Steven Gaal

TO REPEAT WORLD NO SMOKING DAY MAY 31, 2012 see link http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/ =============== Colby is an archetype of the lying scientist. Decade after decade working with lawyers,legislatures, and public relation media ,Colby promulgated the scentific lies that advanced pro smoking agenda.RJR would even propagandize in a letter to a elementary school teacher. 'Teacher is smoking bad ??' He helped kill millions. Are we to believe FDA scientists about new drug approval or NIST scientists about 911 ? Pharmacuetical lies about Vioxx is another good example. I dont take establishment scientists at face value as some do. http://tobaccocontro...ppl_1/i110.full A 1963 letter to an elementary school teacher from RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company assured the teacher that: “medical science has been unable to establish that smoking has a direct causal link with any human disease.”12 ================== VIOXX http://www.naturalnews.com/002157.html http://www.msnbc.msn...ousands-deaths/ The whole class of drugs that VIOXX was part of are propably bad. http://www.healthtru...harma-lies.html

http://users.erols.c...28/warstat8.htm Smoking: R. Peto, "Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statistics", Lancet, 23 May 1992: 1930-59: 11,000,000 1960s: 9,000,000 1970s: 13,000,000 1980s: 17,000,000 1990s: 21,000,000 TOTAL (1930-1999): 71,000,000 tobacco-related deaths in developed countries. (US, Europe, USSR, Canada, Japan, Australia, NZ) [*]Note: Although the bulk of humanity lives outside developed countries, tobacco-related deaths are not as common there, largely because the average Third World life expectancy does not leave enough time to develop cancer and heart disease. Ditto for the developed world prior to 1930. Basically, smoking is a rich man's way to die. [*]The World Health Organization estimates that 3 million people die each year worldwide from tobacco, which becomes 900,000 3rd-Worlders when we subtract the 2.1 million 1st- and 2nd-Worlders calculated by Peto (yearly average for the 1990s, above). This indicates some 9 million tobacco deaths in non-developed countries during the 1990s and (using the same ratio) perhaps 5 million during the 1980s. If we continue this ratio all the way back, we get an even hundred million deaths by tobacco worldwide; however, as Peto puts it, "the epidemic is generally at an earlier stage," so the tobacco-related mortality rate in the third world was relatively low before 1980. Let's add only another 5 million for the years Tobacco industry interference is the theme of this year’s World No Tobacco Day, which takes place on 31 May 2012.The campaign will focus on the need to expose and counter the tobacco industry's brazen and increasingly aggressive attempts to undermine global tobacco control efforts. prior to 1980, bringing the century total up to 90,000,000. + link Read more about World No Tobacco Day 2012 ++++++++++++++++++++ Frank Colby was the main scientific "PRO" 'smoking isnt bad' man for BIG tobacco. I think he is responsible for millions of deaths [*]Question Why does Speer defend this lying ????????????? [*]---------------------------------- [*]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ see link http://www.who.int/tobacco/en/ (above link here)

“Operation Berkshire”: the international tobacco companies' conspiracy Advocates of tobacco control worldwide have long suspected collusion among major international tobacco companies over their refusal to acknowledge that smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and other serious diseases. Tobacco industry documents now available on the internet disclose the establishment of a conspiracy between Philip Morris, R J Reynolds, British-American Tobacco, Rothmans, Reemtsma, and UK tobacco companies Gallaher and Imperial, dating from 1977. The documents also disclose the objects of the conspiracy: basically, to protect the industry's commercial interests both by promoting controversy over smoking and disease and through strategies directed at reassuring smokers. The documents also disclose the means of implementing the conspiracy by utilising national manufacturers' associations coordinated through the International Committee on Smoking Issues, later to become the International Tobacco Information Centre. We expose the formation of the conspiracy and its objectives and means of implementation over the ensuing decades. ============================================ http://tobaccodocume...by_frank_g.html Colby also became known as a strident industry partisan. Colby, Frank Gerhardt, Ph.D. (RJR R&D Research Director) R.J. Reynolds scientist. He was employed by RJR as head of then-to-be-founded Scientific Library and Information Division in 1951, Manager of Scientific Information Division 1965-1979, Associate Director of Scientific Information in 1980, and employed by Jacob Medinger & Finnegan as Chief Scientist in 1983. Frank Gerhardt Colby ============================================== 1973-07-12: BUSINESS: RJR senior scientist Frank Colby sends Blevins a memo suggesting that the company "develop a new RJR youth-appeal brand based on the concept of going back--at least halfway--to the technological design of the Winston and other filter cigarettes of the 1950s," a cigarette which "delivered more 'enjoyment' or 'kicks' (nicotine)." Colby said that "for public relations reasons it would be impossible to go back all the way to the 1955-type cigarettes." ============================================ Dr. Colby of RJR critized this Pesticides Residue 4657 Subcommittee project for being too broad and too costly. Dry. 4658 Colby wanted to limit the effort "to include all pesticides Used 4659 practically by tobacco farmers in substantial amounts over 4660 periods of three years or more.ln the U.S. and in countries from 4661 which the U.S. imports tobaccos for cigarettes since 1946 -- 4662 regardless of whether or ~t'still used today." Dr. Colby felt 4663 that the Subcommittee's proposed effort would be too costly, that 4664 the cost had been underestimated, and that far more information 4665 than was necessary would be compiled. 4666 359 360 361 362 -126- ============================================ http://www.who.int/t...89241597265.pdf Frank Colby, even proposed hiring outside experts to obfuscate: “I feel reasonably certain that it should not be too difficult to find prominent experts in the area of addiction who would write a ‘position paper’, clearly showing that smoking is not an ‘addictive drug’.”

Agence France-Presse May 25, 2012 =========================== JERUSALEM // Violent race riots that shook southern Tel Aviv overnight prompted top-level calls yesterday for the immediate arrest and expulsion of tens of thousands of African migrants. "Shock, violence and hatred of foreigners in Tel Aviv" was the headline in the Maariv daily, which described scenes of chaos as demonstrators went on a rampage with sticks and stones, attacking African-run shops and smashing a car driven by two African men. "Blacks out!" shouted demonstrators. Some yelled "Send the Sudanese back to Sudan," several media reports said, as other protesters derided the "bleeding-heart leftists" working to help them. Most reports said the rally turned nasty after the crowd was whipped up by several racist speeches by right-wing MPs, several of them from the ruling Likud party of prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "The infiltrators are a cancer in our body," Likud MP Miri Regev told the crowd, as fellow MP Danny Danon shouted: "The infiltrators must be expelled from Israel! Expulsion now!" Police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said 20 people had been arrested on suspicion of vandalising shops and attacking cars driven by Africans. The police have extended the remand of seven Israeli minors accused of attacking African immigrants earlier this week, he said. Interior ministry statistics show there are more than 60,000 African immigrants living illegally in Israel. Some are asylum seekers fleeing persecution, while others are economic migrants. Almost all of them sneak across the border from the Egyptian Sinai and end up living in the rundown neighbourhoods around Tel Aviv's bus station. The issue of illegal immigration from Africa has thrown into relief sharp divisions within Israel, with many top officials, including Mr Netanyahu, warning that their growing numbers pose a major threat to the security and identity of the country. Interior Minister Eli Yishai demanded yesterday that all illegal African immigrants be put "behind bars" before kicking them all out. "We must put all these infiltrators behind bars in detention and holding centres, then send them home because they come and take work from Israelis," he told army radio. Unless the government took urgent action, there would "soon be half a million to a million, and we cannot lose our country to this," said the minister, who has frequently called for the expulsion of non-Jewish immigrants, sparking cries of racism. Wednesday's nights violence made headlines in all the main Hebrew-language newspapers, as well as on the TV and radio stations, with army radio denouncing it as a "pogrom." In a bid to halt the influx of immigrants from Africa, Israel has been building a 250-kilometre fence along the Egyptian border. It has also built a vast detention centre near the border to house anyone caught crossing the frontier. At the start of the year, Mr Netanyahu said he was planning to visit several African capitals to discuss the issue of immigration, but so far no such plans have been made public. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Aliyana Traison is Deputy Editor of Haaretz.com. May 25 /12 (BELOW) =========================================== Israelis must shun racism, not African migrants I am as afraid to live in the Israel of 2012 as any right-minded German should have been in 1938, or as any right-minded American should have been in the 1960s. ========oooooooo=========================== I live in south Tel Aviv. I live in Little Africa. I wouldn't want to live anywhere else in this city. It is an oasis of multi-ethnicity in an otherwise insular and homogenous society, where one is just as likely to hear Tigrinya as Hebrew, where African lilts accent English rather than American or British twangs. In my part of Tel Aviv, some of the veteran residents, themselves long-ostracized by the so-called Israeli elite, have begun to take the law into their own hands to rid the country of African "infiltrators." What began this year as a series of ugly protests that would have made any proponent of human tolerance cringe in discomfort if not outright disgust, has grown increasingly violent over the last few months, culminating this week in a full blown lynch reminiscent of the early days of Nazism and the Civil Rights movements, complete with burning cars and looted stores. It was a pogrom in every sense of the word that we as Jews would understand. The racism that has engulfed Israeli society cannot be ignored, lest we wish to destroy ourselves. History has taught us what becomes of society that dismisses such actions as the work of a marginal handful; what becomes of a society that refuses to recognize hate by its name. Nobody was killed in the May 23 riots in south Tel Aviv. No innocent African refugee or migrant has yet been killed in Tel Aviv by an Israeli civilian, but how are we to prevent that nightmare from becoming a reality? The fabric of Israeli society is woven of vast and diverse ethnic groups, descendants of all corners of the world. The language of Israeli society is accented by dozens of dialects, accents, historical memory. Israeli society is by nature the ingathering of the exiles, a microcosm of multiculturalism within a single people. But to Israeli society, a wider sense of multiculturalism - outside of Jewish culture - is a foreign concept. Non-Jews in Israel have suffered from discrimination since the founding of the country. And while it may seem obvious by now that Jews comes in all shapes and colors, in practice, many citizens of the Jewish state have yet to accept that. When the first Jews from Arab nations began trickling into Israel, they were momentarily embraced as long-lost Jewish brothers, and then promptly disregarded as primitive low-class refugees. When the first Ethiopians began arriving in Israel, they were momentarily embraced as long-lost Jewish brothers, and then promptly shunted into the fringes of society, the new target of racism. When the Soviet "refuseniks" were trapped behind the Iron Curtain, they were momentarily embraced as long-lost Jewish brothers, but once they arrived found themselves fighting to belong. I am not afraid to live alone in my neighborhood. When I came to Tel Aviv seven years ago, well before the migrants and refugees began moving en masse in to this neighborhood, I was afraid to walk these streets. It was a street filled with drunks and addicts, with dodgy characters, where just because of my size and gender, I was an immediate and natural target. Seven years later, the real-estate inflation in the north of the city has given legitimacy to the street where I now live. Now there are cafes, art galleries, sushi bars and a music school, alongside Eritrean restaurants and stores. Now my street it is livable. Now there are young people, families – and yes, many of them are black. My street feels safe. It is home. I am not afraid to walk alone down the street at night. I am afraid, however, to live alone in a hateful society. I am afraid to live alone in a country where my government supports discrimination and racism. I am afraid to live in a state founded precisely as a refuge for the survivors of extermination, which now condones the "distancing" of anyone who is not the same: anyone who is not Jewish; anyone whose skin is darker; anyone who has no other home, no other refuge, no other place to have an income and a comfortable life. I am as afraid to live in the Israel of 2012 as any right-minded German should have been in 1938, or as any right-minded American should have been in the 1960s. I am afraid that the hate of a marginal handful, encouraged by lawmakers and policy, will be accepted as the norm in this society so fearful of the other. I am afraid what will happen if more people do not speak out against this racism. I am afraid that it may be too late. ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo RELATED =========== http://www.haaretz.c...n-teen-1.432248

