but a big power grab. Greedy Government. They keep on finding new ways to intrude into everyone's personal business.
>> CraigMK Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:11 AM Report Comment
I've not be able to read the Obamacare Bill, myself--but someone commented that they had seen a part in this Bill-! "They said that it prohibited you from selling your house, until you had "updated" the house with the most recent "weatherization" & Plumbing, Heating, current-law standards for the most recent-years-!" If this is truely what he saw, then you are 'stuck' for nearly 8-12 thousands of dollars for improvements, before you can offer it for sale-! (And I've seen others on this same 'current-blog'--who said that the Bill demands you pay 3.8% of your sale-price to the Fed.govt! (If you're lucky enough, & it's a "Fire-Hazard", perhaps it might burn down-!)
>> 1953 Korean Vet Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:36 AM Report Comment
...and you wonder why scores of American doctors, dentists and other medical professionals are setting up modern, clean, well equipped offices and operating rooms in Mexico, Costa Rica, and other latin American countries??? Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the leftist Liberals are raping, pillaging and burning what we knew as the United States of America. WAKE UP AMERICA BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!!!
>> GCK Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:40 AM Report Comment
I wonder if Ted Kennedy had this plan
>> Dumbass Taxpayer Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:41 AM Report Comment
Heathcare bill/Obamacare is not about health it is about money/greed, THis healthcare bill was done wrong. Back room deals with people who have money. Please Stop before it to late:
>> nancy Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:41 AM Report Comment
you people act like you have forgotten what it means to share. is it really gonna hurt you that much to give just a little bit of what you make to help those that are less fortunate? c'mon! we all need health care and we should all be able to receive it at a reasonable cost. if that means my taxes go up a tad, so be it. I am happy to do it. I don't understand how so many can have such a lack of compassion for others.
>> Brian Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:44 AM Report Comment
Nothing new here....just a lot more in plain sight for those too dumb to believe that the only free ride being provided by Obama and his crooks is on the backs (and pockets) of those of us that work for a living. Obama and the Democrats....buying your votes with taxpayer dollars until the money runs out.
>> Tyrone Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:52 AM Report Comment
"The problem with Socialism, is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher
>> Richard Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:56 AM Report Comment
One good thing our unconstitutional government is good at is raising taxes. Soon we will all be broke. Until then, please continue to live in your la-de-da existence foos (there is plenty of mind numbing entertainment provided for you from the cable line coming into your house)....
>> Kevin Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:04 AM Report Comment
We're supposed to control government, all forms of government. We now are controlled from before birth, if allowed, to after death. We did less than half the job last november. We must finish the job at the next election(s).
>> Gary Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:18 AM Report Comment
'Codification of the “economic substance doctrineâ€(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance†and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.' This is definitely BIG BROTHER. I agree with the other commentor, Joel. If you want socialized medicine, please move to Canada, because this legislation needs to be toppled. I am not a wealthy person by any means, but, even I can see the evil of this implementation.
>> Dawn Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:23 AM Report Comment
Obama,Reid,BarnyFrank and Nancy are Scumbags!
>> dennis Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:26 AM Report Comment
We cannot afford this "healthcare" bill. Personally I can't afford to pay for everyone else's healthcare. I have enough trouble just paying for mine. And what on earth does investment income have to do with healthcare? I also understand that there's supposed to be a national sales tax on home sales in this bill. I didn't see it listed here. And to Diedrelene with 7 children at home. I understand you want to stay home and take care of your children. I hope you can provide for them. And if I choose to work 90 hours a week why shouldn't I make more than you? You want MY paycheck to provide for your 7 children? You chose to have that many, you provide for them. Don't expect me to do it for you.
>> kaygem Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:26 AM Report Comment
I am an engineer earning $40k per year and my wife is and engineer earning $40k per year and we have no health insurance. My wife became preganant and now it is impossible to get health insurance. If something goes wrong with the pregnancy we will have to cover the entire $50k. I am a republican do not like taxes but the health care system does not work. I wish Obama Care was in place now so we were not playing russian roulete with our child. One pregnancy could ruin our lives. It should not be like this.
>> Nick T Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:41 AM Report Comment
You want to fix healthcare? Outlacode visit co-pays and prescription co-pays. when patients have to use their own money to pay for the dr the costs will plummet. No one in thier right mind would ever pay 125$ for a runny nose.
>> Paul g Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:43 AM Report Comment
Outlaw dr visit co-Pays that is... Stupid apple spell checker
>> Paul g Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:49 AM Report Comment
To diedrelene - obamacare will be of no use to you because there is no cure for what ails you (stupidity). Why didn't you stop at 2 babies, then work to provide a living for them, instead of popping out more of them to be a burden on the rest of us. Where do you think that welfare money comes from if not from those of us who work the 90 hour weeks! I don't know why I'm even wasting my time writing this, when you're obviously too ignorant to understand it.
>> buckaroo Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:50 AM Report Comment
To those of you who with blinders on, I suggest you stop listening to the biased liberal media, and do a little research on your own regarding obamacare. You'll find it is not the dream you've been led by them to believe. It's ironic to me that the only people who are for this bill are naive people who simplistically allow themselves to be led to slaughter like trusting lambs. It seems that nobody who has actually done any reading on the subject is in favor of it.
>> buckaroo Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:58 AM Report Comment
do not forget to vote, and please pressure our fed to vigorously perform its job of arresting and jailing and fining and deporting illegal voters.
>> howard from broward Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:02 AM Report Comment
As a doctor who works in a hospital I feel this is an excellent proposal. While it will increase taxes for some (those making $200,000+ a year) it will allow the majority of Americans access to affordable healthcare. The reality, if you work in a hospital, is that we don't turn away dying people because they don't have healthcare. We do our best to get our money, but the bill is simply paid by the government later. At least now everyone has a responsibility to themselves and each other. The majority of commentaries come from those with no medical experience. You simply don't understand It looks like Obamacare is here to stay! God Bless America
>> Dr. Richard Esther, MD, PhD. Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:02 AM Report Comment
To those of you who with blinders on, I suggest you stop listening to the biased liberal media, and do a little research on your own regarding obamacare. You'll find it is not the dream you've been led by them to believe. It's ironic to me that the only people who are for this bill are naive people who simplistically allow themselves to be led to slaughter like trusting lambs. It seems that nobody who has actually done any reading on the subject is in favor of it.
>> buckaroo Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:10 AM Report Comment
I am really disappointed in the state of my fellow Americans. "Shut up" "go to Canada" "Hang em high" What the hell is wrong with you people? What is wrong with people who can not afford health care having access to preventive health care? What about helping your fellow person? I think it is wonderful that a Doctor under the current plan can make a ton of money but I miss the days when my family doctor would come to the house and give my mom a bunch of free samples of medicines because we could not afford to get them from the pharmacy. I admire, respect, and just plain ole like PRESIDENT Obama and I will be voting for him again in 2012! GO OBAMA pissing off the rednecks one at a time!
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:13 AM Report Comment
If the government would get off my back and out of my wallet I would have the money to buy health insurance.
>> iopian Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:15 AM Report Comment
To Dr. Richard Esther - After following this debate closely for nearly two years, you're only the second doctor I've heard from who is in favor of this bill. Most doctors are very worried about the extra workload and the strain of meeting all the new regulations. And are you sure it's the government who simply pays later for the uninsured? I've been under the impression that those of us who have insurance or are self-pay patients are paying higher prices for services provided to us to take up that slack.
>> Mary Sue Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:20 AM Report Comment
ummm you forgot the added Gold tax for if you sell your gold coins or jewelry ot gold bars and they total over $600 you must report this to the IRS and pay a tax on it! check it out! They snuck this one in too!
>> Keen Heaslett Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:24 AM Report Comment
I definitely fall into the poverty level on income, but I've always provided for my own needs, and have never asked for anyone else to pay my way. I work for what I buy, including healthcare. There've been extended times when I couldn't afford insurance, so I paid out-of-pocket for any needed medical care, or went without. That is the American way. Our Constitution gaurantees everone EQUAL RIGHTS, not a FREE RIDE. The only thing we are ENTITLED to as American citizens is the freedom to work and live free in this amazing country. I only deserve what I can afford - nothing more.
>> Ailene Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:35 AM Report Comment
In this new American Socialistic Society, where the government takes our earnings, then redistributes it (and believe it, that IS the principal behind Obamacare), where is the incentive for people to do for others? With the government taking care of everybody, there is no need for humanitarianism. People would be (and were) more willing to help the unfortunate when allowed freedom of choice.
>> John Q. Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:44 AM Report Comment
John Q.: Hey, I'm not sure you're aware of this or not, but you probably aren't, because people of your intelligence don't make enough money to know this: The richest people in America pay about 15% in taxes of what they make. Warren Buffet pays a lower percent in taxes than does his secretary. Do you want to know why? I would rather you google it and figure that out cause you wouldn't believe me if I just straight up told you. Let me give you the opportunity to do the first real research you've ever done in your life. By the way, college has been great, too bad you never went.
>> Ali Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:14 AM Report Comment
Look, that came out pretty harsh, but you can't say our country is socialist when it's not. That's just a false claim. It's basically a lie. Socialism is when the government controls all big industries, which is obviously doesn't. That is why there is the term "private business". I'm all for less government, but also, if you wanna go that far, then you have to actually commit to that. Because on social issues, Republicans (as I'm sure you are) want more government. Abortion and immigration for example.
>> Ali Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:21 AM Report Comment
Its funny how the goverment can totally make a mess of society and thwart prosperity, circle around, approach society and say "Hey, I see your in a mess but have we got a great plan that will help!" Whats more ridiculous is that educated citizens trust the government for more govenment to implement a cure?? Less government in every facet of our lives is the proven path to a healthy world, those who deny this dont know history and are the real 'rednecks'.
>> saer Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:15 AM Report Comment
You must be lying. President Obama promised NO NEW TAXES for 95% OF Americans. This article must be a misprint.
>> Dennis in WV Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:31 AM Report Comment
Dr. Esther - I don't believe you're a doctor at all. Its impossible and be a stupid as you are.
>> John Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:36 AM Report Comment
Wrong, Ali. Communism is when government controls all big business. Socialism is exactly the direction of this government. It currently controls the banking industry, majority of the auto industry, the domestic oil industry, the health industry, the broadcast industry, and the TAX industry. Make no mistake. When more than 50% of the public does not pay taxes, and the tax rules are designed to redistribute wealth you are left with socialism.
>> Dennis in WV Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:38 AM Report Comment
To Nick T: Buy two airline tickets ($1K each) to another country with good health services at affordable prices. A natural delivery for a 7 day stay at an excellent hospital in the capital will cost you $1-2K. Go on a vacation afterwards to the beach or elsewhere at a cost of $1K. Total maximum cost, without any worries, $5K. Americans do not need to accept a monopolistic, non-choice placed on them by the government that plays the middle class (who will be the primary beneficiaries of the law) off of the upper class (who will pay for the law).
>> WatchingFromOverseas Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:43 AM Report Comment
Only more competition (i.e. allow insurance companies to offer policies in all states, eliminate the AMA's control over the number of healthcare providers in the market through licensing restrictions, reduce patent right periods for drugs developed to 5 years before less-expensive generics can be offered, tort reform to control frivolous lawsuits and the capping malpractice liability levels, etc) will fix US healthcare, not taxes. A system of all sticks will fail relative to a system of more carrots with fewer sticks.
>> MiltonFriedmanWatching Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:47 AM Report Comment
We will see and then let's hear from the those for it!
>> Jim Morrison Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:58 AM Report Comment
LETS TRY TO KEEP THIS OVERALL PROBLEM SIMPLE. 1. REPEAL OBAMA CARE TOTALLY. 2. IMPEACH OBAMA; GET RID OF THE CZARS.
>> JEROME SEXTON Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:16 AM Report Comment
THIS IS WAAAAAAAY UNDERSTATED. fORM 1099 REPORTING WILL CAUSE TENS OF BILLIONS TAX TO BE OWED BY COMPANIES TO THE STATES WHERE THEY NEVER FILED RETURNS AND FOR UNPAID AND UNDERPAID TAXES AND SALES AND USE TAXES. Check out this article from left-leaning DailyKos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/5/899181/-Health-Care-1099-Law-Will-Yield-BILLIONS-of-Found-Money-to-Struggling-State-Coffers.-
>> RealityBites Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:21 AM Report Comment
I'm a part of the 30 million uninsured. I didn't ASK for it, I didn't want it!
>> Kira Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:21 AM Report Comment
On a more scary note, watch and learn about the US population's Road to Serfdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRS-Ft3uEz8
>> WatchingFromOverseas Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:35 AM Report Comment
REMOVE THE BRIT-NOT LEGIT
>> Bud Skippy Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:36 AM Report Comment
As one who is already getting hit with this type of health care system here in mass. I can tell you it sucks. I had to wait 2 months to see a urologist because the hospital that I have to go to had three. two of them left the state of mass. because they were getting screwed in this system. ( I know a assistant to one of them ) get ready united states this is comming your way. I also was forced to buy into the state run system i was recieving insurance through my employer but the state says the coverage isnt good enough for their standard. I now have to buy from the state and the coverage isnt any different than my old plan.
>> Tiredofitall Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:47 AM Report Comment
Amazing. Taxes continue to go up and nothing about our lives gets any better.
>> JPrimus Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:49 AM Report Comment
Hey Diedrelene, I will happily explain...keep your legs closed OR try having sex with a condom! These are your kids, not mine, you chose to have them, not me, you chose to get fu*ked, I did not!
>> Obama's little dick Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:52 AM Report Comment
Obamacare becomes the iron fist of communism. Refuse to comply and watch the Obama wrath. Because it will be so hard to track once implemented, you will then be introduced to Obamacare's hidden intent. That will be the prophecied MARK.
>> cmc Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:56 AM Report Comment
To Mary Sue--I respect your comment. Many private practice doctors are not excited about the new government healthcare option, but I wouldn't be worried too much. A single payer system was not established so the doctor does have the right (as they do now) to turn away patients. They cannot discriminate but they can choose not to see the patient due to a overwhelming caseload. I think they should not worry too much about it. If it was a single payer system I would agree with their concern.
>> Dr. Richard Esther, MD, PhD. Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:57 AM Report Comment
---Continued---- Regarding the government roles, I work at a county hospital (public) and we take care of all the patients we see. While wait times for non-life threatening conditions can be more than 24 hours, we do eventually treat the patient. As a result, taxpayers do end up paying their bills. Some disagree with this, but I doubt they would have the heart to turn away a dying patient because his the operation would be 50% of his yearly salary. If they are willing to do this, they probably have no heart. It's easy to say "don't treat them" when you don't have to see their families crying, their children who will be orphaned, or their spouse who will inherit the debt.