COLBY CAN NOW CONTACT PROFESSOR Zarembka whose CV Colby denigrates. (Fulbright Scholar) Colby can talk about his scholar articles with the professor. OOPPS,Colby has no scholar articles. COLBY FAIL COLBY FAIL ========================================================= Faculty Paul Zarembka Professor of Economics Office: 443 Fronczak Hall Phone: (716) xxx - xxxx E-mail: zarembka@buffalo.edu Website: Professor Zarembka's Website Spring 2012 classes: ECO 207 Spring 2012 office hours: Tue & Thu: 3:30 - 5:00 PM ECO 207 Spring 12 Syllabus Education •Ph.D. (1967) University of Wisconsin •M.S. (1967) University of Wisconsin •B.S. (1964) Purdue University Research Interests •Marxist Theory •U.S. Labor History •Economic Development Selected Publications "On the Empirical Relevance of the CES Production Function," Review of Economics and Statistics (1970) Toward A Theory Of Economic Development, Holden-Day (1972) (editor) Frontiers in Econometrics, Academic Press (1974) "Capital Heterogeneity, Aggregation, and the Two-Sector Model",Quarterly Journal of Economics (1975) "Transformation of Variables in Econometrics", The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics (1987) "The Development of State Capitalism in the Soviet Union", Research in Political Economy (1992) "Accumulation of Capital, its Definition: A Century after Lenin and Luxemburg", Value, Capitalist Dynamics and Money, Research in Political Economy (2000) "Rosa Luxemburg's Accumulation of Capital: Critics try to bury the Message", Bringing Capitalism Back for Critique by Social Theory, Current Perspectives in Social Theory (2002) "The Declining Importance of Hegel for Marx: J.D. White's Provocative Work", Historical Materialism, No. 8 (2002) "Lenin as Economist of Production: A Ricardian Step Backwards", Science & Society (2003) (editor) The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, JAI/Elsevier Science (2006); paperback 2nd. edition, Seven Stories Press (2008) Other Contributions and Distinctions •Co-Editor (with M. Brown and K. Sato), Essays in Modern Capital Theory, North-Holland (1976) •Series Editor, Research in Political Economy, JAI/Elsevier Press (1977-present) •Fulbright-Hayes Scholar, Academy of Economics, Poznan, Poland (1979) •Who's Who is America, various editions •Who's Who in Economics, various editions •Who's Who in Finance & Business, various editions •Who's Who in American Education, various editions

What Alex Jones believes. ===== http://www.infowars.com/secrets-of-prometheus-film-leaked/

+++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gee so much big letter anger. Your not angry ? Oh,we have your word on it ? Oh, yeah like your word you didnt go to live in Brazil for little boys as reported in a groups last interview. Yes we have your word. So ,I recall right wing media attck,and thats my word. Thats what I remember. Thats why I repeat it because thats my memory. Thats my word and it should be as good as yours but,however, you insist its not. Golly thats as polite as your BIG yelling print.The info was sent several days ago to two monitors. I consider the matter closed.

** IN TWO PARTS ** =============== COLBY// That should be obvious to anyone with more brain power than a cherry tomato, not sure if you qualify. But as stated above even IF true it would not refute any claims I’ve made here. ################ GAAL RESPONDS// Colby started a thread about a 911 Truther's drug arrest. Gee how would that affect any claims he made ?? NOPE, COLBY FAIL. == COLBY vs COLBY again. ======================================================= COLBY// Get back to us with links to the supposed studies that supposedly support his views. ____________________vvvv_______________________ GAAL RESPONDS// -o-o- http://ithp.org/articles/septemberinsidertrading.html ################# ################# ################# COLBY FAIL = CHERRY TOMATO BRAIN --------------------------------------------------- Evidence of Insider Trading before September 11th Re-examined ==========o========== This report addresses evidence of insider trading before September 11th, sometimes referred to by a broader phrase, informed trading. Insider trading refers to using private knowledge of an anticipated event in order to profit financially by engaging in financial market transactions. In the first weeks after September 11, 2001 a number of financial publications called attention to substantial insider trading in put-options occurring before the attacks. Some of these early examples have been surveyed in Zarembka (2008, pp. 64-66, 69-71), while this book chapter also commented on certain exaggerations (e.g., an incorrect doubling of the put-option volumes). Quickly, commentary died out. Purchasing a put option entitles the owner to sell a stock at a contractually stated price, the “strike price”, any time until the contract expires. If the market price of the stock goes down below the “strike price”, the owner of the put-option can buy the stock (if not already owned) and simultaneously sell the same stock at that “strike price”, making a profit if the cost of the option itself does not exceed the net revenue. This report deals with evidence of insider trading only. It does not deal with speculations. Nor does it deal with certain open questions about financial issues surrounding September 11th that otherwise deserve investigations: •Large increases in the M1 money supply in the United States have been reported for July and August 2001 and explanations have been sought. •Huge financial transactions have been reported to have taken place at computers at the World Trade Center minutes before the attacks. •Selling short (borrowing a stock and selling it, then returning it later through purchasing). •Markets outside the United States. •Disappearances of gold and securities from the World Trade Center. •The specific financial firms directly hit by planes, and the financial investigations sabotaged by the WTC or Pentagon attacks. •Insurance payoffs, particularly to the owner of destroyed buildings, particularly to Larry Silverstein. This is not a complete list of issues deserving investigation and our contribution can be considered modest at best, compared to these additional questions. However, some of the above seem to have only one testimonial behind them. And we are addressing what the 9/11 Commission, however imperfectly, addressed. In 2004, the 9/11 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf, p. 499, fn. 130) stated that the government’s investigations had produced no evidence of insider trading before the attacks. Yet, it offered little of its evidence to the public. When a FOIA request asked for the documentary evidence behind that Commission footnote we just mentioned, the SEC even replied on December 23, 2009 that “the potentially responsive records have been destroyed” (http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FOIAresponseGIF1.gif). Such a response is all the more curious, given documents we report below that were made public on January 14, 2009, documents that would have provided at least a partial response to the request made. •A scholarly article by Poteshman (2006) in the Journal of Business, using econometric modeling, claimed high probability of insider trading for American Airlines and United Airlines put-option purchasing shortly before September 11th. Were they random, the American purchases had only a 1% probability of occurrence; the United Airlines put-option purchasing was less improbable, but on September 6 had only a 4% probability of occurrence (both measures obtained by comparisons of the airline values reported on p. 1720, Table 4, to the benchmark values reported on p. 1713, Table 1). Since the government had provided so little evidence of its position, some sharp criticism and reference to Poteshman’s results ensued (e.g., Griffin, 2005, pp. 52-57 and Zarembka, pp. 67-69). Limited SEC Investigative Evidence Made Public On January 14, 2009, two post-September 11th SEC investigating memos were finally made publicly available. 1` The simpler one, prepared on May 11, 2004 for the 9/11 Commission, stated that the volume of put-option trades for United on September 6, 2001 (for a $30 strike price with expiration on October 20, 2001) had been erroneously reported in the SEC data: the correct value should have been 1500 – i.e., for 150,000 shares – not 2000. The memo explained that the SEC had missed the actual cancellation of an intended 500 put sale (included, but not a purchase). The Option Clearing House (OCC) had the correct number (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00138.pdf 2 Still, judging by the reported change the next day in open interest (open interest is the amount of the put contract remaining unexercised), a 500 purchase did indeed occur on September 7. In other words, a volume of 2000 occurred over two days, not one day (1500, then 500). This would not seem to affect Poteshman’s work since he used the change in open interest for his measure rather than volume data, but it does raise a general concern about the SEC data. A volume level of 2000 for the first day does appear both in Zarembka (p. 66) and in Chesney, et al. (2010, p. 35, Table 2) and is implicitly retained in the Commission’s own report despite that 2004 memo it had received (Zarembka, p. 68). Much more important, another memo was simultaneously released that had been prepared back on September 17-18, 2003 and had named the Options Hotline newsletterand its editor Steve Sarnoff as responsible for faxing on September 9, 2001 some 2000 subscribers the recommendation to buy put options on American Airlines (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00139.pdf, p. 14). The memo further stated that the SEC interviewed 28 people who purchased these options and 26 had said that they had done so because of the newsletter. This memo reported 27 additional subscribers, not interviewed, as additional purchasers of that put option. The same memo went on to report that an unnamed large institutional investor in hedge funds had undertaken the 2000 United put-option purchases – i.e., for 200,000 shares – but was explained away by the fact that the same investor had also purchased 115,000 shares of American stock on September 10. This information does appear in the Commission’s report, p. 499, fn. 130. A third memo for the 9/11 Commission, this one dated April 24, 2004, reported an interview with Ken Breen, Deputy Chief, Business and Securities Fraud Section, Department of Justice. It is also important. It reports that Breen “was not sure about potential trading in index futures (because the volume is so great that analysis proved impossible)” (http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00074.pdf). In other words, the exhaustive governmental investigation was not so exhaustive after all, by its own admission. A Contradiction and Its Deepening Through the above, we have arrived at a contradiction: an econometric result of high probability of insider trading in American Airlines stock and somewhat less for United stock goes against the government’s September 2003 memo (released in 2009). This contradiction could be resolved by simply claiming that Poteshman himself never claimed certainty and then to assert that an event of low probability had been all that had occurred. Were such simplicity available! Two other econometric studies have since been added to the scientific literature. •Wong, et al. (2011) examined put options on the S&P 500 and found additional econometric evidence of insider trading before September 11th, now for the index the government had reported in April 2004, “analysis proved impossible”. Furthermore, the result is significant because some have speculated that option trading was heightened in the period before September 11th because of a falling market. As we will explain below, Wong obtained their results, even after trying to account for a falling market. •Chesney, et al. (2010, yet unpublished) have studied about 1.5 million put-option trades for 14 companies: 5 airline companies including American and United, 5 bank stocks, and 4 others, for the period of January 1996 to April 2006. They report, with high probability, informed trading before September 11th in each of the put options for Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, United, American, Bank of America, Delta, and KLM (ordered here from the highest calculated gains downward). In sum, ten financial instruments, including the S&P 500 option, are each exhibiting, with high statistical probability, evidence of insider trading before September 11th, sometimes more than once. American and United are identified by separate methodologies, seven additional companies are identified by Chesney, and the S&P 500 is identified by Wong. The joint probability of all of these being nothing more than random outliners seems astronomically low. The government, however, had deepened its position. In that September 17-18, 2003 memo, the SEC refers to investigations of “103 companies and 38 index products and broad-based funds” (p. 3). It finds no evidence of any insider trading. It dismissed dramatic comments shortly after September 11th, even by a person as well positioned as the German Central Bank President Ernest Welteke (pp. 10-12). The report definitively concludes with the SEC’s lead investigator Joseph J. Cella, III, Chief of Market Surveillance, Division of Enforcement, SEC, saying that “he has no questions about any trade and is confident there was no illicit trading pre 9/11 in the United States” (p. 19). The sharp contradiction between the scientific results and the government’s position is too great to ignore. Can it be resolved? On the one hand, are three distinct econometric methodologies implemented with option trading data each erroneous in some manner? Is the competence of the econometricians, including two articles having been screened through peer review evaluations, to be in question? On the other hand, if the SEC is accurately reporting the motivating factors about American and United put-option purchases, could the SEC be erroneous about many or all of the other financial instruments for which no evidence has been made public? Having repeatedly said that the attacks were a complete surprise, has the government been influenced to avoid acknowledging any insider trading before September 11th? Worse, is it aware of insider trading and is it lying? Analysis: The SEC Evidence regarding One Named Financial Advisor The tip that Steve Sarnoff, editor of Options Hotline, offered subscribers on September 9 for placing put options on American Airlines is reported by Mike Williams. 3 Nothing appears unusual with the recommendation itself. From the government’s memo, somewhat more than 50 of 2000 subscribers seem to have acted upon the recommendation – i.e., about two and one-half percent. Nothing appears unusual with this outcome. The 1312 change in open interest on September 10th (Chesney, p. 35, Table 2) represents an average of a bit less than 26 put-options purchases per subscriber who purchased, representing 2600 shares each. Yet, consider the implications of taking this at face value. Joe Duarte, another financial advisor, lists ten newsletters dealing with option trading (www.joe-duarte.com/free/directory/options-newsletters.asp). Options Hotline does not happen to be one of them, perhaps suggesting that Sarnoff has no dominance. Search the web and get many more. Recommendations are being made by newsletters daily, weekly, monthly. If two to three percent of subscribers are following recommendations to buy put options on stocks, we should see many, many examples similar to what occurred for American on September 10, 2001. Therefore, what happened that day for American would be a rather common event, not a very unlikely one. That volume on American put options would not have shown up as unlikely, as a statistical matter. Absent informed trading, newsletters should be nothing more than instruments, rather than causes, of these market behaviors being analyzed. It is not only American, but, as we have seen, nine other put options showing spikes before September 11th. Chesney find only 37 such examples in a decade of some 1.5 million pieces of put-option data on fourteen companies, 13 of which were related to September 11th. These spikes should have been innocent of ex post shock events because spikes are to be always expected in random statistical outcomes. Instead, most are centered prior to shock events. Two Caveats Let me put one consideration to rest. Some critics of the 9/11 truth movement, such as Kay (2011), claim that the entire movement is filled with people who go down a rabbit hole, never willing to leave it. In this case, the suggested claim could be that Sarnoff himself should be added to a conspiracy about 9/11, added as soon as the government released in January 2009 its evidence as to who made what recommendation and with what effect regarding American on September 10. Such an approach would address the contradiction we have identified. But it would be at the expense of having no evidence for such an assertion. We wish to stay with evidence, evidence from the econometricians, the government, and anywhere else obtainable. In other words, we wish to push into the contradiction. Regarding evidence we have to be careful. For Boeing, Mike Williams, seeking to expose myths among skeptics of the official story of September 11th,, cites a Dutch article of September 11, 2006 placed on the site physics911.net (www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options#Boeing, accessed August 4, 2011). This article had made only a tangential mention to this airline manufacturer, thus representing no more the proverbial “straw man” – a data source is not even provided. Williams then provides a news report referring to one analyst’s public downgrading of Boeing on September 7th, apparently being unaware that put-options purchases cited by Poteshman were on United occurred on September 6th (as well as in Chesney as we shall see below).4 Among known skeptics of the official 9/11 story, discussion of option transactions at a site hosted by Jim Hoffman (http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html, accessed August 4, 2011) is embarrassingly out of date, mostly refers to 2001 stories, even though claiming an August 2007 update. Kevin Ryan (2010), followed by Mark Gaffney (2011) whose book Black 9/11 is due for release shortly, each attempt a recent survey, but seem unaware of the Commission documentation on insider trading released in January 2009. Discerning Evidence of Insider Trading before September 11th We now proceed to describe each of the econometric studies, the first being single-authored and the following two being triple-authored. The two first have been peer-reviewed and published in well-established journals, the third is planned for submission shortly, and has been a lengthy work-in-progress. The article by Poteshman in the Journal of Business well describes the problem at hand, and is applicable to all three works. Hinting at the end about his two-pronged approach that we will mention later, Poteshman writes that, in general, option market activity is motivated by a number of factors such as uninformed speculation (i.e., noise trading), hedging, trading on public information, and trading on private information. Consequently, when a statistic obtains a value that is extreme relative to its historical distribution, one can infer that there was an unusual amount of activity related to one or more of the option trading motivations. Although the statistics do not distinguish between trading motivations, if an extreme value is observed just before an important piece of news becomes public, then it is reasonable to infer that there was option market trading based on private information rather than a shock to the trading from one of the other motivations. Indeed, the fact that the statistic has obtained an extreme value indicates that a shock to trading from another motivation would have to be unusually large to account for the observed option market trading. Of course, it is possible that the typical option trading from the other motivations varies systematically with changes in the state of the option or underlying security market. This is the reason that conditional as well as unconditional distributions for the statistics will be computed in the next section. (Poteshman, 2006, pp. 1711-12) Analysis: The Econometric Evidence in Poteshman Each of the papers we cite has reference to data as quantiles. Quantiles are defined by the accumulation of the probabilities of occurrences of a random variable. A quantile at 50% would say that one half of the occurrences of random variable had already occurred over the frequency distribution and one half have yet to occur. A quantile at 95% would say that 19 out of 20 occurrences of the random variable had already occurred with 1 in 20 yet to occur; a quantile at 99% would report 99 out of 100 had already taken place. Thus, an event at a quantile of 95% would be rare, while at 99% would be quite rare. Poteshman’s work examines several measures for the probabilities of insider trading occurring, while addressing market options for American Airlines, United Airlines, the index for airline stocks, and the S&P 500. I summarize the easiest one of three to understand and the one he seems most comfortable exploring, i.e., the evidence regarding volumes of put-option contracts. This is measured by the change in a contract’s open interest from one day to the next day (purchases less sales less exercises of options) compared to the average of such change measured by a 126 trading day period, going backwards in time from 22 trading days before the date in question. This is also normalized for the standard deviations of those 126 trading days. The statistical results for the four trading days before September 11th are reported in Table 1. Table 1: Put-Option Market Volume Statistics before September 11th Volume Statistics Sept. 5 Sept. 6 Sept. 7 Sept. 10 AMR -.02 .08 .65 3.83 UAL -.12 1.45 1.23 .15 Airline Index -.13 .63 .66 .85 S&P 500 -.07 .25 .54 -.09 Source: Poteshman (2006, pp. 1720, Table 4) Poteshman compares these AMR and UAL statistics to his benchmark data for the 1,000 largest market capitalization firms for the dates from January 2, 1990 through September 4, 2001. Compared to the historical record of the large companies, the AMR datum for September 10th in the table has only a 1% probability of occurrence and the UAL datum of September 6 has a 4% probability of occurrence. The airline index datum for September 6th has a 6% probability of occurrence and the S&P datum for September 7th, a 5% probability. Poteshman also considers a four-trading day interval in addition to the daily values we report in Table 1. For those who consider this measure to be more appropriate, probabilities are somewhat less unlikely. In any case, the above results are not conditional upon any underlying factors and so Poteshman also introduces four conditioning factors, “total option volume, the return on the underlying asset, the abnormal trading volume of the underlying asset, and the return on the overall stock market” (p. 1716). He undertakes quantile regressions for these four factors. He obtains very similar results. Analysis: The Econometric Evidence in Wong, et al. The article by Wong et al. (2011, pp. 7-9) has the most detailed discussion of executions of option trading generally. It then undertakes a complex statistical investigation regarding S&P 500 option trading before September 11th, centering not only upon put options – whether they were purchased in-the-money (above the market, and thus costing a higher price), at-the-money (at the market level), or out-of-the-money (below the market). They also consider the type of strategy used, and also call options. Calls are the contractual right to purchase stocks for a determined “strike price” before an expiration date. They are a less obvious strategy for anticipating a decline in an asset price. Wong, et al., first contrast the 2001 period for contracts expiring on September 22, 2001 with the same September expiration in 2000, both being in declining market environments: for the period between January 1 and June 30, 2000, the S&P 500 declined 15 points, while for the period January 1 to June 30, 2001, the S&P 500 declined 96 points. They consider these as “control periods” (pp. 15-16). They find that “the trading volume for the SPX index put options during the control periods [i.e., January 1 to June 30] is not significantly different between 2001 and 2000 … the years 2000 and 2001 being similar in regard to option activity in a time period before intense trading began in September index put options” (p. 37). Furthering the comparison of 2001 to 2000, they examine a short sub-period after the S&P 500 closed at 1134 on August 31 to September 10, 2001 when it closed at 1093, a decline of 39 points in five trading days. A year earlier, the S&P 500 had closed at 1518 on August 31, 2000, while on September 8 (September 10 was a Sunday) it had closed at 1495, a decline of 23 points, also in five trading days. They find that “the mean and the standard deviation of the trading volumes for September 2001 contracts were more than double those for September 2000 contracts during sub-period [september 1 to September 10] for both call and put, but not so much during the other sub-periods” (p. 20). They also find many more extreme volumes in the 2001 period. They then investigate the various types of puts and calls able to be utilized, and also consider alternative strategies. Studying statistical results, they conclude that their findings show a significant abnormal increase in the trading volume in the option market just before 9-11 attacks in contrast with the absence of abnormal trading volume far before the attacks. This only constitutes circumstantial evidence that there were insiders who tried to profit from the options market in anticipation of the 9-11 attacks. More conclusive evidence is needed to prove definitively that insiders were indeed active in the market. Although we have discredited the possibility of abnormal volume due to declining market, such investigative work would still be a very involved exercise in view of the multitude of other confounding factors e.g. coincidence, confusing trading strategies intentionally employed by the insiders, noises from the activities of non-insiders. (p. 44) They do not claim definitive results, but rather significant statistical evidence of insider trading. Their procedure attempts to abstract from the fact of a declining overall market, an element that some have attempted as a basis for a counter-claim against evidence of insider trading. A counter-argument could begin by observing that August was an up-market in 2000 and down-market in 2001. We have not yet found relevant evidence about option market behaviors in down markets compared to up markets, so we merely state that no presumptions should be made without evidence. Wong et al. do not attempt to compare their results with Poteshman’s regarding the S&P 500. Poteshman had noted the fact that “the option volume on SPX options was more than 100 times greater than that on either AMR or UAL options. Consequently, it would be much more difficult to detect an option market bet …” (p. 1723). Wong, et al., concur: “any 9-11 insider would not trade directly the airline options in large volume to avoid drawing attention after the 9-11 attacks”. Since Wong et al. is a much more elaborate analysis for the S&P 500, we are entitled to infer that theirs is a more discriminating analysis. Analysis: The Econometric Evidence in Chesney, et al. Chesney, et al., offer the most detailed pieces of evidence. To understand what they are offering, first consider American Airlines (AMR) for the authors’ time period of January 1996 to April 2006. It is representative of their general methodology and they provide details for this particular example of so much concern within the 9/11 movement. Technical details are placed in footnotes as we move toward our Table 2 presentation of their results. Chesney, et al., start with the 137,000 AMR put-option contracts, i.e., about 54 possibilities per trading day over the ten-plus years of data they analyze (about 250 trading days per year). They first identify for each day that put-option contract across strike prices and expiration dates with largest increment in open interest. These 2560 data points are the more unusual. After accounting for intraday speculation , they record the prior two years of data for each time t, beginning in January 1998 and ending in April 2006. This leads to a measure qt, that denotes, for date t, the frequency such a value occurred based upon the prior historical record. They are referred to as probabilities(p. 9). For the AMR option on September 10, as one example, qt is reported as 1.2% (p. 35). This reflects 6 occurrences in the two years of 500 data points on and before that day. Generally for their study, qt must refer to data that had occurred no more than 5% of the time, i.e., no more than 25 times for the prior two years . A second, additional criterion attempts to account for hedging transactions – buying a put option to guard against a fall in an existing stock position, or buying stock to guard against a fall in a put-option’s value as the stock rises. They offer a rather complicated procedure, not elaborated here. The two criteria, as they report, reduce the considered spikes for AMR put options down to 141 instances (p. 17), still fairly considerable. Instead of stopping here, as a third criterion, Chesney, et al., focus upon the most profitable, using ex post information on the behavior of the stock price. Let rt be the option’s return at time t. The maximum return over the available contracts after time t is then represented by rtmax. AMR on September 10th had a put-option contract price of $2.15 for a $30 strike price and October 20, 2001 expiry. The maximum gain for that contract therefore turned out to be that exercised on September 17 as the stock price fell to a $18 close and the option price rose to $12, a $12 gain per contract on $2.15 invested, or 453%. That particular rtmax is reported in Chesney (p. 35, Table 2; also, p. 22 with a typo of 458%). Now, this third criterion is formulated as a pair of conditions that are presented here in a footnote . The introduction of this third criterion leads to only 5 incidents for AMR: May 10 and May 11, 2000, August 31 and September 10, 2001, and August 24, 2005, rather than 141 without this third criterion. For the entire set of fourteen companies studied, only 37 incidents are identified: 13 spikes identifiable before September 11th as reported in Table 2, 14 associated with earnings announcements (all but 4 beforehand, 2 on same day, 2 after), 6 associated with mergers and acquisitions (4 beforehand, 2 same day), and 4 not identified. In other words, spikes are being shown to relate to real events, most frequently anticipating them. The gains from exercising put options, reported in Table 2 for the 13 identified cases of informed trading before September 11th, do not depend upon the econometric procedure, but rather are factually based, close to the maximum possible. As seen, American purchases on September 10th are by no means the most profitable. The Merrill Lynch put-option purchase generated almost four times the subsequent gains as that for American. The extensive put purchases for Boeing were even more profitable. It could have been background for Sarnoff’s September 9th recommendation to his subscribers regarding American. That is, an option advisor’s knowledge of prior airline put-option purchases by others may be suggestive for his or her own recommendations. If the advisor turns out to be wrong, an explanation is at hand: “I was not alone”. In other words, evidence on American such as Poteshman’s and Chesney, et al.’s may not itself represent of insider trading at all. If correct, those other put options trades require the particularly careful investigations. Indeed, if a person actually had prior information about what was to happen on September 11th, why would he or she engage in put-option purchasing for the most obvious of choices, American and United, and subject himself or herself to easy detection? Table 2: Evidence of Informed Put-Option Purchases before September 11th Put Option 2001 Date Change in open interest Gain from exercising the put options Proxy for probability as an informed trade Boeing 29 Aug 2828 $1,972,534 0.998 Boeing 5 Sep 1499 1,805,929 0.998 Boeing 6 Sep 7105 2,704,701 0.998 Merrill Lynch 10 Sep 5615 4,407,171 0.998 J.P. Morgan 30 Aug 3145 1,318,638 0.998 J.P. Morgan 6 Sep 4778 1,415,825 0.998 Citigrroup 30 Aug 4373 2,045,940 0.998 United 6 Sep 1494 1,980,387 0.998 American 31 Aug 473 662,200 0.984 American 10 Sep 1312 1,179,171 0.998 Bank of America 7 Sep 3380 1,774,525 0.994 Delta 29 Aug 202 328,200 0.998 KLM 5 Sep 100 53,976 0.998 Source: Chesney, et al. (2010, p. 35, Table 2 and p. 38, Table 4) What the prior paragraph is suggesting is that spikes in put-option purchases are not independent events, but, in actuality, can be interrelated. We would thus have to pull back from a conclusion of having ten random pieces of data and then claiming the joint probability of their occurrences to be “astronomically low”. The joint probability would still be very low, but not “astronomically low”. In this case, Boeing put-option purchasing moves to the center of attention, not just for the magnitude of profits reported in the table, but as possible background leading to put-option purchasing on American a few days later. As to the United put-option purchasing, the SEC reports that it was related to a large stock purchase of American stock by the same investor. Poteshman did not find the option purchase to be highly improbable on a random basis. Chesney, et al.’s procedure for delimiting hedging transactions would not capture such an example of purchasing American stock while also purchasing put-options on United. In sum, we are willing to accept the SEC’s reporting about American and United Airlines and not consider them to represent evidence of insider trading. Nothing else do we accept, as these have been the only pieces of evidence on the issue of insider trading put forward publicly from SEC investigations. Specifically, Boeing as well as Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America deserve careful attention as a result of Chesney, et al.’s work. Nevertheless, we have been warned regarding what can be held back by the government and then released years later (cf. American). Should the movement for discovering the truth about September 11th jump too quickly with accusations, it can backfire. The total gains without United and American reported in Table 2, and then also including other individual stocks not yet analyzed by Chesney, should fall short of $30 million in total. This level is reported in order to keep in mind the maximum potential of insider put-option trading benefits before September 11th. We are not claiming that that much actually occurred. Insider trading could have occurred in individual stocks as Chesney, et al., find, and also served as unsuspecting background to investors and their advisors for United and American put-option purchases. Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America For Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, and Bank of America we have been unable to find public news motivating large put-option purchases for them before the dates found in Chesney, et al.’s research. Note that the cited downgrade of Boeing (see http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010908&slug=boeing08, accessed August 20, 2011) came after the dates cited. In any case, research work by Chesney, et al., fails to suggest spikes in put-option trading occurring merely due to rating changes by analysts of corporations. Indeed, 33 of theirs are associated with September 11th, or earnings announcements, or mergers and acquisitions; only 4 remain unidentified. Concluding Recommendations •United and American ought not be recognized as direct insider trading. Nevertheless, by themselves, they convey little of the larger question. •Ken Breen, Department of Justice, reported to the Commission in another interview released in 2009 that, for put-options on indexes, “the volume is so great that analysis proved impossible”. Therefore, Wong’s result regarding the S&P 500 is not contested in the background reports to the 9/11 Commission, despite what the Commission asserted. This fact needs to be asserted. •To the best of my knowledge, none of the three econometric methodologies and results has been contested in the professional literature. Typically, controversial results generate opposition. We have attempted to convey enough of three separate methodologies to be convincing that they are solid scientific works. Therefore, accept the econometric research results as meritorious. •Demand that the SEC publicly report the details of its findings on Boeing, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, Delta, and S&P 500 index put-option trading before September 11th. This reporting should be at least as detailed as that already released for American and United. •Add to that demand of the SEC any additional corporations exhibiting evidence of insider trading before September 11th, e.g., in the expanded material Chesney, et al., plan to release shortly. In addition: •Promote an independent investigation into the events of September 11th, inclusive of subpoena powers, that includes investigations of put-option purchasing. •Incorporate into that independent investigation the financial issues we have cited, but not examined, in our introduction, most of them having billions of dollars at stake. References Arvedlund, Erin E. (2001), “Follow the Money: Terrorist conspirators could have profited more from fall of entire market than single stocks”, Barron’s, October 8. Chesney, Marc (2010), Remo Crameri, and Loriano Mancini, “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets”, April 15, 2010, at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1522157. Gaffney, Mark H. (2011), “Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side” (Second in a series), Foreign Policy Journal, March 2, at www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/02/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side-2/0/, accessed August 5, 2011. Griffin, David R. (2005), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Northampton, MA: Interlink. Kay, Jonathan (2011), Among the Truthers, Toronto: HarperCollins. Poteshman, Allen M. (2006), “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, Journal of Business, Vol. 79, pp. 1703-1726. Ryan, Kevin (2010), “Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11”, Foreign Policy Journal, November 18 , at www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/11/18/evidence-for-informed-trading-on-the-attacks-of-september-11/, accessed August 5, 2011. Wong, Wing-Keung, Howard E. Thompson, and Kweehong The (2011), “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”, Multinational Finance Journal, Vol. 15, no. 1/2, pp. 1–46 at http://mfs.rutgers.edu/MFJ/Articles-pdf/V15N12p1.pdf. Zarembka, Paul (2008), “Initiation of the 9-11 Operation, with Evidence of Insider Trading Beforehand”, The Hidden History of 9-11, P. Zarembka, editor, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2nd edition, pp. 47-74 (1st edition, Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 2006). 1 The January 14, 2009 date was reported to this author on July 25, 2011 by Kristen Wilhelm of the Center for Legislative Archives as follows: “The 9/11 Commission's Joseph Cella Memoranda for the Record were scanned and uploaded to the NARA Archival Research Catalog for the opening of the 9/11 Commission records on Jan. 14, 2009.” See also the NARA prior notice of the general opening at www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2009/nr09-41.html. It may be of some interest that attention was drawn to this release on the very day of January 14 (see the January 15 posting at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/01/more-on-911-put-options.html, and its link to postings on January 14 at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=132904&page=2, both accessed August 12, 2011. Thanks are offered to “lapman” and “Mike W” – the latter being presumably Mike Williams given his later reference to this release). Williams receives further attention in the course of this article. 2 Another 75 trade is also cited for another contract not in contention. 3 This recommendation was for the put-option contract with a $30 strike price to expire on October 20, 2001. It read as follows: September 9, 2001 Vol. 12, No. 28 Stocks Skid On A Jump In The Jobless Rate. This Week, We Take To The Air This past week, stocks were pressed to the downside – with the highlight being Friday's blue chip decline. Wall Street was surprised by a spike, to a four-year high, in the jobless rate. And the market took its lumps. This week, I see opportunity for you to have fun and profit with an airline play. So, without further ado, here's… This Week's Option Recommendation Buy the AMR October $30 put for $170 [100 shares for $1.70 per share, P.Z.], or less, good this week. Shares of AMR Corp. trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "AMR". The symbol for this option reco is "AMRVF". American Airlines closed the week at $30.15. The 52-week range for AMR is $27.62-$43.93. My downside price target is $22-$26. The major airline is under pressure. At $25, each $30 put would have $500 of intrinsic value. If AMR is at or above $30 on the third Friday in October, your option will expire worthless. That is your risk. Set your stop-loss at $100, to preserve capital, in case my expectations go awry. That's buy the AMR October $30 put for $170, or less, good this week. – www.911myths.com/index.php/Put_Options#Options_Hotline , accessed 719/2011 4 Within the same discussion, Williams cites many reports of put-option volumes without those using accurate data. Some reported data are about double the actual levels, presumably due to author errors in understanding Optionmetric data which considers the buy and sell sides of one transaction to be distinct. If one is going to criticize, focusing upon those arguing for insider trading using correct data to make their cases seems preferable. “The main motivation for considering increments in open interests is the following. Large volumes do not necessarily imply that large buy orders are executed because the same put option could be traded several times during the day. In contrast large increments in open interest are originated by large buy orders. These increments also imply that other long investors are unwilling to close their positions forcing the market maker to issue new put options.” (Chesney, et al., pp. 8-9) In order to abstract from intraday speculation, they compare daily changes in open interest to the reported volumes of transactions (the difference between the two should be small). In other words, purchases are to dominant, with sales or exercises of options small. This calculation could seem to suggest 103 times in eight and one-quarter years beginning in January 1998. But a stock like AMR stock price fell considerably from April 2002 to a low of $1.25 within one year thereafter implying much higher volumes then required for similar dollar option positions. Actually, AMR closed at $17.90 on both September 21 and 27 before the October 20 option expiration; the $18.00 on September 17 was not quite the lowest. However, presumably the option price was the highest on September 17. Let Gt be the cumulative gains achieved through the exercises of the selected option in the shortest time available from the day of the calculated maximum up to ten trading days thereafter. Chesney’s third criterion is then offered as a pair of conditions for the option trade in question, that is, • rtmax ≥ q0.90(rtmax) and •Gt ≥ q0.98(Gt). The quantiles at day t for the rtmax and Gt distributions – q0.90(rtmax ) and q0.98(Gt) – are computed using the preceding two years of data. These criteria are the quantiles for the top 10% of initial profiting and top 2% of total gains. +++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++ ** PART TWO ** +++++++++++++++++++++++ PART TWO ----------- Name HOWARD E THOMPSON E-mail hthompson@bus.wisc.edu Phone Title EMERITUS Division SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Department SCHOOL OF BUSINESS Unit FINANCE -------------- + 72 Scholar articles here for Howard E. Thompson http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=&num=10&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22HOWARD+E+THOMPSON%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1&as_subj=bus&as_subj=soc&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&btnG=Search+Scholar&hl=en @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side Second in a series by Mark H. Gaffney March 2, 2011 http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/02/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side-2/2/ [27] Wing-Keung Wong, et al, “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?,” Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks? Wing-Keung Wong Hong Kong Baptist University (HKBU) Howard E. Thompson University of Wisconsin - Madison - School of Business Kweehong Teh National University of Singapore (NUS) April 13, 2010 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523 @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