>> Dr. Richard Esther, MD, PhD. Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:01 AM Report Comment
Hey Nick, 80k between you, you choose not to get health insurance on a gamble, and now you lost your bet and are complaining that you may have to shell our 50k for a baby? What would you have paid for HC premiums? You gambled and lost. you are a looser. Maybe we should help out all those gamblers in those Indian Casinos that loose their paychecks too. Hell, lets just open the vault for anyone who wants free money!
>> Obamas Little Package Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:02 AM Report Comment
As a disabled American who does rely on many prescriptions to stay alive, I am completely against this outrageous invasion of freedom. I have to pay for all of my expenses out of pocket, and trust me, they are expensive! But I would much rather pay for my own responsibilities than to make everyone else pay for them. It's MY illness, and there is no reason why you should have to pay for it. Yeah, It sucks having added expenses that I didn't ask for, but that's just the way it goes. It's the hand I've been dealt and its up to me to pay for my expenses or I die. And as an American, I'd rather DIE than accept a single red cent of taxpayer money for my private concerns.
>> Theis Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:03 AM Report Comment
Where's the part about reducing health costs again?? Repeal and vote. Repeal and vote. Repeal and vote.
>> Barry Bin Inhalin Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:06 AM Report Comment
Well if this happens, my husband's employer will have to let a workforce of around 40 people go due to not being able to fund $2000 per employee for healthcare. Goodbye job, goodbye Blue Cross/Blue Shield Preferred Care Blue, goodbye house, goodbye cars, goodbye furniture, goodbye safe neighborhood-- hello unemployment line, hello medicaid, hello apartment in low rent district, hello Goodwill furnishings, hello drive-by shootings.... "Change We Can Believe In...Yes We Can..."
>> Don't know what to say Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:20 AM Report Comment
We do no need kind heath care .need repeal on billusa.age 61 white disable person ssi check $93.00 month
>> LEE R KENT Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:20 AM Report Comment
This is what you get when democrats are elected...higher taxes and less freedom...why on earth do people still support and vote for this party of retards is beyond reason???
>> OnlyAnAmerican1 Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:24 AM Report Comment
There is no tax on "Income" for private non federally connected citizens. See Article one Sections two and nine of our Constitution.The 16th Amendment did not change this and did not add new taxes. See the many Supreme Court rulings on the 16th Amendment. My favorite is by Chief justice Byron "Whizzer" White who said "The 16th Amendment did not authorize any new type of tax, nor repeal or revoke the tax clauses of Article one of The Constitution." What is needed is education about the "Income tax" and who is supposed to pay it. For the most part, it is not "private" citizens of the USA.
>> Buckaroo63 Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:27 AM Report Comment
Nothing you "say" will matter. Our Government no longer has the ears to hear the people. Mark these words, nothing less than full scale revolution will stop this tyrany. Why? Because it's NOTHING NEW in history and our founding father's wrote the Constitution to protect the people from these very policies of the current and former POTUS and other Government bodies.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:33 AM Report Comment
Oh and I forgot to add: The job losses are in one location only--there are four other locations that will be doing the same thing. In addition, I forgot to mention that we will be filing bankruptcy, seeking welfare, using food stamps, living on the taxpayer (who we once were but due to this healthcare thing--we will be on the deficit side of America), using the city transportation... All that hard work--26 years of 13-14 hour days, 6 days a week, to get to the top to be able to buy a nice home in a safe neighborhood down the tubes all because a bunch of people, who don't even care about politics, were able to vote.
>> Don\\\'t know what to say Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:34 AM Report Comment
Lee Kent: My brother is disabled and he gets $600/month, as well as a blind uncle who gets the same so I don't know where you are coming up with $93/mon. Besides, is it all of America who has to pay for everyone else until those who are paying can't even live to where someone has to take care of them as well? When does it stop? Until we are all in the bread line?
>> Don't know what to say Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:40 AM Report Comment
The Mandate. I receive 100% medical care from the VA as a (partially) disabled (retired) Veteran. Am I required to purchase Obamacare? Hmmmmmm????
>> Your Neighbor Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:40 AM Report Comment
If I have to pay for everyones medical, then we need to criminalize sugar, booze, fat, smokiing, sex without a permanent partner, and sloth. Hey, that would mean more government jobs for enforcement. Or, how about just do a certified height / weight test, to be attached to the annual tax forms, and have a "fat tax" to pay for medical cost increases.
>> John Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:40 AM Report Comment
Those rejoicing that this is a good bill for covering the uninsured and those with pre existing conditions, should also rejoice if it is declared that auto ins companies must insure folk with multiple accidents and DUI's. Why, because they are currently uninsured. But, guess what Eienstein, your auto insurance is going up. Who do you think is going to pay for all those newly insured? Genius.
>> Jim Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:52 AM Report Comment
John: Let's just make everyone take a physical every year, drug tests, BMI, and I agree--no pop, candy, junk food, fatty meat, laziness, etc... I wonder how doctors are going to like having a cap on their pay? I used to work in medical billing and I know medicaid won't pay for a lot of things. Hello death panels--Plus they are slow to pay. I would bet banning junk from people's diet, as well as cigarettes and booze, would not apply to those in the whitehouse. Just google search Obama family eating junk food--tons of photos of hamburgers, ice cream and other junk foods being shoved into their mouths while they lecture everyone about eating salads.
>> Don't know what to say Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:52 AM Report Comment
Ali-that is crap! rich in 15% tax bracket? Oh no, my husband is in a 45% tax bracket genius. Almost HALF of my husband's paycheck is taken by the government to fund people who can't/won't take care of their own self. AND, they want MORE of our money? No fricken way. That 45% isn't even including personal property and other taxes we have to pay.
>> Don't know what to say Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:02 AM Report Comment
How could anyone with a conscience vote for this bill. It is insane. Not just to individuals, but to corporations to. Look at all the exemptions that the whitehouse has issued already. That itself is just pure vote buying. That is why the biggest portions of this don't take effect until 2014. Obama is hoping to get reelected before people figure out how screwed they are.
>> Paul Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:18 AM Report Comment
For the people who want free care on this "medicaidobamacare." Know someone who smoked cigarettes 30 years, kept telling to quit, he wouldn't-ended up with cancer/emphysema. The government (even under Obama's rein for the last two years) won't pay for him to have the least of treatment....oxygen. He gasps trying to breath. If Obama is in charge of this now, why do you think it will be ANY different when they force Obamacare on everyone. It won't.
>> Here it is again Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:20 AM Report Comment
GREAT NEWS!! I will NO LONGER have to pay for others who don't feel like buying health insurance ! Cant be refused health insurance !! If only those Rethug-licans would have let us buy drugs from other countries we could have saved a lot more! If only those Rethugs would have permitted anyone to go on Medicare health insurance companies would have had real competition! Why do the Rethug-licans hate us for our freedoms????
>> D W Washburn Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:23 AM Report Comment
I guess if the dems steal my money to pay for illeagals to have health insurance, my only relief will be to rob anyone with an Obama sticker on their car to get my money back. Sounds fair and reasonable to me.
>> Glenn Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:24 AM Report Comment
You voted for this traitor. Shut up and bend over!!!
>> Sick And Tired One Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:41 AM Report Comment
Ya know, I registered dem, but thank God I stopped before I voted for him. I finally came to my senses or today I wouldn't be able to live with myself.
>> I didn't vote for him Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:43 AM Report Comment
Obama and his minions are, collectively, the biggest turd to ever float in the American punchbowl. Take our country back from these socialists.
>> Dallasdan Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:44 AM Report Comment
I am amazed at how many clueless people there are in this country. It's no wonder this country is going to hell. Wake up an smell the coffee America!! Things are only going to get worse. If you want to know the real truth about what is happening in this country and all over the world, check out this website... http://www.hallindsey.com/ God Bless America!!!
>> Patricia Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:45 AM Report Comment
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable" - John F. Kennedy The whole lot of them are corrupt except maybe the teaparty candidates, but we will see if they can be corrupted too.
>> NHPatriot1776 Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:49 AM Report Comment
Capping physicians' incomes? They should also cap actors/actresses & athletes incomes, they often make more than a physician. State funded health plans have the lowest reimbursement & there no 'contract guidelines' that would have to be followed. They will authorize & pay for what they want, when they want. 7 kids? Please tell me you have a working man in your life paying your (and your kids) way?! When I am ready for children, I may have one or two, depending on what I can provide for them. As it stands now, I can barely afford myself let alone a child.
>> Barbara Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:51 AM Report Comment
Again... the Mandate: I'm a healthy retired Military w/27 years service receives 100% medical care from the VA free of charge. I refused Medicare. Am I mandated to purchase health insurance through Obamacare ? Who knows? NOBODY, I'll bet. How could I endorse a program without knowing ?
>> Your Neighbor Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:00 AM Report Comment
Actually I will support Obamacare if it covers gene therapy - the eradication of the DRD4 gene (liberal gene). That would solve most all of the problem America is facing and will face.
>> Dr. Gene Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:03 AM Report Comment
Maybe if we could stop being taxed on our money when we make it, and taxed when we spend it.. these 'small' tax hikes wouldn't be so uneasy. We are being nickle and dimed, being forced to pay the way for others. Being a good fellow American should come from the 'want' of being a good person.. not being forced to do it. When people need help, I want to decide when I have helped enough. Just because people can spell integrity, doesn't mean they have it.
>> Barbara Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:03 AM Report Comment
Notice the taxes based on income ($200k/individual, $250k/family) are not indexed to inflation. This will be just like the Alternative Minimum Tax passed because 6 "millionaires" did not owe any taxes one year due to their deductions and which now snares millions of taxpayers because it was not indexed to inflation. Of course the government's defintion of millionaire - an income around $50k per year was used. A lot of money when the tax was passed but not now.
>> RDH Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:04 AM Report Comment
buttfaces.
>> jje Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:05 AM Report Comment
And lets not forget that muslims are covered, but exempt from paying for it. We are being subjugated to the muslims, as islam demands. Ron Reale realetybytes.com
>> Ron Reale Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:10 AM Report Comment
When plan is fully implemented be ready for BAD healthcare. Informed professional sources say physician fees will be reduced by 85%. When that happens smart young people will become refrigerator repairmen. Why would they go to school fo 12 extra years and accumulate a debt exceeding 200K. You thought the person who fixed your car messed things up, imagine them becoming physicians. No need for death consultations, people will be dropping like flies........ ask a local bureaucrat to resuscitate you. GOOD LUCK
>> Jokull Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:16 AM Report Comment
Ok, does anyone here remember the former Soviet Union. The government had control of everything, I mean everything. Look what happened to that country. It collapsed and now they are in some dire straights. Is that really how you want America to end up?
>> Fay Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:17 AM Report Comment
I thought they were going to apply the medicare tax to capital gains too. That's huge.
>> JimmyNashville Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:17 AM Report Comment
Forgot, repairmen make $100 to walk in the door to tell you what is wrong....not fixing anything. Medicare reimburses much less for any physician service. OUCH
>> jokull Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:20 AM Report Comment
It's here. The Repubs can't get rid of it as it's only a house vote. I think Switzerland will be my home.
>> Exhaused Small Biz Owner Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:24 AM Report Comment
Joel and Grau are the reasons this country is going to hell! Liberal socialist like these 2 need to find another country to live in!
>> vietvet68 Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:31 AM Report Comment
PATRICA. 1. AGREE, 2. HE'S BEEN A BOOKMARK of mine for sometime. Inner peace is the only peace that will ever exist regardless of what line of bull. this world is divying up
>> cmc Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:35 AM Report Comment
"undocumented immigrants", they don't have to pay this tax or register for the draft? I think I want to be an "undocumented immigrant" instead of a American tax payer, seems like a far better deal. Now how about being an undocumented immigrant who belongs to a Obama contributing union who is also a Muslim who is a religious objector. Does this person have to pay the Obama tax? Now a white guy who uses a tanning bed and is a middle class stiff, gets the shaft. You have got to be kidding me, what did I do to deserve this punishment. I quit and I am going on welfare too. (Except I probably don't qualify for some reason).
>> Alan Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:37 AM Report Comment
This socialized healthcare is going world wide. The lunatics are running the asylum. The arsonists are running the fire department. The thieves are running the banks. AND the fox is guarding the hen house.
>> Got news for you small biz owner... Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:39 AM Report Comment
We adopted a special needs little girl two years ago. We spend quite a bit in her schooling. We did not dream when we budgeted for this that Obama would create a Flexible Spending Account Cap. We will not be able to afford her school now. We don't know what to do. Why do people think democrats care about anyone? The evil that democrats do to America is truly breathtaking.
>> brian schneider Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:42 AM Report Comment
President Obama has a wonderful plan! It worked in my country and everyone knows the Soviet Union had the greatest health care plan that ever existed. Just ask my old friend Joe Stalin. One has to break a few eggs to make an omelet so quit whining about your money and embrace the collective.
>> Karl Marx Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:44 AM Report Comment
Contact congress this coming week. It is VITAL !! They have not reason to change direction by a single degree because of the AZ shootings. There has been a loss of energy as a result of the tragic event in AZ. The Dems orchestrated the response perfectly. They sacrificed their pawns first to plant the seed that conservative rhetoric was to blame, and set up the straw man of "take politics out of the response" which they then marched in with at the end of the week with Obama's “neutral†speech. Either we fight now in Washington with reps we elect, or our children fight in the streets when this all goes very sour. The latter is a prospect I do not relish, but truly fear and pray about every day.
>> Steve Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:47 AM Report Comment
Screw you Joel. Sounds you are on the Government roles anyway.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:47 AM Report Comment
Dr. Richard Esther, MD: What happens when the chronically and seriously ill patient never gets to you? You're individual compassion which compells you to provide care at your or someone elses expense is removed from the equation. That is how the bureaucrats will attempt to control costs. The chronically ill patient who needs care will be deemed a burden on the system by Washington bureaucracy and provided hospice care and a complimentary death certificate. Before you comment, think about ALL the possible outcomes. Is the outcome I described acceptable to you? IS IT!?!
>> Logical Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:50 AM Report Comment
--continued--Government control IS NOT THE ANSWER to whatever problem may exist in the healthcare system today when situations such as I described are an obvious possibility. But I guess in your world you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
>> Logical Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:54 AM Report Comment
If it had even one little clause about tort reform... (loser pay the cost of lawsuits comes to mind which would save enough to insure about 30 million ) or if it took only 500 pages instead of 2700, or if experienced senior lawyers could read a page and agree on what it says and 111 companies (so far) were not exempt by HHS ( remember they are the decider in chief) then I would not be so skeptical. We have to repeal this one and come up with a solution that will allow people to get care they need . That is going to require some sort of insurance ( at least basic coverage) mandate for everyone, assigned risk pools, and purchase across state lines. We are just trying to help people who need it not take over 1/6 of the american ecconomy.