COLBY ATTACKS RUPPERT ITS OK,COME AFTER COLBY " ITS WRONG !!" COLBY VS COLBY AGAIN Colby wrong on insider trading foreknowledge 911. ANOTHER == COLBY FAIL COLBY FAIL COLBY FAIL ============================== INSIDER TRADING BEFORE 911 (that FOREKNOWLEDGE) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/76605 audio talk ============================= Guns and Butter, for January 4, 2012 - 1:00pm Click to Play: Download this clip (mp3, 10.28 megabytes) Play this clip in your Computer's media player Link: Embed: Guns and Butter "Evidence of Insider Trading Before 9/11" with Paul Zarembka. Informed Trading; Insider Trading; Put Options; The Journal of Business; The 9/11 Commission Report; three scientific studies on insider trading; Professor Potasman Study from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Open Interest; Exercising Put Options; Quintile; Hedging; University of Wisconsin, Madison Study; Chesney Study; Conclusion. ++++++++++++++ BTW Though in GG Allin interview some jokes. We only have your word thats its in jest...... ================================= Colby fail Oh yeah then Colby says LOL.

You say you want a revolution Well, you know http://sherriequestioningall.blogspot.com/2012/03/bric-nations-brazil-russia-india-china.html ----------------------------- BEATLES ======= You say you want a revolution Well, you know We all want to change the world You tell me that it's evolution Well, you know We all want to change the world But when you talk about destruction Don't you know that you can count me out Don't you know it's gonna be all right All right, all right You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan You ask me for a contribution Well, you know We're doing what we can But when you want money For people with minds that hate All I can tell is brother you have to wait Don't you know it's gonna be all right All right, all right Ah Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah... You say you'll change the constitution Well, you know We all want to change your head You tell me it's the institution Well, you know You better free you mind instead But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow Don't you know it's gonna be all right All right, all right All right, all right, all right All right, all right, all right