>> Ed from Justice Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:54 AM Report Comment
Excellent point Dr. Esther. Thank you.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:55 AM Report Comment
A follow on to my previous post of a moment ago. I am very sincere about my request to PLEASE contact congress by letter, email AND phone. I personally find it very stressfull and difficult to do, but it is so important. I have been stunned this past year to discover how many of my friends who share my political views and share them on-line admitted they have never contacted congress.
>> Steve Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:58 AM Report Comment
I ask you, how would you deny care to those un-insured? Everyone that goes without insurance is a strain on the system because they will need to go to a hospital eventually. What is a hospital to do when they show up with a broken arm? Throw them on the street? Better hope you don't lose your health insurance card in the car accident or you will be left bleeding at the scene. The tax on people without insurance is not really a tax, it is them paying into the system that they will eventually abuse at the expense of the forward thinking people who buy insurance.
>> TeaPartyAmerican1776 Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:59 AM Report Comment
Wow...Not a single one of these affects me.
>> Stanley Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:00 AM Report Comment
Ignoramuses support this crap and people wonder how Obama got elected. Ignorance is rampant in America - and it falls predominately on the liberal regressive Democrat left. These people have no CLUE what the Dems have done to this nation. They think that 16% of the US population getting health care at the expense of the other 84%'s freedom is a good thing. And this is exclusive of the fact that NOBODY in America has EVER been denied "health care." Obamacare and out of control taxation is what you get when you let Pelosicrats run unchallenged and allowed to ram midnight legislation through Congress while America sleeps. November 2010 was a good start. Now lets finish the job in 2012 and get the RATs out of the White House.
>> Jason Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:00 AM Report Comment
Continued.... I am always ready to help the helpless, but I really don't care about the clueless. If 1600 new IRS agents, and thousands of new comitties and government workers are required for anything and you actually make a living by working, aren't you at least a little bit afraid? What will they be enforcing next, what kind of car you drive? Soon it will be like here in Illinis. At least 1/2 of the people will work for the government and let's guess how they will vote.
>> Ed from Justice Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:00 AM Report Comment
We do need regulation on insurance companies being able to pick and choose who they accept. We need regulation on how much prem/deduct(s) cost. We need to make sure when a kid turns 23 off parents plan, they can get the plan rolled into their name and not dropped because child needed it in the past with preexisting condition. We don't need government run healthcare. Medicaid is bankrupt, Medicare is bankrupt, and they don't pay for everything needed to be done.
>> Worried Mother Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:02 AM Report Comment
"It's here. The Repubs can't get rid of it as it's only a house vote. I think Switzerland will be my home.>> Exhaused Small Biz Owner Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:24 AM" They don't have to get rid of it. All they have to do is not fund it. Kill it off at the root. Republicans control the House, where as spending originates. Period end of story. Don't worry - we're just beginning to fight the liberal socialist Neo-Marxist regressive Democrat left.
>> Jason Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:03 AM Report Comment
So everyone seems to care about how much the bill costs, when in reality is reduces the deficit over the years. But sure, lets just ignore the non-partisan CBO and what they have to say about it since they are lying. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, repealing obamacare raises the deficit...so much for fiscal conservatives I guess.
>> Matt Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:04 AM Report Comment
You have made excellent points as well Ed. Just because a person is conservative (i.e. believes the Government has far over extended control) doesn't mean we are not compassionate. If fact, statistics show we provide much more assistance than the liberals. It's embarrassing that a country as prosperous as the US has school kids that have little to eat from lunch on Friday until Monday. No one in this country, especially children, should go hungry, have no decent shelter, or basic medical care, unless they choose to have none. But there are ways to accomplish this without an incompetent Government interfering. It starts at the community level.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:06 AM Report Comment
@Jason please sir, learn how the government works, and the meanings of Marxism and socialism before using them. I am all for the states having their rights to get rid of the healthcare bill on their own. If the southern states don't want affordable and more efficient healthcare and would rather be at the whim of corporations as to when they can see a doctor, can't see a doctor, or when a corporation decides they should die because they cost too much that is their right. What states get more federal money than they put in? Thats right, the red states
>> Matt Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:08 AM Report Comment
Jason---you've given me hope! Ok--I'll stay here in the US. It's the only country in the world I know of where I can make 40% on my money just by understanding the tax code.
>> Exhausted Small Biz Owner Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:08 AM Report Comment
I cannot wait until the healthcare corporations are bankrupted by republicans striking down the individual mandate, like in Florida, and the country will be forced into single payer. Then we can finally have healthcare for all citizens like any other civilized country. The bill is progressing exactly as intended, and will go even further when the republicans now in power fail to create jobs and get whalloped next election.
>> Steve Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:12 AM Report Comment
Name ONE major US Government entitlement program that has reduced the deficit. Just one. That makes zero sense.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:13 AM Report Comment
I know how to reduce the spending the government is doing!!! Tell the Obamas to STOP taking weekly vacations, tell them to stop Michelle's outrageous spending sprees ($250,000 hotel stay, $80,000 in India in two hours on gifts, etc...), parties in the whitehouse every night, big bonus bailouts to bankers, their friends and their friend's friends...etc. STOP ALL THAT and we don't get taxed! Stop the quantitative easing!
>> Boy oh boy Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:13 AM Report Comment
Has anyone taken any notice that the less someone pays for things the more of these goods mand services they demand? Of course people who are used to scamming the system and being "Drones" want more, it cost them nothing
>> Gene Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:14 AM Report Comment
I generally do not engage in these sort of commentaries but one thing I have learned this morning; It’s fairly clear who pays taxes of any substance and who does not.
>> David Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:19 AM Report Comment
PLEASE -- Kill the Bill
>> Rick Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:22 AM Report Comment
I enjoy fire protection, police protection, roadways, but...SOCIALISM!!!!
>> James Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:26 AM Report Comment
I work in an Emergency Room. Had a mom of patient yesterday that asked for the doctor to write prescriptions for her baby's tylenol and ibuprofen (both over-the counter) because "then her insurance covers it." Her insurance being state paid-for and free to her. I can't buy tylenol or ibuprofen with my money from my HSA because it no longer covers OTC meds without a prescription. FYI, the mother I am speaking of took a "free" ambulance ride to the hospital, took a "free" cab ride home, had 5 kids all with "free" health care, yet had beautiful acrylic nails and a brand new I-Phone, but didn't bother to call her primary doctor for an appointment.
>> Karen Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:32 AM Report Comment
CGP - you state "it brings down costs because there are more people in the insurance pool." More people having the funds to buy the same thing does not lower teh price of the product. It raises it. How in your belief does more for demand for something cause it to cost less? The reality of economics is the more demand for something the greater the cost. This can easily be seen. Prior to the creation of medicare and medicaid inflation in healthcare services was no more than any other part of the economy. Once medicare and medicaid were passed healthcarte immediately began it's inflationarty upward sprial. To say that more people in the insurance pool lowers costs is patently false.
>> Aaron Armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:48 AM Report Comment
I read many entries but not all so if I'm double posting please accept my apology. If the socialized health care system in Canada is the great way our nation needs to go then why did the high ranking Canadian elected official (don't recall position but maybe PM) come to America for his surgical needs?
>> Brien Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:49 AM Report Comment
Please send this page to everyone you know, plaster it on face book, Then send it to your congress man and senator THAT VOTED FOR IT!
>> Tim Hoo Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:54 AM Report Comment
Continued - Like in every nation in which nationalized insurance has tekan effect - lower the quality of care for all people. Very egalitarian indeed - everyone will get lower quality care. In most of socialized europe, you get prostate cancer? It is not covered. In the UK, until just recently Alzheimers patients have been denied new treatments that halt or slow the progression of the disease because some govt wonk said it cost too much money. The belief that somehow adding 10 to 20 percent more demand for a product will somehow lower its cost is simply wrong. Basic math - more demand - higher cost
>> aaron armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:54 AM Report Comment
I read about no more caps. False, please read the caps on special needs kids. To use a familiar phrase of the Liberals, they apparently HATE Special Needs Kids. The attack on small business--More HATE for small Business The HATE of flexible spending accounts The HATE of HSA The list goes on
>> Stuart Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:55 AM Report Comment
Brien: I am sure your question was rhetorical, but for those that want to know it's because socialized healthcare is medicaid. Medicaid picks and chooses what they will or won't cover. They will refuse even a patients need for oxygen at $400/mon. It's welfare at its worst. No one in their right mind will have this type of care if they can afford it. Officials plan to have all the money and premium care, and the peasants get what's left. We will be peasants if we allow this to continue. People have come to america for treatment because they can get the treatment they want and get it now--they don't have to wait six months to get in to see a doc.
>> I can tell you that Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:57 AM Report Comment
Karen, No prizes for guessing but it sounds like that mom who went to the emergency room for meds for one of her 5 kids is a member of the great unwashed entitled class.Wonder how many of her kids were fathered by one man?
>> john Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:02 PM Report Comment
this health plan will lower the quality of care, dumb down the entire industry as to innovation, research and technology and substantially raise taxes on every single American. Without a doubt we will see a 60% federal income tax rate and a 10 to 15 % state income tax rate. This administration wants an European style dependence on the government for all services.....and the peasants will be happy with the crumbs left over. It will destroy our economy and unfortunately move us to the end of the ladder as a world power. Without a robust economy driven by the private sector we will be just another socialist nation draining the former private sector into oblivion. SO much for America.
>> allen smith Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:07 PM Report Comment
There is not one person in this country that can be called "Less Fortunate". Anyone can get anywhere in this country, and be or do whatever they want when ever they want. The vast majority of the "Less Fortunate" are there because they choose not to go to school and/or do drugs. And the more "Less Fortunate" they are, the more we throw at them to help. This is the most over used nonsensical term in the English Language.
>> Norm Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:13 PM Report Comment
Can anyone who has referred to this as socialized medicine please tell me how it fits that definition? Our government will NOT be the one providing healthcare, ala Canada, France, etc. And those who are furious about having to pay for other peoples' healthcare, guess what? You're already doing it, and you're paying premium rates for it. People who have no insurance go straight to the emergency room, where they can't legally be refused. Who pays? We do, and we pay the highest cost possible for it...(continued)
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:14 PM Report Comment
The new taxes on businesses means they'll be able to hire fewer people and that they may have to let more people go. We're already the number 2 taxer of businesses in the world and since Japan has decided they want to lower taxes on businesses to make themselves more attractive to international businesses, we're going to be the number one taxer by the end of 2011 unless changes are made. This bill will be a kick in the stomach to an already weak job market.
>> ActualThinkingPerson Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:18 PM Report Comment
This bill will first of all force the currently uninsured to pay in and take some of the burden off our backs, and second it will dramatically reduce the bill for the care that is provided. Compare the cost of an ER visit with that of a trip to your family doctor. Multiply the difference by millions of instances every year. And by the way, if you don't like mandated insurance then don't bother buying a car or a home.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:18 PM Report Comment
Government healthcare is desperately needed. Working a job that only pays $18 per hour, paying rent and electric bills and water and gas bills and having to hire somebody to drive me to the emergency room when I get a headache only leaves me about $350 per week for lottery tickets. It just isn't fair that rich people can go in and sit down and carefully select their lottery numbers while I have to listen to my herd of hungry kids and can't concentrate on my numbers. Be reasonable. Support government health care.
>> Wagon Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:18 PM Report Comment
This a very dangerous out of control government that will stop at nothing to tighten its grip. Speak anything but the party line and you're on a list for future use no doubt. A few more staged terrorism events and we'll be under undeclared martial law. I'm seriously researching moving far overseas and waiting things out. At the very least a small condo in South America to bug out to. I have zero interest in Obama's Deathcare - it's already too expensive and complicated for this healthy family of tax payers. I called my reps in opposition back when, and they literally laughed at me and hung up. The whole country is about to be turned upside down. The squeeze is just beginning - one can feel it.
>> latitude zero Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:20 PM Report Comment
Oppressive government at it's best. It's all about wealth redistribution: Tax structure = wealth redistribution Social Security = wealth redistribution Medicare/Medicaid = wealth redistribution Cap and trade = wealth redistribution Healthcare = wealth redistribution federal taxes = 28-33% of income state taxes 3-9% of income Property taxes = 1-2% sales taxes = 6-9% Working January - June for the government is not fair and not right.
>> P Crawford Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:30 PM Report Comment
I have worked in pharmaceuticals for 13 years. if this is not repealed, good luck getting new life saving medicine! Currently, a drug patent is 17 years, it takes 10 years and 1 billion $'s to bring to market, due to FDA REGULATION! We only have 7 years to make our $ back before a generic company, who cares nothing about health or does NO research on cures can make the drug. In 2010, the FDA received the least amount of drug patents in the history of the USA. Also, the gov't will force you onto their plan by "taxing" your current plan. Finally, those 30 million "un-insured"....85% are ILLEGAL ALIENS! BRING BACK CAPITOLISM, we have become weak!
>> Dookey Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:32 PM Report Comment
Don't look to Obama - he's a mere puppet. His day consists of 2 work outs, napping, shooting hoops with black NBA players, golf practice, planning the next lavish vacation and generally hanging out with Hollyweird types. Once, sometimes twice a day, they trot him out to read the teleprompter for 8 minutes of propaganda. He's a distraction. It's funny how they roll out 2,000 page bills written by legal experts and nobody reads them. Well somebody in charge designed and wrote them over years of development. Try reading the Cap and Tax bill section on electrical fixtures. I'm an intelligent guy, but I'd rather do differential calculus problems than decipher that mess. Smacks of corporate conspiracy.
>> pissant citizen Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:37 PM Report Comment
Remember.... "Washington DC--Taxation WITHOUT Representation"
>> Pastor Revere Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:52 PM Report Comment
Yes, we conservatives are heartless, uncaring scum. Liberals, on the other hand give, give and keep on giving. Joe Biden, for example has contributed a whopping average of $369 a year to charitable enities over the last 10 years (yet he and his ilk are in favor of ripping many times that from the pockets of hard working Americans regardless of political affiliation, but specifically in relation to how much they have been compensated for their efforts). Socialism works!(for those who don't)
>> verygary Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:53 PM Report Comment
Both main political parties are beyond salvaging. Recently I joined the America First Party, as it's the only one I can agree with on much it's platform, and felt I needed to try to make a difference. It's an uphill struggle for small third parties, but worth the effort in trying to increase the membership numbers and hopefully oneday becoming a major party getting candidates elected to high office. Right now they are focusing on state and local offices while trying to grow membership. Some who have posted here might like the party's stance on taxes. AmericaFirstParty.org is the party's website for anyone interested in checking it out.