COLBY//I haven't had time to check their data and calculations but even if they are correct the net US loss from the pact would be about 2000 jobs, negligible in a country with over 300 million people. It would also lower prices on goods for millions of Americans, increasing their living standards and allowing them to buy more products and thus presumably generating some jobs. --------0-------------- COLBY// So Obama is responsible for municipal laws? His plate is quite full right now don't you think? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Helping hungry people a small issue ,you contend ??? Small issue ?????? Wasnt Trayvon Martin a small issue ? Obama spoke out on Martin issue. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002480696 ===============ooo====================== SCORES OF ARTICLE ON TRADE BY Robert E. Scott http://www.epi.org/people/robert-e-scott/ ================= Robert E. Scott Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy Research High-resolution Areas of expertise International economics • Trade agreements • Global finance • Economic impacts of foreign investment and “insourcing” • Industry studies Biography Dr. Scott joined the Economic Policy Institute as an international economist in 1996. Before that, he was an assistant professor with the College of Business and Management of the University of Maryland at College Park. His areas of research include international economics and trade agreements and their impacts on working people in the U.S. and other countries, the economic impacts of foreign investment, and the macroeconomic effects of trade and capital flows. His research has been published in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, The International Review of Applied Economics, and The Stanford Law and Policy Review, and he has written editorial pieces for The Los Angeles Times, Newsday, USA Today, The Baltimore Sun, The Washington Times, and other newspapers. Education Ph.D. Economics, University of California at Berkeley, 1989 B.S. Engineering, Washington University (St. Louis), 1975 ---------------------------------------------- ooooo======ooooo Economic impacts of a Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement ---------------- http://www.epi.org/publication/economic_impacts_of_a_korea-u-s-_free_trade_agreement/ === DOWN LOAD PDF FILE AT THIS SITE --------------- Free Trade Agreement with Korea will cost U.S. jobs ooooo======ooooo http://www.epi.org/publication/free_trade_agreement_with_korea_will_cost_u-s-_jobs/ ========================================= ################# ################# ################# Lefty Obama THREAD CONTINUES ---------------------- Workers face loss of more than 100,000 jobs as Obama joins attack on postal service by World Socialist Web Site ------oooooo------ooooooooo http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29905 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ RELATED Amidst the Deepest Slump since the Great Depression, Obama is Touting an "Economic Recovery" World Socialist web 3/28/12 by Barry Grey ================== While the United States remains mired in the deepest slump since the Great Depression, President Barack Obama is touting a modest improvement in employment over the past several months to boost his electoral prospects in November. The three-month period from December through February has, according to the Labor Department, seen a net gain of 744,000 jobs, the largest for any three-month stretch since 2006. The official jobless rate has fallen from 9.1 percent in September to 8.3 percent in February. It is necessary to place these gains within the context of the catastrophic collapse in employment that followed the Wall Street crash of 2008, which has left the US economy with 5 million fewer jobs than at the official start of the recession in December 2007. At the height of the crash, US businesses were cutting more than 744,000 jobs every month. While the US economy added 335,000 net new manufacturing jobs in 2010 and 2011 combined, it lost 1.6 million manufacturing jobs between January 2008 and March 2009, a reduction of 10 percent. The current level of 12 million manufacturing jobs is down 7.5 million from its peak in 1979. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, speaking Monday at a business conference in Washington DC, was notably cautious about the recent upturn in employment figures. He suggested that the improvement in the labor market could not be sustained at the current rate of economic growth. “A significant portion of the improvement in the labor market has reflected a decline in layoffs rather than an increase in hiring,” he said, adding, “Conditions remain far from normal, as shown, for example, by the high level of long-term unemployment and the fact that jobs and hours remain well below pre-crisis peaks, even without adjusting for growth in the labor force.” What Obama and his supporters in the trade union apparatus conceal is the basis for the modest growth in jobs in general, and manufacturing jobs in particular. The president hinted at the question when he spoke last month at the Master Lock factory in Milwaukee. “Our job as a nation,” he declared, “is to do everything we can to make the decision to insource more attractive for more companies.” What Obama has been doing is spearheading an intensified assault on the working class. He has escalated the attack on working class living standards that has been underway for more than three decades, focusing on a drastic and permanent reduction in wages and benefits. There have been several stages in this process. In the months immediately following the financial meltdown in September 2008, US corporations carried out massive layoffs, using unemployment as a weapon to bludgeon the working class into accepting unprecedented concessions. Big business employed new technology (automation, computerization) as well as speedup to cut costs and rapidly return to record profits on the basis of a smaller work force, despite lagging sales and revenues. Obama’s forced restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler in 2009 ushered in a wave of wage- and benefit-cutting throughout the private sector. The bailout of the auto giants was predicated on the agreement of the United Auto Workers union to impose a 50 percent wage cut and the gutting of pensions and benefits for all newly hired workers. This set a new benchmark of $12-$15 an hour for US auto workers, previously among the highest paid manufacturing workers in the world, reducing wages to near-poverty levels. Beginning in 2010, the wage-cutting attack was extended to public-sector workers, who were hit with massive layoffs and cuts in wages, pensions and health care by state and local governments, with the support of the White House. The results of this government-corporate offensive are reflected in statistics on wages, labor costs and income. According to a census report released in September 2011, real median household income fell 2.3 percent in 2010, to a level 7.1 percent below that reached a decade before. US manufacturing labor costs per unit of output in 2010 were 13 percent lower than a decade earlier. If a portion of the manufacturing jobs that were previously moved to China and other low-wage havens are being brought back to the US, it is because the wages they pay have plummeted so far and the differential has so dramatically narrowed that the corporations can make higher profits by exploiting their “own” workers than by going overseas. As the CEO of GE Consumer & Industrial, James Campbell, told the New York Times last month, “making things in America is as viable as making things any place” because domestic labor costs are now “significantly less, with the competitive wages” now accepted by American workers. The overall result of the Obama recovery, besides the impoverishment of ever wider layers of the working class, is a further staggering growth of social inequality. One stark metric of the decline in the social position of the American working class is the fact that in the third quarter of 2011, the share of the US gross domestic product going to corporate profits was at its highest (10.3 percent) since the 1960s, and the share going to wages was at its lowest (45.3 percent) on record. In officially announcing the AFL-CIO’s support for Obama’s reelection earlier this month, the union federation president, Richard Trumka, denounced the frontrunner for the Republican nomination, Mitt Romney, declaring, “Everything he’s done helps the 1 percent.” A Reuters article published March 15 provides statistical proof that when it comes to helping the top 1 percent at the expense of everyone else, Obama takes a back seat to no one. The article notes that the movement of US incomes during the Obama “recovery” contrasts sharply with that which occurred in 1934, during the Great Depression. The 1934 rebound saw strong income gains for the bottom 90 percent of earners and a decline for the super-rich (the top 0.01 percent). The year 2010, saw the opposite. The income of the super-rich ($23.8 million on average) rose by 21.5 percent over the previous year, while that of the bottom 90 percent fell by 0.4 percent. National income rose overall in 2010, but all of the gains went to the top 10 percent. Just 15,600 super-rich households pocketed an astonishing 37 percent of the entire national gain. The article further reports that the top 1 percent’s share of real income growth has increased with each economic expansion, regardless of whether a Democrat or Republican was in the White House. The top 1 percent captured 45 percent of Clinton-era income growth, 65 percent of Bush-era growth, and 93 percent of Obama-era growth, through 2010. These facts demonstrate the existence in the US of a plutocracy that controls the Democrats and Republicans and the entire political system. Its deadly grip can be broken only by an independent political movement of the working class, fighting for workers’ power and socialism.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gee I know of no connection to child molestation and Ruppert. PLEASE INFORM US OF THIS. This is an odd comment and focus. Why do you bring this up ?? I do know that there was a hint of CHILD molestation of a former GG ALLIN associate who went to Brazil to have sex with 14 year old boys. ------ooo----------- GG ALLIN'S LAST INTERVIEW EVER http://www.oocities.org/kissingtheflames/gginterview1.htm (from interview) GG: He had a girl and... I wanna say one thing about Bill Webber that I forgot to say in Detroit. Bill Webber got the Len Colby award. Evan: The Golden Len Colby award. GG: The Golden Lenny award for the most xuck-ups on one tour. Evan: Lenny is now in Brazil having sex with 14 year old boys or something, we hear. GG: I'm jelous. ++++++++++++++++ An Irresponsible Response http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/irresponsible-response.html'>http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/irresponsible-response.html ================ ================ Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-joseph-nobles-7-problems-with.html'>http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-joseph-nobles-7-problems-with.html ================ ================ 9/11 Truth Now http://www.youtube.com/user/citizenfor911truth1/featured ################ ################ main site =====v===== http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/