>> Jeff Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:54 PM Report Comment
Barack Obama gave all Americans the finger last year with the passage of this legislation. It punishes all Americans but hurts those who can least afford it the most. Raising taxes on the wealthy and middle-class increases economic pressure on the less fortunate. Very stupid man.
>> matinva Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:55 PM Report Comment
U.S. Army Officer, Keep your comments to yourself. Your supposed to be a "professional soldier" and as such, your political views are mute. We as soldier's NEVER talk about a CIC (Commander In Chief)while in the service of our country. You sir, are a disgrace to the Officer/NCO Corps that trained you. Now that I am a "private citizen" I have earned my right to say what I want. Until such time that you are once again a "private citizen", your comments/views and ideals are best kept to yourself.
>> U.S. Army Senior Staff NCO (ret) Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:58 PM Report Comment
Need we repeat "the power to tax is the power to destroy?" I repeat myself: Obamacare is not about health care, it is about control. That is why Obamacare should be repealed, or defunded, or that lacking, stock up on lead and brass as well as tar and feathers. However, the easiest way to repeal Obamacare is to properly vet Obama.
>> Erik Osbun Saturday, January 15, 2011 12:59 PM Report Comment
Ali - It's interesting that you incorrectly assume I'm uneducated because I am against the direction our country is going toward socialism. I'd be happy to compare the initials behind my name up against yours. Based on your attitude, I'd guess you to be from a high-middle income family whose parents paid for your uppity college education, and that you have yet to earned any substantial livlihood on your own. But I will rest by just recommending you do some active research.
>> John Q. Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:02 PM Report Comment
Maybe Mitch McConnell should have read the Obamacare bill before negotiating with Obama over the Bush Tax Cuts! WE broke even on the Bush tax cuts, for 2 years, then are having to swallow another half a trillion dollars in tax increases with Obamacare. Way to go Republicans!
>> RD Pierini Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:16 PM Report Comment
I wonder what religion you would have to be to be exempt from this? Somebody needs to start an appropriate religion just for this purpose. Thinking about it, as much as the liberals are opposed to religion, I can't believe they wouldn't allow "atheist objectors" to be exempt as well. Of course, you could just call them "conscientious objectors" like they do with the draft. I think quite a few of us would fit that description!
>> John Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:19 PM Report Comment
@US Army Senior Staff NCO I will say whatever I want when I want; I like the President so there I said it, and again I like the president..... A disgrace is you buddy - Trying to stop the 1st amendment rights of an Army Officer shame shame mister. Again I will say what I want when I want, my Soldiers deserve my opinion and the fact that I am outspoken means I take care of them too regardless of the ramifications to myself - You were obviously too afraid to stand up for what you believe in and that means to me that you left your Soldiers out there flapping too. Way to go Man way to go! Oh by the way I like the president: )! HA.....
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:20 PM Report Comment
To me, the most un-America and anti-Democracy comments are those like 'Hang em High' and 'By Any Means Necessary'. The concept that when you disgree with someone, you are to kill them is not what the founding fathers inked into the Constitution. We've seen endless numbers of those kinds of societies throughout history on nearly every contitnent in the world. They have never worked and never sustained themselves. Our democracy is based on the ability to debate issues and make improvements and/or address needs - to evolve. There are so many thoughtful comments on here from both sides, it's a shame to see the others.
>> Kevin H Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:22 PM Report Comment
That this bill was passed with virtually nobody having completely read and thoroughly understood its full impact is the real threat. Please, Republicans in the House, don't give up - stay the course to repeal this bill. Then if the full Congress wants to study it, and pass it on its own merit, so be it. But to subject the American people to this unknown entity of a law is absolutely unacceptable. And Erik Osbun is probably right that the easiest way to rid ourselves of obamacare is to vet Obama. Read again the meaning of the term natural-born citizen according to U.S. Code. He is not a natural-born citizen (both parents must be citizens, regardless of where the child is born).
>> SarahP Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:25 PM Report Comment
@US Army Senior Staff NCO: First of all, thanks to you and US Army Officer for your service, but secondly, where is it written that a soldier cannot express support for his Commander in Chief, especially in an anonymous forum like this? When both Bush and Obama have made visits to the troops overseas, were they expected to sit quietly, not applaud, and generally behave with indifference? Because if so, there is plenty of visual evidence that will keep the JAGs busy with courts martial for years to come.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:28 PM Report Comment
I'm not convinced there's 30 million people without coverage. If I've learned anything in two years, it's that our info from politicians, including Obama, is a bunch of propaganda. This bill was supposed to decrease costs. It does not, it increases costs. It is close to a reproduction of Romneycare, which has turned into a huge disaster. High cost, decreasing quality of care, etc. While a have no objection to tightening up the need for all to be covered if they choose, I definitely think this 2,000 page monstosity could have been condensed to 10 pages. The amount of control over the public in this bill is outrageous and unacceptable. It needs to be repealed. Start over, Congress!
>> SueDinNY Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:33 PM Report Comment
This alone is reason to get all liberals out of office (PERIOD) they are a cancer to the taxpayer. Pelosi herself demonstrated just how corrupt they are with her statement that they had to pas the bill so they could see what it said. Their adgenda is solely power over the populace, so much that they would even foist a bill on us that they had no idea what it said. This is either the height of stupidity, audaciousity or sheer ignorance. I go along with the audaciousity because they excused themselves from the very same standards and coverage.
>> John Detwiler Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:35 PM Report Comment
@Doug. Thank you for the comment about our service, that was very nice of you. I think the problem is that US Army Senior NCO does not agree with me and wants me to stop talking but that is not going to happen. I will say what I want when I want, always have always will and always do. Thank you again!
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:39 PM Report Comment
@SarahP: Title 8 Section 1401of the U.S. Code defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:" -Anyone born inside the United States*--The asterisk refers to children of diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. -Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:41 PM Report Comment
I don't see one single Democrat in New York. The Democrats have ruined this state all we have is High Taxes, All kinds of Fees. This state is going down the drain and fast, but these Democrats just refuse to see the writing on the wall. Can they be that stupid? HELL YES
>> Ruth Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:49 PM Report Comment
@Doug - U.S. Code: Title 8, 1401. Natural-born citizens of the United States are those who are citizens of the United States from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their American citizenship. These are those whose parents are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth. Natural-born American citizens are those born of American citizen parents, Their American citizenship is natural, the result of parentage, and not artificial or acquired by compliance with legislative provisions....... (to be continued)
>> SarahP Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:52 PM Report Comment
3.8% to the govt for the sale of my house????? what the hell does this have to do with health issues. all it is , is govt expansion . to much pork in obummercare we need to send all the illegals home , paying for their services is not sustainable
>> Loren Iversen Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:52 PM Report Comment
@Doug continued..... A natural-born citizen is defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country. Natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens and naturalized citizens, are those born in the United States of parents who are citizens. Natural-born citizens are also those born outside the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States.
>> SarahP Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:56 PM Report Comment
@US Army Officer: I suspected as much. Seems a little absurd to tell someone who put his butt on the line for our Constitutional freedoms that he can't exercise them.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:57 PM Report Comment
This simply is not gonna happen. As one of many Democrats that can't stand the way this bill came about not to mention the careening and sloppy language of HR 3950 Obama will be dispatched to the private sector in 2012. Raise a billion? Well, we bundled $220,000 through our precinct in 2008 but out of 180 members only five or so are left and I do mean LEFT. Bank it folks. 2 years of gridlock and now on to the General in 2012. I hate to say it but the Pugs taking over the House I think may have saved this country.
>> Tina Ferrer Saturday, January 15, 2011 1:58 PM Report Comment
@SarahP: I cut and pasted my information directly from the US Code, which is the source you cited. Here is a link, please read section G and tell me how Obama's mother does not meet those criteria. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html. Of course this is on the website of a liberal elite East Coast University so I'm sure they've altered it to suit your needs. If you find a listing of the Code somewhere that doesn't include such a provision I would appreciate a link. Thanks
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:08 PM Report Comment
Wake up America! There are a dozen ways to attempt to repair or improve our healthcare crisis. This bill is NOT one of them. This bill is not about healthcare at all. This bill is about control, government control....if you disagree, then read it! We are in serious trouble people!!!
>> WeAreDoomed Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:12 PM Report Comment
First off passing bills by Executive order as Osama did while congress was convened should be banned, that just spread more horse**** around. Secondly I here everyone saying get rid of him in 2012, do you people realize 2012 will be way too late. If POTUS doesn't do away with voting for President every four years and become the dictator he wants to be. As of right now there are more than enough things to try him for treason in a military court and remove him from office immediately, don't try and impeach him, try him for treason. Or is there no one in the military that still believes in the oath they took, to protect the Constitution of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic????
>> Monte Williams Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:23 PM Report Comment
@Doug. agreed! Oh I am a female by the way: )!! I respect everyone's right to an opinion. That is what makes the US the great country that it is! We may not always agree but we will have debate, civilized debate. It is an amazing thing when you can hash out difference and do it in a peaceful, respectful way. Although not everyone on this post is mature about their arguments, they still have the right to say them, as an Army Officer I fill that I have earned this right many many times over especially after 19 years of service!!! Thanks and I look forward to the rest of the comments; this is quite a lively post!
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:37 PM Report Comment
Keep your government hands off of my Medicare! LOLZ
>> Fox News Viewer Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:39 PM Report Comment
@Monte: I don't have a huge problem with Executive orders, after all it is the Executive branch of the government and it does have certain powers under the Constitution. I think that signing statements however should be banned because they allow the President to alter the intent of the Legislative branch without any recourse. And can you list some specific treasonous acts that President Obama has committed?
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:47 PM Report Comment
Muslims are exempt. Under common interpretations of Islamic law, conventional insurance is forbidden in Islam.
>> Bett Boopadoop Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:47 PM Report Comment
Obamacare is titled "Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act" or PPACA. I was happy with pre-existing condition riders excluding coverage because I also did not pay premiums for those. Now my pre-existing conditions will be covered at far greater expense to me, which I cannot aford. There is a reason I buy High deductible (over $10,000) health insurance. It is because I can't afford "Cadillac" coverage. A 30% rate hike for my coverage 6 month after buying my policy - what's affordable about that??
>> Cschu Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:51 PM Report Comment
@US Army Officer: My apologies for the gender assumption:)
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:52 PM Report Comment
@Doug continued..... My info was also a cut-&-paste and came from the same university source as yours, and I agree we can't be certain it wasn't dummied up. But it seems your info refers to citizenship in general, not specifically to natural-born citizenship status, which is not the same. I wonder if it is possible there is more to that section of code than either of us saw, and that both our blocks of info are there. The two are not contradictory. I've been trying to find a more conclusive source, but with no luck. But I guess if this were easily proven, Obama would not still be in office!
>> SarahP Saturday, January 15, 2011 2:56 PM Report Comment
Well the communist infiltration of the government through the democratic party and it's drug addled minions has nearly brought down the nation. Google and read the The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals and see with the repeal of DADT and the into to the military official Pink Pantie BUTTallions that they've completed all 40 of them since 1963.
>> Chicago Nick Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:04 PM Report Comment
It looks like Rush Limbaugh was correct in his assessment of this "healthcare" bill. It's not about health care. It's about control. That is all they want - control. Control equals power and I have never seen anyone who was willing to give up whatever power (real or imagined) they possessed. I once knew a local politician who got defeated in an election. That defeat was his downfall, he could not handle it. It destroyed him. Most pols are in the same boat.
>> Charlie C Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:04 PM Report Comment
Suspend all new legislation until new rules are in place. I went ahead and wrote these rules, thank you: No bills longer than 25 pages. Zero attachment of anything unrelated to the bill. All bills must have a mandatory 120 day rest period of public review. No amendments once a bill is finalized and the 120 day clock starts. For a bill to become law TWO laws must be repealed until such time we have the same number of laws on the books as we had in 1970. Corporations caught illegally lobbying lawmakers will have their officers' personal homes seized and auctioned off for charity. Anybody violating or manipulating these rules, or willfully trying to game the system, to be tried for treason and publicly hanged. Bam, problem solved.
>> Candidate X Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:05 PM Report Comment
Most of what you wrote is not even a tax increase. You are using the length of your list to "expose" nothing. The higher taxes you complain about will only cost the taxpayer more if the insurance companies refuse to lower their prices. Once again the ATR has shown that is cares not about the whole truth, just about right wing shock tactics
>> Erich Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:06 PM Report Comment
I am currently paying $1,113 per month for health insurance.When I first heard about health care reform, Obamacare is not doing anything to reduce the excessive cost of my medical insurance. I work for a small business that has just several employees. My understanding is that a business with less than 50 employees, will not be required to offer health coverage. My insurance first went up drastically, after I reached 55 years old, and then there were also a couple of unusually large annual rate increases too. My insurance is with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona. Because, of a slight medical problem that came up last year, they are not willing to move me to a different plan.
>> RickH Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:09 PM Report Comment
Health care in Switzerland is a good model. Everyone is "required" to have a "basic" level of medical coverage provided by private insurance companies. Those who want more pay according to the level of coverage they want. Those who can't afford to buy the insurance are subsidized. It is a much simpler approach than is proposed for the U.S. It works for the Swiss but I guess we can't adopt something similar because it wasn't invented here and the amount of subsidy here might be too great.
>> Jug Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:09 PM Report Comment
@SarahP: I saw the ones you posted as well, but a person only needs to meet one of those criteria to meet eligibility. AS for the term 'natural born citizen', this appears in the Constitution, but not in the US Code. The Constitution is the framework for our laws, and the US Code is the actual laws themselves, which, are based on interpretations of the Constitution by our Legislators, Executives, and Justices. The US code as it existed when Obama was elected contained the clause that I posted. Therefore, that was and is the law. That would have to be changed to make him ineligible, and even then I don't believe it would be retroactive(not positive about that point).
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:13 PM Report Comment
who the F&ch do these disgusting Sc8mbags think they are.. I have a special needs son, who unlike obamas kids cannot walk and we will be punished for this?? Obama, YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN ME THE BEST GIFT YOU CAN GIVE... the drive to make sure you and your lowlife marxists never get elexted again. Also, what god given right do you have telling an insurance executive how much he earns?? you and your fat wife can enjoy your lobster now because you only have just a tad bit longer until you are replaced.
>> lala Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:14 PM Report Comment
The Swiss model sounds most reasonable and probably works just fine. The trouble here is the tens of millions of illegals pouring in mooching of the system with no end in sight; indeed, encouraged by the federal government traitors. Couple that with medical industry greed, even the doctors being complicit. I switched doctors and the new fool charged me $275 'patient set up fee.' W T F, $275 to add my name to an existing simple database so I can begin getting his inflated bills. Utter madness.
>> bah Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:25 PM Report Comment
Repeal Obamacare now
>> Freedom Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:29 PM Report Comment
If you support Obama and his Regime, you support a Statist authoritarian who is an empty suit who speaks in platitudes who is beholden to the oligarchical collectivists and banking cabals. You are against freedom, liberty and our constitutional republic and the notion that all of our rights are inborn and are given by our creator. Some autocrat in Washington does not grant rights - the constitution simply enumerates them for added protection. The constitution also limits the Powers of the Federal Government yet an expansionist authoritarian view is used in modern times contrary to what Madison had intended.
>> Mick Russom Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:35 PM Report Comment
Multitasking Saves Money! Replace the T.S.A. agents with nurses, while fondling breasts they can check for lumps. While fondling groins they can check for hernias (turn your head to the right and cough) and STDs (short arms inspection). Replace the scanners with X-Rays, or a conveyor that runs us through an MRI. With a DNA swab and a little blood sample they have just about everything they need for a complete check up. And if this scares the S**T out of you then they WILL have everything! They can send you a print out of results and the address of the nearest GOV. clinic if you need it. Just sayin. Check this out: www.governmentpizza.com
>> OleoStrut Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:53 PM Report Comment
Where do all these uninformed people come from? Be against this plan if you feel it is not good for the American people, but stop repeating untruths and propaganda. All this law does is to help the poor,give all of us a better break in dealing with insurance companies, and raise a few taxes to help pay for it. This law will not be repealed in this Congress, as we all know. So, propose amendments that you think will streamline it.
>> Jeff Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:53 PM Report Comment
vote for democrats and you'll pay more taxes while losing freedoms,,ALWAYS
>> mark Saturday, January 15, 2011 3:58 PM Report Comment
So, If I denounce my citizenship as an American and cross the border in Mexico or Canada, I can be exempt? Cool!!
>> Pam Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:05 PM Report Comment
"This country needs to flourish. That is what the American Dream is all about. Without we are nothing. Obamacare is bad for American and bad for tax payers. Join the only REAL repeal petition and stop Obamacare. http://bit.ly/therepealpledge"
>> Jennifer Saralidge Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:07 PM Report Comment
I am not in favor of Obamacare but think about this>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever seen a poor doctor? Check out their fancy offices. Why are hospitals so fancy with lots of wasted space (fountains, fancy waiting areas, etc.) Who do you think pays for this. Why should a doctor spend 3 minutes with a patient and charge $135? Don't stop there. Drug company representatives (those that visit doctor's offices, walks in the back without being introduced, carrying a box of donuts and whatever else that might be in their hand carried bag)takes home well over $100,000 per year and probably a commission on sales. Do you think that insurance companies are all to blame? Let's all get serious and look at all these probabilities.
>> Jimbo Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:16 PM Report Comment
@Jimbo: I don't know many poor doctors, but then I also don't know many who didn't put in 10+ years of costly and difficult education before they started earning this kind of money, and I don't know many whose malpractice insurance doesn't go up almost every single year. People who are dedicated enough to make that kind of a commitment to their careers deserve to be well-compensated.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:30 PM Report Comment
Obamacare is all about Wall Street greed. It was designed to be to fail. Once costs increase the only next step will be "single payer". Now the expense is off the corporate balance sheets and onto the back of tax payers. Very clever plan indeed.
>> Al-Gator Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:31 PM Report Comment
I am stil waiting or the "Transparency and "No more pork on MY watch" obama promised his sheep when he wanted their vote for President
>> scot Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:34 PM Report Comment
I see that "Joel" (time index Friday, January 14, 2011 1:10 PM) doesn't hold a steady or well-paying job.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:35 PM Report Comment
Jimbo, all you have to do to get what they've got is do what they did. Why don't you give it a shot, eh?
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:41 PM Report Comment
@doug. No problem. People are so nasty, why cant we just discuss health care. Why do we have to call President Obama's wife fat (@lala) and talk about DADT (@Chicago Nick)? That is not what we are here for. I guess when you don't have anything intelligent to say your resort to the disgusting comments about the shape of someone's body or equal rights. Absolutely shameful. Like women don't have enough to worry about without the negative body images in the media or gay people aren't beat up enough we have to push a group of people down further through words. If you want to discuss health care, I am all for it, if not I will go back to my post and protect your right to be a weirdo.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:44 PM Report Comment
Well, if US Army Officer is REALLY a US Army officer, that explains his take on it. He's been getting free health care since he signed up. Suckling from the government teat for years, I would expect.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:45 PM Report Comment
My wife and I were paying $480 a month for our "employer" health care before Obama was ever elected President. If you think "for profit" health insurance companies are ever goping to do you any favors, you are mistaken. That's $120 a week for 2 people.
>> Coop Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:46 PM Report Comment
If people would just read 'Rules for Radicals' by Alinsky, they would understand exactly what Obama is doing to our country! I can't believe that this simple request, that having people just simply read this book, would make them understand Obama and his philosophy and how everything would be so crystal clear. We've had two years of his "leadership" to reflect on. If you read Alinsky you will see exactly how these last two years compare with the guidelines of the Alinsky plan. It's not rocket science, it's more like, 'Dick and Jane', see Spot run! Very simple to see the comparison. Wake up people, before it's too late!
>> ameriapp Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:46 PM Report Comment
@LC: That is a very insightful deduction. By the same logic, all of us males who posted on here after 4:30 are obviously homosexual because we're concentrating on this website instead of devoting our undivided attention to the NFL playoffs. Flame on!
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:47 PM Report Comment
@ L.C you are nuts. Pick up a weapon and come on to war with me in Iraq or Afgan then you can talk about my free health care. Wow I can not believe that this is what we have come to in the USA, absolutely shameful. @Doug Flame on LOL that is funny!! I love it. Thanks for having my back!
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:49 PM Report Comment
Repeal Nobamacare; it has death panels; gives free healthcare to 20 million illegals; no more new doctors = months to see a doctor; decreases medicare coverage; puts government into your personal healthcare decisions. In Nov 2012 vote OUT obama....worst president ever!
>> jc smith Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:50 PM Report Comment
WhatBarry and the Socialists don't realize is that the House has to vote on the budget to fund the IRS so they can hire the "Goons" to enforce Obamacare. It's as dead as a doorknob financially, and he'll be sent packing in 2012 if everyone wakes up and realize what a Commie he is with that Charletain smile and finger pointing he always does at the teleprompter. I'm personally sick of being spoken down to by this elitist thug!
>> Kevin Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:51 PM Report Comment
By the way, NO ONE, including illegal aliens, are without health care here in the USA, as evidenced buy the flood of people that go to the hospital ER's for things as minor as a cut, scratch, or headache. They're not turned away. You want health care and don't want to give up your twinkies, beer, cigarettes, cable TV, and internet to buy it? Just go to the nearest ER when you have a stomach ache. No worries.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:52 PM Report Comment
Why didn't George Bush repeal Medicare to pay for his illegal war in Iraq?
>> Coop Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:54 PM Report Comment
@ US Army Officer: Been there, done that, sometimes still have to do it, depending on who's footing the bill. Sucking the government teat is suckling, regardless of the reason. And, I don't think Doug had your back. I think he was referring to my jibe at Joel.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:56 PM Report Comment
The problem with Obamacare is that it didn't go far enough. There should be a public option. And optimally a single payer system. It will happen in time. Sooner the better.
>> Brian Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:56 PM Report Comment
@Brian, why should I be forced to pay for someone else's cut finger?
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:59 PM Report Comment
@LC: Your 4:54 post makes a valid point, and Obamacare at least forces people to pay something to help out with what they've been getting absolutely free up until this point. As for the illegal exemption, well its hard to assess a fee on someone if they are undocumented. In those cases, I would propose at least a minimal fee(say $100) on each emergency room visit upon patient discharge. If you don't pay it you get arrested for theft of services. An illegal alien who can't scrape together $100 to save their life? Sorry but that's where my sympathy ends.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:01 PM Report Comment
@Doug: My sympathy for them ends just right on the south side of our southern border. And, Obamacare doesn't force anyone to pay for health care except those who are legal, and working.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:07 PM Report Comment
Margi, it's normal to demonize people who advacote your imprisonment...or if you resist, death if u don't provide them healthcare. They threaten us with guns and we're supposed to worry about offending them? There's a gun in the room and it's not in my hand!
>> jason Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:21 PM Report Comment
Our healthcare system is corrupt and takes advantage of uneducated people with harmful drugs and unnecessary surgeries. It's all a big, ugly capitalist death machine. My advice? Learn holistic medicine. Educate yourself on how cancer/diabetes and heart disease develops in the first place so you can avoid them. Dont put all of your trust in a pill that is probably doing you more harm than good. Our Doctors dont know anything about how to keep you healthy. We have to be our own advocates. If you dont want to listen to me, fine, let them cut you to pieces and poison you. Hell, I'll even contribute some money with my taxes to facilitate the process
>> Independant Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:22 PM Report Comment
- - Impose limitations on 'health care benefits.' Link limits (e.g. $3m /person/ L.ife time) to merits/ demerits (less paid for substance ab - users etc).
>> time o neill Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:26 PM Report Comment
First of all, the whole mess of it is unconstitutional. And it is RACIST as heck! Using tanning beds is taxed simply because only white people use them. I wonder if hair straightening were to be equally taxed, just how that would fly?
>> DWJ Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:32 PM Report Comment
The US medical system must change: you can rot your liver with tax-deductible pharmaceuticals and have unnecessary surgeries, but not deduct homeopathic & herbal remedies, kinesiology treatments et al. I dropped COBRA to pay my own expenses. Does the medical lobby want to keep people sick to make money? Years ago we learned how to heal animals of things that had no cure for humans. Why? Animals were worth more healthy, to sell for profit, & people worth more sick. Now, pet medical treatment has also become profitable business. We must become more accountable for our own health, diet, lifestyle and habits—only then will we have the prosperity to *voluntarily* help those who, through no fault of their own, require it.
>> S. Irby Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:48 PM Report Comment
Disagree with this liberal - "Good thing the Repubs will never get the votes to repeal the bill! .. love watching the crazies get riled up. ...the cons sure do hate their fellow man, all the while collecting government welfare themselves (social security).. TeaPartyAmerican1776 This guy is right on the repeal vote/veto. However, he underestimates the riled up crazies. I would be happy to give up any right I have to Social Security benefits going forward. Give me a net present value of the money I have already put in and let me keep the social security or medicare taxes i now pay going forward. I would even continue to pay 10% of the social security/medicare taxes I have to now in order to opt out of the system.
>> DFWCurt Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:55 PM Report Comment
@LC: I understand your sentiments about the south of our border thing, it's frustrating as hell to have to subsidize people who are here illegally and who remove a lot of the money they earn from our economy by sending it back down there. I can't however make a moral judgment against them because I think you and I both would make the same decision to try to make a better life for our families if we were stuck in an impoverished, violent narco-state such as Mexico.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:58 PM Report Comment
When does the Tea get tossed into the harbor? We have a tea party so lets party!! I think people are getting very angry. I'm glad to see this was published and the nasty facts have been made clearer!
>> DFM Saturday, January 15, 2011 5:59 PM Report Comment
Sarah P....obama more interested in throwing the world off trac of his hawaii birth. By casting doubt , he exempts himself from Reval. Chapter 13. Hawaii fits the location. Don't spend so much time on the deception. I truly pray the guy was born abroad for this reason alone.
>> cmc Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:10 PM Report Comment
Are you aware of the fact, senators and congressmen AND their families are exempt? What is alleged to be a 2,000 page bill (give or take), has turned into over 20,000 pages of convoluted language. This is the biggest screw job/scam ever perpetrated on the American people.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:13 PM Report Comment
Obama will now craft and present himself as the best US President ever in US history . . . since Obamacare has been passed and the czars along with the federal agencies can continue to implement the Obama ideology.
>> rbblum Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:15 PM Report Comment
@cmc: Can you clarify what you mean by that. I'm not sure what Reval. Chapter 13 is or what it says, and how Hawaii is specifically connected. Thanks.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:16 PM Report Comment
Illegal immigrants and Muslims exempt??? First, the House needs to apologize for Joe Wilson for reprimanding his attempt to get the truth out to the American people. Next, Muslims need to create their own healthcare systems since their religious doctrine forbids them from participating in the one obama is forcing on the rest of us.
>> Cheryl Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:16 PM Report Comment
Does anybody know what tenets of Islam specifically forbid them to have health care? I don't think a religious exemption means you are exempt simply for being religious, so there must be some stipulation of whatever church you attend that health care is sinful or blasphemous.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:26 PM Report Comment
Doug......a general location is given that Hawaii would and could fall within. All the world was created for this time. We as a people need to continue to have our eyes wide open for every deception . If Obama was born abroad then he would not fit into this criteria. This is my hope and prayer.
>> cmc Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:43 PM Report Comment
@ U.S. Army Officer: I am most likely considered one of those "rednecks" you want pissed off since I was born in NC and I am a true southern boy at heart. However, your smarmy remarks are anything, but officer quality. I bet you treat "rednecks" within your company with disdain. Obviously, you feel so far above the average enlisted personnel. But then, you are probably a 2nd LT with newbie syndrome. You are an embarrassment to ALL officers and a hypocrite. BTW: I am a retired officer of the U.S. Army....a redneck no less.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:43 PM Report Comment
Healthcare is just one issue of the many ways Obama is trying to bring down our society. When I was younger I didn't care enough about government to try and understand the ways people in government worked to change the laws that affected our lives. Back then I didn't care because I was the master of my demise or success. Now that I'm older and more responsible for my actions and especially what may affect the goodwill of my family, I tend to be more analytical of my surroundings. I tend to do more research. Especially on changes that have a direct effect on my family that I have no control over.
>> ameriapp Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:49 PM Report Comment
@ Doug: The Muslims do not have a legitimate excuse to be exempt. There are too many practicing doctors who are Muslims. Not to mention all the Muslims I've seen in the doctor's offices. Christian Scientists are the only people I know who don't believe in doctors.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:50 PM Report Comment
@cmc: A general location for what?
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:53 PM Report Comment
@Rowwdy: Good point about the docs, hadn't thought about that aspect. The Christian Scientists are who I was thinking of as well when I saw that exemption, but their rights only go so far. I've read of cases where they were either forced to submit their children to treatment or prosecuted because they let them die.