FABRICATION A MOSSAD common Modus operandi FABRICATING A "SMOKING GUN" TO ATTACK IRAN? Israeli Spies Disguised as Iranian Soldiers on Mission Inside Iran by Julie Lévesque ======================================== http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29981 Global Research, March 27, 2012 ---------------------------------------- A report published in The Sunday Times on March 25 suggests that “Israel is using a permanent base in Iraqi Kurdistan to launch cross-border intelligence missions in an attempt to find ‘smoking gun’ evidence that Iran is building a nuclear warhead.” (Israeli spies scour Iran in nuclear hunt, The Sunday Times, March 25, 2012) Western sources told the Times Israel was monitoring “radioactivity and magnitude of explosives tests” and that “special forces used Black Hawk helicopters to carry commandos disguised as members of the Iranian military and using Iranian military vehicles”. The sources believe “Iranians are trying to hide evidence of warhead tests in preparation for a possible IAEA visit”. (Cited in Report: Israeli soldiers scour Iran for nukes, Ynet, March 25, 2012) The number of Israeli intelligence missions at the Parchin military base in Iran has increased in the past few months, according to the article. During that period, Tehran has been negotiating with the IAEA which had requested to visit Parchin. According to Iran's permanent representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, both parties had agreed in early February that the visit would take place in March. (Gareth Porter, Details of Talks with IAEA Belie Charge Iran Refused Cooperation, IPS, March 21, 2012) The IAEA requested to visit Parchin in late January and late February, after having agreed to a visit in March. The IAEA thus requested to visit the military complex exactly at the same time Israel was intensifying its secret operations to allegedly search for a “smoking gun”. A few years ago it has been suggested that Israel was the source of fake intelligence, a stolen laptop, related to Iran’s alleged nuclear program. The New York Times reported in 2005 on what was presented as “the strongest evidence” Iran was building nuclear weapons: American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran's insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East. (William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran's Nuclear Aims - New York Times, November 13, 2005) In 2010, an investigative report suggested that those documents were fake: The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar "dunce cap" shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s [...] The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned [...] The origin of the laptop documents may never be proven conclusively, but the accumulated evidence points to Israel as the source. As early as 1995, the head of the Israel Defense Forces' military intelligence research and assessment division, Yaakov Amidror, tried unsuccessfully to persuade his American counterparts that Iran was planning to "go nuclear." By 2003-2004, Mossad's reporting on the Iranian nuclear program was viewed by high-ranking CIA officials as an effort to pressure the Bush administration into considering military action against Iran's nuclear sites, according to Israeli sources cited by a pro-Israeli news service." (Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010). The fact that Israeli intelligence officers were on a secret mission in Parchin, dressed up as Iranians and driving Iranian military vehicles, while the IAEA was pressuring Tehran to visit that precise location, raises serious questions. The stated goal of those secret missions is the search for a smoking gun. The smoking gun allegations regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction have proven that such evidence can be fabricated and used to launch so-called pre-emptive wars.

VIDEO INTERVIEW OF WRITER POST #2 THIS THREAD (mostly about 911 and also problems with German Gold reserves) ---------------------------------o------------------------------------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu47Thq2skE&feature=player_embedded#!

Please point to where the unnamed authors of this report actually demonstrated what they claimed as to opposed to simply saying they had. ######################## ######################## ######################## I already GAVE THIS LINK above in the post in question. http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/08/incorrect_numbers_continue_to_pop_up_in_trade_reporting_trade-ifact_iii.html At this link above in the sentence "we show here, it is derived from applying an incorrect methodology to an incorrect number (bilateral export", the word "here" is in blue. CLICK word here and you go to link below. http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2010/08/department-of-bogus-jobs-statistics.html ############################################## ############################################## ############################################## LEFTY OBAMA THREAD CONTINUES ----------------o---------------------o--------------------o------------------ Feeding The Homeless BANNED In Major Cities All Over America OBAMA SO FAR SILENT ABOUT THIS TREND ==============o================ http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/feeding-the-homeless-banned-in-major-cities-all-over-america What would you do if you came across someone on the street that had not had anything to eat for several days? Would you give that person some food? Well, the next time you get that impulse you might want to check if it is still legal to feed the homeless where you live. Sadly, feeding the homeless has been banned in major cities all over America. Other cities that have not banned it outright have put so many requirements on those that want to feed the homeless (acquiring expensive permits, taking food preparation courses, etc.) that feeding the homeless has become “out of reach” for most average people. Some cities are doing these things because they are concerned about the “health risks” of the food being distributed by ordinary “do-gooders”. Other cities are passing these laws because they do not want homeless people congregating in city centers where they know that they will be fed. But at a time when poverty and government dependence are soaring to unprecedented levels, is it really a good idea to ban people from helping those that are hurting? -----------------oooooooo---------------------- related http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-22/philadelphia-regulates-brotherly-love-to-curb-homeless-picnics.html http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/20/too-dumb-to-check-bloomberg-blocks-food-donations-for-homeless-due-to-salt-and-fat-content/