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 6:57 PM Report Comment
I have since done enough research on Obama to realize that his beliefs and mine are in total opposition and that he is trying to reshape our country into something I recognise but totally reject. I hate the fact that so many people are unaware of what is happening to our country. Obama is a student of radical change. One of his mentors is Alinsky, read his works and you will see exactly what and where Obama is trying to take our country. Not to mention, Hillary Clinton did her college thesis on Alinsky!
>> ameriapp Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:02 PM Report Comment
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/health-care-and-the-economy/
>> Karen Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:04 PM Report Comment
Jimbo: Why does it matter what a doctor decides for their office or the car they drive? Whether or not they have a fountain? An average cost of the education of a physician is $200,000. The length of time to get a PHD is 5 years, med school 4-5. Average 10 years begin-end with PHD. Plus you have valuable knowledge to keep the public healthy. Get over it and if you're that jealous--you should have applied yourself instead of smoking weed with the boys after school.
>> Bab Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:09 PM Report Comment
AND I thank God we have great hospitals that are new and state of the art. When I had an emergency (BCBS by the way) they knew right away what was wrong with me and were very professional. So quit knocking big hospitals and doctors who went into a profession that makes a lot of money. They earn it, believe me, whether it is in ER to put someone back together from an accident or someone having a baby. They barely have time to breathe, on call almost all the time, the only time they will have to say is their own is when they retire. Stop being jealous.
>> Bab Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:14 PM Report Comment
It will bring our Federal income taxes up to 63.5% + 8% SS = 71% federal taxes over $200,000. what a rip how about 23.4% capital gains taxes. or the extra $100,000 for employers with 50+ employees. Small and med. businesses will fold. Of course Illegal Aliens get it all for free. Prisoners free. No one will try opening a new business in the US. Large Corporations will leave the US for friendly countries. Unemployment will go thru the roof. If this is not repealed it will spell the end of America.This is worth fighting against. We must not stand for this. We must vote all democrats out and Obama must be impeached. This is communism, UnConstitutional, we must not rest until this bill is gone.
>> Angry Consumer Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:16 PM Report Comment
@Angry Consumer: Where did you get that 63.5% figure from?
>> Doug Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:25 PM Report Comment
Law will not pass constitutional scrutiny. "Who is John Galt?"
>> NMA Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:29 PM Report Comment
Something that no one has mentioned is the fact that our health care system is struggling to cope with all of the people using it right now! There is a shortage of Doctors, nurses, and other medical staff. What will happen when 30 million people suddenly have access to health care? This is not including all of the doctors and other health care workers who say they will leave the medical field! It is very obvious to me ( a health care worker) that Joel has no idea what he is talking about! I love the bumper sticker...If you think health care costs now, wait until it's "free"!!!
>> Mark Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:34 PM Report Comment
"Again I will say what I want when I want, my Soldiers deserve my opinion and the fact that I am outspoken means I take care of them too regardless of the ramifications to myself": by U S Army Officer If in fact you are doing as you say and giving your troops YOUR political opinion, then you have violated your oath and the tenets set forth for officers. You might want to revisit the UCMJ. I reiterate H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E! PS: US Army Senior Staff NCO is 100% correct. " Your supposed to be a "professional soldier", but you appear about as unprofessional as any officer I have ever seen.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:37 PM Report Comment
Outrage upon outrage. Who needs an army to wage war? Our nation's under attack every day, and we're paying politicians to do it! The reality of the situation is that every House member, every Senator and the President along all of their sycophant underlings should, after impeachment, if found guilty, be charged with treason, and hanged. This monstrosity is only one of dozens of derelictions of duty and outright crimes which have gone unpunished over the past 2 years. We are under siege by these monsters!
>> cowman Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:48 PM Report Comment
What all the lowly little, everyday libs don't get is, they are also effected by all the new taxes. EVERYONE, of all strips are going to be slammed with heavy tax burdens, medical denials, businesses shutting down and untold hardships over this insane bill. But it was in fact pushed by a socialist/Marxist faction and good little libs just don't grasp the fact, people like Pelsoi, Reid, ObaMao and the rest of their ilk don't give a rat's ass about them beyond their vote. This isn't about party affiliation. It is about a violation of the U.S. Constitution, unfair taxation and control. "We will take you from within"; Khrushchev, 1963 UN address.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:55 PM Report Comment
Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama appointed Director of Medicare and Medicaid, said: “I am romantic about the (British)National Health Service. I love it.†His favorite part seems to be its rationing arm, the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). NICE determines whether or not the care a patient receives is worth the cost to the gov't. Anything more than $44,000 per year of extended life, and NICE is likely to deny treatment. Drugs that prolong the life of cancer patients are not allowed. Alzheimer’s drugs are heavily restricted. Pitched as a board to promote “best practices,†NICE has become a rationing, death panel machine." We're screwed if Obamacare is not repealed.
>> SueinNY Saturday, January 15, 2011 7:56 PM Report Comment
Don't you people understand? Obama is not just using Obamacare as a device to bring down America, he has devised many avenues of destruction for our demise. The unvetted czars, the different departments such as HHS, even the Obama White House website has paid Google to commandeer similar websites to direct them to Obama propaganda!
>> ameriapp Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:05 PM Report Comment
@Rowwdy You obviously have a complex about coming from NC. I think the people that I have met from there and other southern states are amazing people. Being a "redneck" is an attitude it is not about where you are from. I am not going to give you my rank but it is high and I am loved by the Soldiers who work for me, so try again. Was speaking to Doug about an earlier post BTW.. You are an embarrassment to the Officer Corp buddy, a little bit of the scared little Officer side, you are probably a 2LT or a CPT no doubt. You are also paranoid. I have had enough "fun" on this board peace.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:06 PM Report Comment
Agreed -- Taxes are out of control. I prefer to do something about it. Let's get the IRS audited IRS pays ZERO bills, according to President Reagan. Please listen to
for details and documentation. All IRS tax goes down a rat hole. With all the increases herein, we are doomed. We MUST get an audit the IRS by the GAO, who must report directly to we people. 44forest44>> 44forest44 Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:09 PM Report Comment
@LC Well I guess we should just shut down the Military and other public services that are provided "free" health care so we can make you feel a little bit more secure in your world. Free health care is not always free buddy. What do you do? Probably nothing in comparison to what Soldiers do in the military. Have a nice life in your little communist mind buddy and good luck to you. I did not come here to be personally attacked, I had an opinion I gave it now I am done with this....I do not like to be verbally abused especially when I can not see the person behind the anger. Peace and Godspeed.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:09 PM Report Comment
Bab: "An average cost of the education of a physician is $200,000. The length of time to get a PHD is 5 years, med school 4-5. Average 10 years begin-end with PHD." MD's don't get Ph.d's as a rule. They get an MD. First comes the "Bachelor's degree (4 years), then med school (4 years). Some even enter med school after their 2nd or 3rd year of college. Internships after graduation from med school are paid positions. Doctors who choose to specialize take additional training, but that is a CHOICE. Just like med school is a choice. Sadly, there are many who collect acronyms before and after their names at taxpayer expense.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:12 PM Report Comment
@Rowwdy..... awwwwww is the little guy getting angry? You are a 100% G-O-O-F-B-A-L-L : ) if I may. I know the UCMJ and I know it well as I am sure you do but from the other side. Have a nice live buddy and I HOPE you are not still serving, I would be scared to have someone as scared as you next to me anywhere. Peace and Godspeed. I have the right to say whatever I want, so there.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:14 PM Report Comment
If it's like social security, they will spend it on anything other than social security....since President LBJ, when he moved S.S. funds to a general fund, politicians have spent all of it...according to USAtoday, $2.5 trillion! They never paid it back! Now, they talk of cutting S.S. and Medicare to our senior citizens. We have become nothing but a source of money for them! And with so many jobs losses, I don't know where they thing they can keep getting more and more out of workers! As for illegals getting off scott free....do you know that they have to work less units to get S.S than US citizens? Yes, some are getting S.S.! We are becoming serfs while taking care of the world's people!
>> dareisay Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:15 PM Report Comment
Jug and duh I agree and this should have been more strongly considered Swiss Model was heavily pushed by a few Republicans and is eloquently endorsed by Regina Herzlinger. It makes sense but the problem we all need to come to grips with is that some degree of mandatory coverage to expand the pool and very extensive regulation of the insurance industry will be necessary for true cost effective health care reform. In Switzerland virtually all of the insurers are not for profit and there MLRs (medical loss ratios) are 95% (5-10 % overhead and profit vs 20+% here)
>> gingermanMD Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:19 PM Report Comment
Karen, I am not sure why you posted the factcheck article. Needless to say it is an example of how lewin and other groups have little understanding of how to actually run a business. Their consultant says, "Employers that are affected may be more likely to pass any increased costs along to workers in the form of lower wages than they are to shed jobs." Yet this statement is patently absurd. If you have a bunch of workers, do you think you can go to them one day and say "hey you we're making 18 an hour but now you make 12?" Businesses don't pass on expenses to their employees, they pass them through to the consumer, if they can.
>> aaron armijo Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:20 PM Report Comment
@Rowwdy..... I am not arguing with you. Don't assume you know me from this post. I actually dont' care what you think. Of course you are an Officer, ummhmmmmmmm. Ta Ta for now! Hope you are smart enough to get the message in this, it is not just what I wrote: ) You wont get it and that is really too bad! I am out to skip down the well paved DADT road back to serve and run to the Doctor so I can get some of that them there free health care that the Prez is dolling out to the Military.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:26 PM Report Comment
My husband was laid off over 2 years ago at age 62 and has been unable to find work. We took early social Security because we didn't want to lose our home. My husband developed bladder cancer and our insurance will run out next month. His surgery is scheduled for March. we live on a limited income and if I can't afford insurance how in the name of God can we pay a tax? Good grief we just may have to move to Canada or somewhere that we can afford to live. We will pay for s month of insurance so he can have his surgery but i see no way that we can continue to keep it up. we buy no extras and live very frugally. We are scared and don't know what to expect or to do. A country that i love i feel is turning against us. how very sad.
>> Gail A Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:44 PM Report Comment
Simplified health care improvements: Set a limit on the price a drug company can sell a drug for. To create a drug and process it for 5 cents and then charge 100.00 for it is rotten and capitalistic imorality. Let's start with a cap here and do a real service to the public.Keep it simple stupid the KISS principle.
>> blkshk Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:44 PM Report Comment
We'll see how much everybody with children likes Obamacare when they file for their child tax credit and find it CUT IN HALF. How does that help your fellow man, dumocrats? More like kicking him while he's down already reeling from 10% unemployment rates and gas prices skyrocketing again. If this socialist gets re-elected, its fixed. Like pro wrestling. Time to get this trash out of power and actually FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION.
>> mark Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:46 PM Report Comment
@Gail A. I hope that your husband fully recovers from his cancer. I have experienced Cancer in my family and it is a hard disease to deal with but you all will pull through. I am sending you positive thoughts and the highest regard as you and your husband move through this.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:48 PM Report Comment
"a little bit of the scared little Officer side, you are probably a 2LT or a CPT no doubt". ROFLMBO! Awww the NOW era surfaces. Btw: I passed 04 years ago. What are earth what I be scared of? An insubordinate female? Not likely. You are beyond arrogant. God help the troops under you. IF you are even in the military, which I am beginning to doubt. Maybe your troops "appear: to love you to your face, but I have always found that self-aggrandizing officers need to watch their backs closely. You aren't even bright enough to realize this lunatic bill has a direct impact on military members and military dependents.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:48 PM Report Comment
thank you US Army Officer, that means a lot to me. I am staying positive as that has always been my way. I just worry about the cost of insurance and the fees if i can't do it. I feel like we are between a rock and a hard place. do I lose my home, have my lights and heat shut off, eat bread and water. We have very few options and I am worried. Thank you for your service,all of the service people are my heroes.
>> Gail A Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:53 PM Report Comment
Say since every soldier and Marine and Congressmen and Senators take an "OATH" to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION which one of them actually begins to do so and if they don't then what bureacracy or unit has the authority to do it? It appears that ANY military person with enough backing or guts could do so since they took an OATH!!!!!!!!! So what are they waiting on?
>> blkshk Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:53 PM Report Comment
@Rowwdy. ROFLJD:HFIOJDKHSF what the heck was that all about. Yep I am in the military. Yep my Soldiers do love me. Doubt you were in the military. Since you are so mature, I am rubber you are glue bounces off me and sticks to you. Wow "insubordinate female" Don't like the women in the military that much nice buddy! True side always comes out huh? Peace out scared little boy I am out.
>> US Army Officer Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:57 PM Report Comment
@ Gail: You can call 211, the toll free number for United Way and ask them for help. If they can't help you directly, they can put you in touch with many organizations that can and do help people with limited funds. By God, if this govt. can pay for an illegal to have TWO liver transplants to the tune of over $2 million, they best be helping our citizens. Panty waist Obamao coddles to illegals while our taxpayers pick up the tab. What a putz!
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 8:59 PM Report Comment
Cowman: You absolutely right. We are under attack. Obamao and his brown shirts are going as fast as they can before 2012. There will be much to be undone because of this traitor and his brown shirt thugs. But, once he leaves office, hopefully the new President will undo his executive order and reveal ALL this goon's lies.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:25 PM Report Comment
Six small businesses closed in my little town in the past 2 weeks. My next door neighbor just went into foreclosure and most of the homes around me are underwater, one by -$240,000. This is commuterville outside Seattle, not exactly the sticks. Nothing is selling. Real estate sales signs have been up so long the weather is making the colors fade and posts fall over. People are scared to death and they think they can squeeze more taxes for forced insurance while they exempt themselves and their friends? They're going to get what they probably want - the mother of all revolutions. We've never had such an inept administration full of freaks, perverts, liars, cheats and anti-Americanism.
>> blue water sailor Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:50 PM Report Comment
Repeal of Obamacare may not come this year, and it may not come next year. But don't worry, Democrats, it WILL come. Oh, yes.
>> USAMike Saturday, January 15, 2011 9:55 PM Report Comment
Blkshk: In case you are unaware, many members of the military are under serious threats if they are heard speaking out about Obmao's stupidity. Yet, "do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC" seems to have been lost because we are without a real Commander in Chief. It is a widely known fact that he and his Amazon have always been anti-military. But, if a revolt does start, there will be military people standing up against that traitors. The words above will not be forsaken.
>> Rowwdy Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:08 PM Report Comment
I will take my insurance policy in the dept of corrections before i could comply to this destruction of this nation
>> james ore Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:18 PM Report Comment
This abomination needs to be repealed asap. The "pre-existing condition" argument is crazy, it's like telling car insurance companies that they are obligated to insure drivers AFTER the accident. Where is the incentive to buy a pricey policy? Just pay the penalty (much less than the premiums), and when you get sick, get the suckers to pay. And this is just one of the jewels in Obozocare.
>> Nico Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:21 PM Report Comment
@GailA: I don't think I read where you work.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:28 PM Report Comment
@Karen: Your factcheck link is out of date, and talked about proposed laws, which wasn't the one that was passed.
>> L. C. Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:35 PM Report Comment
And this is only the health care portion of the bill.. if you read it, there is a lot more in there besides just having the covered pay more in order to cover more people. Sounds like the government is taking over the role of the early churches...
>> Sue Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:45 PM Report Comment
Government is the cause of the current unlimited medical inflation cost upward spiral, via Medicare and laws preventing turning away, not to mention CORRUPTION in the FDA, the pharmaceutical cartels, the AMA, and on and on. "World Without Cancer, The Story of Vitamin B-17", "Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Medical Alternatives", "Mercury, Autism, and the Global Vaccine Agenda", "Who Killed Africa?", swallow your fluoridated water, brush your mercury-silver fillings, eat your hydrogenated genetically modified soybean oil margarine because butter and lard are bad for you, and don't forget your Alzheimer's risk increasing foreign dna/rna contaminated, sterility causing flu shot!
>> John Saturday, January 15, 2011 10:48 PM Report Comment
All 'undocumented citizens' should be denied our health-care... and then IMPEACHED!!!!
>> Brad Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:11 PM Report Comment
Everyone knows Obozo will veto the house repeal of ObozoScare but the purpose is to make the house/senate actually vote so all can know who to kick out in 2012... With the house out of Obozo's control there is a commode plug in anymore of these Obozo/Libtard Marxist turd laws getting thru until then.... repeal it they will and fund it they will not. http://www.bunge.go.ke/parliament/downloads/tenth_forth_sess/Hansard/RDRAFT25.03P.pdf It was stated in these 25 Mar 2010 Kenya parliament minutes that Obama was born in Kenya… !!
>> RussVet Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:16 PM Report Comment
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=sr110-511 S. Res. 511 [110th] 2008:…. “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born “to American citizens†on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, thereforeMcCain is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.†Notice it says plural “citizens†which means both parents. Obama voted for this resolution. I think it is time for the new house to investigate this issue and do a resolution like this for Obama since his father was not an American citizen and mother not of age. ObozoScare down the toliet because illegally signed
>> RussVet Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:20 PM Report Comment
http://www.kittycatchats.com/2010/08/will-washingtons-failures-lead-to.html I think this all goes back the the issue of wealth and that there is a effort to create a upper and lower class, socialism is ALIVE AND WELL in America and a shame that it has come to that.
>> Mr. Katz Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:32 PM Report Comment
The new taxes are bad enough, but has anyone thought about what will happen to health care in this country once the floodgates open and millions and millions of uninsured people suddenly become insured? The new health-scare bill means that fewer and fewer young people will choose the medical profession and there won't be enough 'good' doctors to treat patients in a timely manner. Our hospitals and physicians will be swamped with new patients and appointments for treatment will be months instead of days. And sick people will die waiting for treatment...all in the name of Obama and his legacy of 'change'. I wrote about this a year ago. http://grouchyman.com/2010/01/19/why-the-proposed-healthcare-system-is-gonna-kill-us/
>> The Grouchy Man Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:39 PM Report Comment
Americans are the most generous people in the world. Allow them to determine how to spend their money and they will help provide for the less fortunate... however, we do not need government to determine how we spend our money.... Tax and spend is not the answer. When government is involved, everything costs more. Dump this misguided health plan and cut government spending now...
>> Wayne Saturday, January 15, 2011 11:52 PM Report Comment
I also heard that included in Obamacare was a 3% federal tax on all home sales. Is that true?
>> Bud Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:26 AM Report Comment
Why does the military get socialized healthcare (VA). Talk about bull. You work there 3 years get covered the rest of your life. I say cover everyone or cover nobody. Police, firefighters, teachers, social workers are just as important. A bunch of double standards
>> Edward Roohan Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:36 AM Report Comment
So let me get this straight, illegal aliens get an exemption. Well what person is going to tell the Gov't that they are illegal?
>> Laurenjane001 Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:45 AM Report Comment
Im sorry, I pay enough taxes and I pay cash for my health care. Guess what I lost my trucking job in 2009...now work for 25% of what I earned before. SO I REFUSE TO PAY ANY MORE TAXES.
>> Will Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:47 AM Report Comment
All of y'all talk about freedom and the "free market." Are you kidding me? The free market has done nothing to help the average American with their health care needs. You cannot count on private employers to do the right thing. If they do provide insurance, in more and more cases, it is overprioed and doesn't provide the proper care. Y'all wanna stay with a status quo that has failed America.
>> Jamie Storie Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:16 AM Report Comment
@Edward Roohan: I would justify it like this: A commitment to the military demands more personal sacrifice than those other jobs. They are away from their families for months and sometimes years. Their jobs are more dangerous and carry greater risk of injury, maiming and death than those others you mentioned, especially at a time like this but even in peacetime military members routinely die or are injured in training exercises.(continued in next post...)
>> Doug Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:48 AM Report Comment
@Edward Roohan: ...They are paid much less than those other jobs, and they also can't just quit whenever they feel like it as any of those other people could. If you want to talk about a double standard, how about the difference between the gov't benefits those jobs get versus what the majority of the private sector gets. That's a much bigger discrepancy.
>> Doug Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:53 AM Report Comment
The tax list displayed several instances where American Corporations may be absorbing a huge health care increases. Accounting 101. Companies and Corpoations cost of business is past through to the customers; ergo, higher food, clothing, and energy for Americans. With the national debt and health care, President Carter's Inflationary period will look like a non-event compared to coming Obama economic melt down.
>> Quadrillion Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:14 AM Report Comment
The new taxes are bad enough, but has anyone thought about what will happen to health care in this country once the floodgates open and millions and millions of uninsured people suddenly become insured? The new health-scare bill means that fewer and fewer young people will choose the medical profession and there won't be enough 'good' doctors to treat patients in a timely manner. Our hospitals and physicians will be swamped with new patients and appointments for treatment will be months instead of days. And sick people will die waiting for treatment...all in the name of Obama and his legacy of 'change'. I wrote about this a year ago. http://grouchyman.com/2010/01/19/why-the-proposed-healthcare-system-is-gonna-kill-us/
>> The Grouchy Man Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:20 AM Report Comment
@Jamie - No we're not kidding Jamie. I don't know what free market system you are talking about that "has done nothing to help the average American with their health care needs." The free market system saved my life. Saved me from one of teh hiseous deaths a human being can experience. When the world gets sick, they get their care here. I've met people,and government officials from virtually every country of Europe, numerous middle east countries, and numerous asian countries. They all come because we have the most advanced healthcare on earth. That is what the free market has done. This is just one of those world's best instutions brought to you be a free market www.mdanderson.org
>> aaron armijo Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:49 AM Report Comment
I can't take much more. I'm a hair-trigger away from leaving Dodge and heading overseas to a less stressful and (hopefully) warmer clime. I'll live in an adobe hut, raise chickens, pick vegetables, fetch water from a bucket on the end of a rope...I don't care. Living in the U.S. is so much B.S. and stress, it's simply not worth it anymore. Take your Obamacare and shove it up your black ass, I ain't paying!
>> 1040A nightmare Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:55 AM Report Comment
Grouchy, you're right. The unintended consequences of this bill are staggering. It will effectively lead to rationed care, even more doctors will drop out of the system, leaving even a greater shortage. Quality of care will deteriorate. And medical costs will not go down, they will skyrocket upward. This will in turn lead to more politicians complaining about the evils of theh capitalist system, so it will lead to the govt having to cap re-imbursements for procedures, or limit physicians' incomes ... people truly do not understand the string of events this legislation triggers.
>> aaron Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:56 AM Report Comment
So...., Is anyone ready for a revolution! We are the government! Isn't it time to do our job and take the reigns! Tell the ones we put in office to do what we want and not what only benifits them! It's time for accountability! To live by the same rules and laws they impose!
>> Freedom Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:57 AM Report Comment
@Gail A. Thank you so much for your kind words to me during this time of great hardship for yourself. I do hope that you are able to use the information provided to you on this link and that you get what you need for yourself and your husband. I will be thinking about you and your husband over time and sending you positive thoughts and well wishes for the insurance to get right and also a speedy recovery for your husband. I think I am going to end my comments here, it is becoming a bit more than I thought it would be, I do not like to argue with people but I will be thinking of you!
>> US Army Officer Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:46 AM Report Comment
@ Ed. Ed you don't get covered when serving just three years UNLESS you are seriously injured and deemed at least 30% disabled by the VA. Than yes the coverage under TRICARE is carried on. Please read what Doug said, he has good points. If you want to discuss like adults I can do that but if you want to verbally attack me I am not discussing further. Thanks
>> US Army Officer Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:49 AM Report Comment
@The Grouchy Man, you hit on one of the problems, not enough providers getting into the field because of liability. We really do need tort reform, Sadly, that wasn't even a consideration when the HCR law was passed.
>> harold Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:13 AM Report Comment
What ever happened to: A government of the people, by the people and for the people? This government seems more interested in what's in our wallets and how they can get their hands on more of it.
>> Dr. Ed Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:31 AM Report Comment
This is another incentive to work less and retire earlier than I had planned. I will pay less tax and the budget deficit and national debt will increase. Wome in Washington don't get it....When you tax something you get less of it.
>> Sal Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:33 AM Report Comment
Joel is just 1 of many entitlement people in our country. Little do they know how destructive it is to America. How in the heck do these people think that it is ok to take from a worker and give it to some lazy ass that won't take responsibility for themselves. We have never been more split and i don't think there's any way we'll come together. I will never give in to the socialist/progressive/marxist movements and the lazy/ignorant or just plain stupid people will never stop voting for the dems that offer to give them everyone else's money.
>> sl22 Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:35 AM Report Comment
Why don't they start a Federal Health Insurance program for the 15% of citizens they claim do not have insurance and leave us and everyone else alone. It could be run just like the Federal Flood Insurance program in which not all need flood insurance. In fact, the flood insurance premiums are very cheap and have a limit payout of $250K. Probably looses money, but who cares. Everything they do does, but at least they would not wreck the best healthcare in the world.
>> Genie Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:07 AM Report Comment
Why don't they start a Federal Health Insurance program for the 15% of citizens they claim do not have insurance and leave us and everyone else alone. It could be run just like the Federal Flood Insurance program in which not all need flood insurance. In fact, the flood insurance premiums are very cheap and have a limit payout of $250K. Probably looses money, but who cares. Everything they do does, but at least they would not wreck the best healthcare in the world.
>> Genie Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:14 AM Report Comment
Its about time they did something to reign in Insurance Co. abuses. It may not be perfect, but its a start. 100% better than NOTHING.
>> Brett Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:27 AM Report Comment
Germany 1925, Russia 1917, Spain 1935, Cuba 1960, China 1949, but the next revolution will be a lot different for the Reds. The 2nd Amendment will see to that, something that all those countries lacked. You can only run so far.
>> snakedog Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:31 AM Report Comment
IMPEACH OBAMA THE RACIST COMMUNIST NOW!!! PASTE AND COPY IF YOU AGREE!!! IMPEACH OBAMA THE RACIST COMMUNIST NOW!!! PASTE AND COPY IF YOU AGREE!!! http://www.usdebtclock.org http://www.usdebtclock.org BARACK “THE MUSLIM†HUSSEIN OBAMA...A DOPE YOU CAN'T BELIEVE IN...HE JUST CAN'T DO IT! HOMOBAMA DEATHCAREHOMOBAM DEATHCAREHOMOBAMA DEATHCARE…HOMOBAMA DEATHCARE BARACK “THE MUSLIM†HUSSEIN OBAMA...A DOPE YOU CAN'T BELIEVE IN...HE JUST CAN'T DO IT! COPY, PASTE AND PASS ON IF YOU AGREE http://www.usdebtclock.org http://www.usdebtclock.org IMPEACH OBAMA THE RACIST COMMUNIST NOW!!! PASTE AND COPY IF YOU AGREE!!! IMPEACH OBAMA THE RACIST COMMUNIST NOW!!! PASTE AND COPY IF YOU AGREE!!!
>> ObamaIsAMuslimScrewingAmerica Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:32 AM Report Comment
How can you believe that it is "fair" for those working to pay for those who can and choose not to work? Or to pay for those who could have come here legally and become citizens, but choose to be here illegally and demand "free" services the legal citizens pay for? This law is robbing the not-so-rich to pay for the vagrants that could be rehabilitated, and the illegals that should be deported. I'd willingly contribute to either of those. **"Vagrants" includes those that are able bodied and refuse to find/keep a job, and those who would be able-bodied if they renounced the alcohol and/or drugs keeping them in the depths of delusional entitlement.
>> DMJB Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:40 AM Report Comment
Codification of the “economic substance doctrineâ€(Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance†and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Read more: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758##ixzz1BD6WFDTh
>> Zappa Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:53 AM Report Comment
Where is Ayn Rand when you need her?
>> Copper Sunday, January 16, 2011 9:55 AM Report Comment
All of this needs to be repeal now. But I ask myself why the first tax was on Tanning Services? It this a dig at white people wanting to be darker skin and a means of backdoor racist. If anyone has logical reason why tanning services are included in the obamacare, i would like to know. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons
>> John Russell Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:04 AM Report Comment
OUR FAMILY DOCTOR IS RETIREING EARLY DUE TO THE NEW LAWS.........HE SAID THE NEW LAWS ARE NOT FOR THE HEALTH CARE OF THE DOCTOR THAT HAS HIS OWN PRACTISE FOR EVER AND THERE OWN ONE DR. OFFICE...ITS PUTTING THEM ALL OUT....PROUD OF AMERICA....LAND OF THE FREE.........LETS HELP KEEP IT THIS WAY......NOT FREE FOR ILLEAGLES......FREE FOR AMERICANS...IN GOD WE TRUST.......
>> SUNNY SIDE Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:08 AM Report Comment
What ever happened to: A government of the people, by the people and for the people? This government seems more interested in what's in our wallets and how they can get their hands on more of it AMEN....WE ARE FOR THIS...WELL PUT...
>> SUNNYSIDE Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:14 AM Report Comment
I still don't know who these (30 million) people are that don't have health care. I know many that have no formal insurance but receive healthcare through Medicaid, etc. that is equal to my care. Yes we pay for Medicaid care. This bill just changes the way we pay. It does nothing to decrease costs. I believe just the bureaucracy being built to manage this law will far outstrip any potential savings. And by the way. what happened to the other 20 million people the law was supposed to cover. The sell job used the figure of 50 million Americans uninsured. In years hence Obamacare will be synonymous with socialistic and idealogic.
>> Don W Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:09 AM Report Comment
Diedrelene: What makes YOU think you're entitled to our support? You have the same right to the PURSUIT of happiness and comfort as the rest of us, NOT to our money. Your values are in direct contrast to the principles of this country and the overwhelming majority of us vehemently oppose your views. You are the only one responsible for your seven children. I am responsible ONLY for the TWO that I chose to have. I would love to have had seven children but knew I couldn't afford to properly provide for more. You've made your bed; now lie in it.
>> deb Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:13 AM Report Comment
Rowwdy: Thank you for your service, sir. We are all in your debt. Isn't it interesting how the highly evolved, 'tolerant' and 'enlightened' left relentlessly demeans and insults the very people it claims to support? Its race-baiting and class warfare reveals the true nature of its hypocrisy and dishonesty.
>> gobnait Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:19 AM Report Comment
So lets get this straight. Before Obamacare, people with insurance were paying for the free hospital visits of the 30 million uninsured, through slightly higher premiums. Now, the government is going to collect a bunch more from everybody, spend a ton of money on bureaucracy and regulations and pay for the health care of those same people. For every dollar in new taxes, I have to wonder how much will be left for actual health benefits after the feds take their 'administrative' costs out. My guess is that the higher taxes will be far higher than the higher premiums.
>> Tommcomm Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:22 AM Report Comment
Well "Queen Pelosi" we now know what's in it. Thank you democrats for all the taxes in a HC bill. I am poor and under this plan it is guaranteed that I will be poorer by this government overreaching POS money grabbing monster. Stupid people want us to have fewer children so there will be no one to back fill vacant jobs? History tells us that when nations depopulate they eventually fail. Go look at some of the EU countries that have gone thru this. What, you don't believe in lessons learned?
>> SamIamTwo Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:27 AM Report Comment
People need to wise up and explore legal remedies. The spirit of the law and legislation passed in 1973 widely known as Roe vs. Wade concluded the United States government does not have the "right to interfere with a woman's health choices". This much is historical fact. All I can say - if it's good enough for women, it's good enough for me. Obama-Don't-Care is another illegal attempt permitting the government to intrude in our personal choices and freedoms; health and otherwise. How dare they pass this off as a health care bill when in reality it is anything but? This bill is literally another BILL and contains more oppressive taxation and unconstitutional health care intrusion by the government.
>> Banderman Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:39 AM Report Comment
You need to be borderline insane (liberalism), to be able to defend Obamacare. Any balanced thinking individual can see that Obamacare is just a piece of a bigger plan to desroy all the that is, The United States of America. We are the balance in this world. And the global plan needs us gone.
>> cmc Sunday, January 16, 2011 11:50 AM Report Comment
Laws and Taxes are for Peons and Peasants. Until the IRS is abolished and the tAXE code is replaced with a national sales tax (NOT a VAT tax and not the Flat Rate tax), the divide and conquer rule will continue to destroy us. No more evading by Gheitner, Charlie Wrangel, while the rest of us pay.
>> The Navigator Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:02 PM Report Comment
Where is the $600/yr,IRS 1099 requirement ....starting in 2012? Does this include what I spend on the Internet?
>> Kansas Professor Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:12 PM Report Comment
I own a small company with staffing levels exceeding 70. We, will not comply!
>> Darel Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:34 PM Report Comment
I read during the debate leading up to the vote to pass this disturbing monstrosity of a health care bill that it would cost the government approximately 135 million dollars per year to insure all those without health insurance. If this is true, this is less than the cost of one new fighter jet.
>> John.in.Georgia Sunday, January 16, 2011 12:58 PM Report Comment
I am sorry, the number should have been 135 Billion dollars. Sorry for my stupid mistake. And that is less than we spend on the interest for the national debt each year.
>> John.in.Georgia Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:04 PM Report Comment
Hey Joel, if you think there won't be any caps on benefits, then you should take advantage of the (presumably free) psychiatric counseling because you, sir, are straight up tripping.
>> Martin Truther Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:14 PM Report Comment
AND SOME PEOPLE STILL LIKE THIS OBEYME GUY ? SHEESH!
>> DAN KY Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:34 PM Report Comment
Rowwdy thank you so much for that info on the United Way.I will definitely try them. For those of you wondering if I work no I have bad asthma and COPD plus my foot has deformed and it is very difficult to walk or stand without holding myself up with something. I was collecting disability but it was only for $54.00 and every time they sent a check I had to send it back because they claimed they overpaid me. LOL I dropped it and now collect early social Security. $780 a month. If I pay all my bills we have $187.50 left over a week. That is for food, gas and medications. not a lot but I don't want to get behind on anything as we could not catch up. life is getting harder but things can change and I just make the best out of it that I can.
>> Gail A Sunday, January 16, 2011 1:53 PM Report Comment
Yesterday Matt insisted that the CBO declared the Healthcare Law to reduce the deficit. I agree that, yes, that was regurgitated many times in the news last year. I have not heard many people point out that the same "nonpartisan" CBO in 1965 underestimated the cost of Medicare by NINE times the actual cost over 30 years. How can we trust a crack team of financial experts that can be so far off the mark? Matt, you are entitled to that fact.
>> Dean Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:02 PM Report Comment
I live on investment income and I am in the bracket for the "surtax." This means that with my own health insurance premiums, combined with the "surtax", I am out 40 to 50K a year before I even set foot into a doctor's office. Is this fair? Is this America? Is this redistribution? What the hell is going on?
>> Genie Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:05 PM Report Comment
Let's hope the new Congress works.
>> 44forest44 Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:16 PM Report Comment
What do you want to bet that there will be ANOTHER manufactured (by 0buma operatives) catastrophy that will occur during the week that the congress has set aside to vote for the repeal of the 0bumamarxist healthcare farce. Never waste a good crisis as 0bumas devils say and if non exists, then create one.
>> blackavenger Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:21 PM Report Comment
"you people act like you have forgotten what it means to share"--Brian that's the same kind of addled headed nonsense we heard in the 60s when the Great Society programs were shoved down our throats by LBJ. Instead of providing a helping hand, GS welfare programs have been a boot to the throats of the poor, creating generations of welfare dependence. Why do we have to repeat that obviously failed approach with health care reform?
>> Scott Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:40 PM Report Comment
As more and more people can't afford or pay for health insurance they go to emergency rooms for their healthcare. When they can't pay the ER bill those charges are spread to insured patients...Ok, you follow. The people who can't pay spreads the cost on pay who can...stay with me now. As I see it we already pay for people who can't...yes? And isn't ER visits the most expensive medical cost there is? The question boils down to this; as more and more people don't have insurance the more we all pay for ours. At what point do we allow sick and injured people in the USA to die on the sidewalks like in third world countries? For me I don't want people to die on the streets because they can't afford healthcare, do you?
>> Dennis Sunday, January 16, 2011 2:46 PM Report Comment
No one wants anyone to die in the streets. A good bill would include tort reform, tax breaks for Dr.'s/investors to open rural/regional healthcare facilities staffed with PA's, nurses, etc. People who go to the ER need to be EMERGENCIES! Largely, it’s runny noses. We pay Dr's who have made huge financial investments in their career to take care of runny noses! This bill includes COLLEGE STUDENT LOANS. Let's make everyone dependent on the govt...who the heck pays for the govt? WE DO...I for one do not want to be beholding to the government for anything except national security, interstate commerce and a national currency!! They have bankrupted social security, Medicare, Medicaid, the post office and Amtrak. Manage healthcare?
>> Jane Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:15 PM Report Comment
you know why doctors get $135 for a 3 minute consult? Short story. Engineer retires. A few months later, big problem at work, the boss begs the engineer to solve it. Engineer says no no no, finally relents, solves problem by drawing a line on the ground with chalk. Submits bill--$10,000.30. Boss demands itemized bill. Engineer sends new bill. $0.30 for chalk, $10,000 knowing where to draw line. And that's why that doctor gets $135 for 3 minutes; he knows where to draw the line. Are you going to cure yourself? No, you go the expert, who should get paid well for his expertise.
>> Scott Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:24 PM Report Comment
I strongly object to Muslims being exempt, from Obamacare. I need to start my own religion I guess. But there should be a nice big fat fee charged Muslims anyway. I don't want to pay their share. Glenda
>> Glenda Davis Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:27 PM Report Comment
talk about spreading the wealth sounds like spreading desaster to me. all put together by a bunch of clowns that never read the bill and have no idea what is it it themselfs.
>> john Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:29 PM Report Comment
The Muslims are dedicated, to the death, to their country and their religion. Inasmuch as Obama is not serving in their army of terrorists, I wonder how many virgins he has been promised in paradise to completely destroy our great nation by elimanating our monetary system and throwing our country into a debt that will be felt by every person who is trying to make a decent and honest living for his family. His examples of the average American Family is in the group of earning $250,000 per year. I know of several families that are barley getting by on $30,000 a year. So much for him and our wealthy congressmen and other polititians!!!
>> Charles Stafford Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:34 PM Report Comment
One thing - health insurance is a PRODUCT you PAY for. Know your current policy and study it. If you don't have it, work with the doctors to find a way to pay your bills and stay healthy (as best you can); or get on a plan. I don't want the government involved at all; I think they should take out some of the restrictions and make it more of a free-market policy that can REALLY make a difference both in cost and in quality. If you pay for a product, know what your rights and details on the policy are and don't blame someone else. Repeal this bill, know your rights and policy and stop asking for others to pick up your check!
>> Matt Sunday, January 16, 2011 3:42 PM Report Comment
I wonder how long it will be before Democrats become fair game for deer hunters and the like. The Government is just asking for the citizens of this country to rise up and for a rebellion to begin. I think they will have their wish sooner than later. Do these people in Washington not see what's coming? Talk about having blinders on! It's just about time to move out of Dodge to a nice country setting.
>> Karl Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:23 PM Report Comment
Friends, I would encourage you to write your Representatives, State and Locate, to get behind a law that will not allow legislators to pass any bils which establishes a tax on anybody for anything beyond the term of office of the one (The President of the US in the case of a Federal Law) who is signing the bill.
>> James Baker Sunday, January 16, 2011 4:42 PM Report Comment
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/2011-tax-increases/
>> Think Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:23 PM Report Comment
Margi-I hope you have your eyes open because the illegals are costing this country probably several billion$ annually. We are feeding the illigals, educating them, giving them medical care, and on and on. What are they giving us, no income taxes paid, filling our jails at a cost between $26,000 and $36,000 each individual per year and on and on. I have wondered for over 60 years how in the world Hitler got a whole nation to follow his lunatic ways. First a person arises from the East, Kenya, belivers,those who elected him, think Obama is living God, and join him. There is the SS led by Nancy, the ovens kept by Harry. By the way, leave S.Palin alone, she might be the one to save us.
>> Joe Johns Sunday January 16, 2011 Sunday, January 16, 2011 5:52 PM Report Comment
What is not noticed by most that say they want to opt out of the bill and won't pay, is that somewhere in the bill is a stipulation that the IRS will have access to your Bank account to Withdraw the costs automatically like Auto Bill Pay is now. If you E file your Taxes, I was told to not ever arrange for Auto Deposit, but request a check. Apparently the IRS is building a database with the Bank Information to enable auto drafting in the future. Maybe just anothe conspiracy theory, but why take a chance..
>> SoSueMe Sunday, January 16, 2011 7:28 PM Report Comment
Awesome! This tax the majority for a minority of people who either don't or won't get health insurance. Get rid of the fraud and ridiculous lawsuits for injuries. Rates would come down and be affordable for everyone.
>> jack Sunday, January 16, 2011 8:42 PM Report Comment
I think these taxes are just fine. They sure beat what we have now and if they get universal care I think that would even be better.
>> philDFL Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:21 PM Report Comment
I heard somewhere another and well hidden tax is one on all real estate transactions will be subject to a new, landmark 3.8% Federal Sales Tax ... in 2013 after the anointed one's run for more golf, hoops and vacation time. If true, this element will screw the retiring or retired generation who often downsize their homes. Of course as Nan said, “we had pass the bill so we know what was in itâ€. Having said that, now that we know how will we get rid of the bad stuff that’s in it?
>> Bundoker Sunday, January 16, 2011 10:23 PM Report Comment
-
In 1963 John J. McCloy went dove hunting with Clint Murchison at his ranch in Mexico in the summer.
I GUARANTEE YOU they were not saying nice things about John Kennedy!
Murchison, of course, was one of LBJ's key supporters, and is a key suspect in the JFK assassination.
*******************
I agree the Great South West Corporation a Murchison/Rockefeller/Rothschild investment was part of the assassination plot. Now the man who Rented the post office BOX after LHO had a family name similar to a family that owned a ranch in Southern Mexico. Said ranch, Palo Blanco of Veracruz area was (Im not sure it wasnt broken up now) covered 25,000 acres and was part mountainous. They offered hunting there. A perfect place to target practice. SG
that they've provided to the Inquest team and the coroner all information which they have in respect of Babar and US/UK communications in respect of him, and Mr Foulkes' comment to the press --
WHO ? 
secret 
propawhat ?? 
???...unless they were part of the false flag operation....QUI BONO ?? sg
Obama Care Taxes
in Political Discussions
Posted
Source: LA TImes
<snip>
Studying medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts, whose recent healthcare reform was a model for national reform, researchers found that while new insurance rules increased the number of people who had coverage, those rules did not improve coverage -- leaving many still struggling with medical debt.
Proponents of the national healthcare reform passed into law last year have claimed that it would reduce medical bankruptcy in the United States by helping more Americans get insurance. This new study, which was published Tuesday in the American Journal of Medicine, suggests that a reduction in bankruptcies is unlikely.
<snip>
The paper cited the example of the least expensive coverage available to a 56-year-old Bostonian in 2009. Such a policy carried a premium of $5,256 and a deductible of $2,000, and covered only 80% of the next $15,000 in costs for covered services. The authors calculated that an insured couple with an income greater than $44,000 (above the eligibility threshold for subsidies) could pay $20,512 for covered annual medical expenses.
Woolhandler said insurance in Massachusetts had become even more expensive in the two years since. "It's really too much money for the average family -- especially if the breadwinner is the one who gets sick," she said. Uncovered services could make costs even greater, the study reported.
Read more: http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-obama...