REALTED +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Insider trading 9/11 … the facts laid bare -------------------o------------------------ März 20th, 2012 Kommentare deaktiviert AN ASIA TIMES ONLINE EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION: There can be no dispute that speculative trade in put options – where a party bets that a stock will drop abruptly in value – spiked in the days around September 11, 2001 – even if the US Securities and Exchange Commission and the 9/11 Commission will not say so. More than a few people must have had advance warning of the terror attacks, and they cashed in to the tune of millions of dollars. By Lars Schall The following article was published first at Asia Times Online under: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NC21Dj05.html --------------o--------------- Is there any truth in the allegations that informed circles made substantial profits in the financial markets in connection to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, on the United States? Arguably, the best place to start is by examining put options, which occurred around Tuesday, September 11, 2001, to an abnormal extent, and at the beginning via software that played a key role: the Prosecutor’s Management Information System, abbreviated as PROMIS. PROMIS is a software program that seems to be fitted with almost “magical” abilities. Furthermore, it is the subject of a decades-long dispute between its inventor, Bill Hamilton, and various people/institutions associated with intelligence agencies, military and security consultancy firms. [1] One of the “magical” capabilities of PROMIS, one has to assume, is that it is equipped with artificial intelligence and was apparently from the outset “able to simultaneously read and integrate any number of different computer programs or databases, regardless of the language in which the original programs had been written or the operating systems and platforms on which that database was then currently installed.” [2] And then it becomes really interesting: What would you do if you possessed software that could think, understand every major language in the world, that provided peep-holes into everyone else’s computer “dressing rooms”, that could insert data into computers without people’s knowledge, that could fill in blanks beyond human reasoning, and also predict what people do – before they did it? You would probably use it, wouldn’t you? [3] Granted, these capabilities sound hardly believable. In fact, the whole story of PROMIS, which Mike Ruppert develops in the course of his book Crossing the Rubicon in all its bizarre facets and turns, seems as if someone had developed a novel in the style of Philip K Dick and William Gibson. However, what Ruppert has collected about PROMIS is based on reputable sources as well as on results of personal investigations, which await a jury to take a first critical look at. This seems all the more urgent if you add to the PROMIS capabilities “that it was a given that PROMIS was used for a wide variety of purposes by intelligence agencies, including the real-time monitoring of stock transactions on all the world´s major financial markets”. [4] We are therefore dealing with a software that a) Infiltrates computer and communication systems without being noticed. Can manipulate data. c) Is capable to track the global stock market trade in real time. Point c is relevant to all that happened in connection with the never completely cleared up transactions that occurred just before September 11, [5] and of which the former chairman of the Deutsche Bundesbank Ernst Weltke said “could not have been planned and carried out without a certain knowledge”. [6] I specifically asked financial journalist Max Keiser, who for years had worked on Wall Street as a stock and options trader, about the put option trades. Keiser pointed out in this context that he “had spoken with many brokers in the towers of the World Trade Center around that time. I heard firsthand about the airline put trade from brokers at Cantor Fitzgerald days before.” He then talked with me about an explosive issue, on which Ruppert elaborated in detail in Crossing the Rubicon. Max Keiser: There are many aspects concerning these option purchases that have not been disclosed yet. I also worked at Alex Brown & Sons (ABS). Deutsche Bank bought Alex Brown & Sons in 1999. When the attacks occurred, ABS was owned by Deutsche Bank. An important person at ABS was Buzzy Krongard. I have met him several times at the offices in Baltimore. Krongard had transferred to become executive director at the CIA. The option purchases, in which ABS was involved, occurred in the offices of ABS in Baltimore. The noise which occurred between Baltimore, New York City and Langley was interesting, as you can imagine, to say the least. Under consideration here is the fact that Alex Brown, a subsidiary of Deutsche Bank (where many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers handled their banking transactions – for example Mohammed Atta) traded massive put options purchases on United Airlines Company UAL through the Chicago Board Option Exchange (CBOE) – “to the embarrassment of investigators”, as British newspaper The Independent reported. [7] On September 12, the chairman of the board of Deutsche Bank Alex Brown, Mayo A Shattuck III, suddenly and quietly renounced his post, although he still had a three-year contract with an annual salary of several million US dollars. One could perceive that as somehow strange. A few weeks later, the press spokesperson of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) at that time, Tom Crispell, declined all comments, when he was contacted for a report for Ruppert´s website From the Wilderness, and had being asked “whether the Treasury Department or FBI [Federal Bureau of Investigation] had questioned CIA executive director and former Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown CEO [chief executive officer], A B ‘Buzzy’ Krongard, about CIA monitoring of financial markets using PROMIS and his former position as overseer of Brown’s ‘private client’ relations.” [8] Just before he was recruited personally by former CIA chief George Tenet for the CIA, Krongard supervised mainly private client banking at Alex Brown. [9] In any case, after 9/11 on the first trading day, when the US stock markets were open again, the stock price of UAL declined by 43%. (The four aircraft hijacked on September 11 were American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77 and UAL flights 175 and 93.) With his background as a former options trader, Keiser explained an important issue to me in that regard. Max Keiser: Put options are, if they are employed in a speculative trade, basically bets that stock prices will drop abruptly. The purchaser, who enters a time-specific contract with a seller, does not have to own the stock at the time when the contract is purchased. Related to the issue of insider trading via (put or call) options there is also a noteworthy definition by the Swiss economists Remo Crameri, Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, notably that an option trade may be “identified as informed” – but is not yet (legally) proven – “when it is characterized by an unusual large increment in open interest and volume, induces large gains, and is not hedged in the stock market”. [10] Open interest describes contracts which have not been settled (been exercised) by the end of the trading session, but are still open. Not hedged in the stock market means that the buyer of a (put or call) option holds no shares of the underlying asset, by which he might be able to mitigate or compensate losses if his trade doesn’t work out, or phrased differently: one does not hedge, because it is unnecessary, since one knows that the bet is one, pardon, “dead sure thing.” (In this respect it is thus not really a bet, because the result is not uncertain, but a foregone conclusion.) In this case, the vehicle of the calculation was “ridiculously cheap put options which give the holder the ‘right’ for a period of time to sell certain shares at a price which is far below the current market price – which is a highly risky bet, because you lose money if at maturity the market price is still higher than the price agreed in the option. However, when these shares fell much deeper after the terrorist attacks, these options multiplied their value several hundred times because by now the selling price specified in the option was much higher than the market price. These risky games with short options are a sure indication for investors who knew that within a few days something would happen that would drastically reduce the market price of those shares.” [11] Software such as PROMIS in turn is used with the precise intent to monitor the stock markets in real time to track price movements that appear suspicious. Therefore, the US intelligence services must have received clear warnings from the singular, never before sighted transactions prior to 9/11. Of great importance with regard to the track, which should lead to the perpetrators if you were seriously contemplating to go after them, is this: Max Keiser: The Options Clearing Corporation has a duty to handle the transactions, and does so rather anonymously – whereas the bank that executes the transaction as a broker can determine the identity of both parties. But that may have hardly ever been the intention of the regulatory authorities when the track led to, amongst others, Alvin Bernard “Buzzy” Krongard, Alex Brown & Sons and the CIA. Ruppert, however, describes this case in Crossing the Rubicon in full length as far as possible. [12] In addition, there are also ways and means for insiders to veil their tracks. In order to be less obvious, “the insiders could trade small numbers of contracts. These could be traded under multiple accounts to avoid drawing attention to large trading volumes going through one single large account. They could also trade small volumes in each contract but trade more contracts to avoid drawing attention. As open interest increases, non-insiders may detect a perceived signal and increase their trading activity. Insiders can then come back to enter into more transactions based on a seemingly significant trade signal from the market. In this regard, it would be difficult for the CBOE to ferret out the insiders from the non-insiders, because both are trading heavily.” [13] The matter which needs clarification here is generally judged by Keiser as follows: Max Keiser: My thought is that many (not all) of those who died on 9/11 were financial mercenaries – and we should feel the same about them as we feel about all mercenaries who get killed. The tragedy is that these companies mixed civilians with mercenaries, and that they were also killed. So have companies on Wall Street used civilians as human shields maybe? According to a report by Bloomberg published in early October 2001, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began a probe into certain stock market transactions around 9/11 that included 38 companies, among them: American Airlines, United Airlines, Continental Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Boeing, Lockheed Martin Corp., American Express Corp., American International Group, AXA SA, Bank of America Corp., Bank of New York Corp., Bear Stearns, Citigroup, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley, General Motors and Raytheon. [14] So far, so good. In the same month, however, the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper reported that the SEC took the unprecedented step to deputize hundreds, if not even thousands of key stakeholders in the private sector for their investigation. In a statement that was sent to almost all listed companies in the US, the SEC asked the addressed companies to assign senior staff for the investigation, who would be aware of “the sensitive nature” of the case and could be relied on to “exercise appropriate discretion”. [15] In essence, it was about controlling information, not about provision and disclosure of facts. Such a course of action involves compromising consequences. Ruppert: What happens when you deputize someone in a national security or criminal investigation is that you make it illegal for them to disclose publicly what they know. Smart move. In effect, they become government agents and are controlled by government regulations rather than their own conscience. In fact, they can be thrown into jail without a hearing if they talk publicly. I have seen this implied threat time after time with federal investigators, intelligence agents, and even members of United States Congress who are bound so tightly by secrecy oaths and agreements that they are not even able to disclose criminal activities inside the government for fear of incarceration. [16] Among the reports about suspected insider trading which are mentioned in Crossing the Rubicon/From the Wilderness is a list that was published under the heading “Black Tuesday: The World’s Largest Insider Trading Scam?” by the Israeli Herzliyya International Policy Institute for Counterterrorism on September 21, 2001: Between September 6 and 7, the CBOE saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these “insiders” would have profited by almost $5 million. On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent “insiders”, they would represent a gain of about $4 million. [The levels of put options purchased above were more than six times higher than normal.] No similar trading in other airlines occurred on the Chicago exchange in the days immediately preceding Black Tuesday. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co, which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday; this compares to an average of 27 contracts per day before September 6. Morgan Stanley’s share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000 of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at least $1.2 million. Merrill Lynch & Co, with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day (a 1200% increase). When trading resumed, Merrill’s shares fell from $46.88 to $41.50; assuming that 11,000 option contracts were bought by “insiders”, their profit would have been about $5.5 million. European regulators are examining trades in Germany’s Munich Re, Switzerland’s Swiss Re, and AXA of France, all major reinsurers with exposure to the Black Tuesday disaster. (Note: AXA also owns more than 25% of American Airlines stock, making the attacks a “double whammy” for them.) [17] Concerning the statements of the former chairman of the Deutsche Bundesbank Ernst Welteke, their tenor in various press reports put together is as follows: German central bank president Ernst Welteke later reports that a study by his bank indicates, “There are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge,” not only in shares of heavily affected industries such as airlines and insurance companies, but also in gold and oil. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] His researchers have found “almost irrefutable proof of insider trading”. [Miami Herald, 9/24/2001] “If you look at movements in markets before and after the attack, it makes your brow furrow. But it is extremely difficult to really verify it.” Nevertheless, he believes that “in one or the other case it will be possible to pinpoint the source”. [Fox News, 9/22/2001] Welteke reports “a fundamentally inexplicable rise” in oil prices before the attacks [Miami Herald, 9/24/2001] and then a further rise of 13 percent the day after the attacks. Gold rises nonstop for days after the attacks. [Daily Telegraph, 9/23/2001] [18] Related to those observations, I sent a request via e-mail to the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank on August 1, 2011, from which I was hoping to learn: How did the Bundesbank deal with this information? Did US federal agencies ask to see the study? With whom did the Bundesbank share this information? And additionally: 1. Can you confirm that there is such a study of the Bundesbank concerning 9/11 insider trading, which was carried out in September 2001? 2. If Yes: what is the title? 3. If Yes: who were the authors? 4. If Yes: has the study ever been made available to the public? On August 2, I was then informed: “Your mail has been received by us and is being processed under the number 2011 / 011551.” Ultimately, however, the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank was only available for an oral explanation on the phone. With this explanation, I then turned to the press office of the federal financial regulator in Germany, the Bundesanstalt fur Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin, with the following e-mail – and that because of obvious reasons: Yesterday, I sent a request (see end of this e-mail) to the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank relating to insider trading connected to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and respectively relating to an alleged study carried by the Deutsche Bundesbank. The request carries the reference number 2011 / 011551. The press office or respectively Mr Peter Trautmann was only available for an oral explanation. I repeat this now, because it is related to your entity. This will be followed by my further questions. According to an oral explanation from the press office of the Deutsche Bundesbank, there has never been a detailed and official study on insider trading from the Bundesbank. Rather, there has been probably ad-hoc analysis with corresponding charts of price movements as briefings for the Bundesbank board. In addition, it would have been the duty of the Bundesfinanzaufsicht to investigate this matter. The press office of the Bundesbank was also not willing to give out any written information, not even after my hint that this alleged study by the Bundesbank has been floating around the Internet for years without any contradiction. That was the oral information from the Bundesbank press office, or respectively from Mr Peter Trautmann. Now my questions for you: 1. Has the BaFin ever investigated the 9/11 insider trading? 2. With what result? Have the results been made public? 3. Have there not been any grounds for suspicion that would have justified an investigation, for example as damaged enterprise: Munich Re, and as buyers of put options of UAL’s United Airlines Company: Deutsche Bank/Alex Brown? 4. Has the Deutsche Bundesbank ever enquired with BaFin what information they have regarding the 9/11 insider trading – for example for the creation of ad-hoc analysis for the Bundesbank? 5. Have the US federal agencies ever inquired if the BaFin could cooperate with them in an investigation? Could you reply to me in writing, unlike the Deutsche Bundesbank, please? I would be very grateful for that! The next day I did indeed receive an e-mail concerning this topic from Anja Engelland, the press officer of the BaFin in which she answered my questions as follows: 1. Yes, the former Bundesaufsichtsamt fur Wertpapierhandel, BAWe (federal supervisory for securities trading), has carried out a comprehensive analysis of the operations. 2. As a result, no evidence of insider trading has been found. Their approach and results have been published by the BAWe or BaFin in the annual reports for the years 2001 (cf S 26/27) and 2002 (cf p 156 above first paragraph). Here are the links. [see here and here.] 3. See annual reports 2001 and 2002. Put options on United Airlines were not traded on German stock exchanges (the first EUREX options on US equities were introduced only after the attacks on 9/11/2001); there were warrants on UAL and other US stocks, but those traded only in low volumes. 4. I personally do not know about such a request. Furthermore, the Bundesbank itself would have to comment on this. 5. BaFin is fundamentally entitled to the exchange of information with foreign supervisory authorities, like SEC, on the basis of written agreements, so-called memoranda of understanding (MoU). Regarding potential inquiries from foreign supervisory authorities, the BaFin can unfortunately not comment, this would be a matter of respective authority. For this I ask for understanding. Then I wrote another brief note to BaFin, “in order to prevent any misunderstanding: your answers refers, as far as I understand, solely to the financial markets in Germany and Frankfurt, or not?” The reply from BaFin: The answers refer to the German financial market as a whole and not only on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. In terms of the assessment of foreign financial markets, the relevant authorities are the competent points of contact. In my inquiries, I mentioned, among other things, a scientific study by US economist Allen M Poteshman from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which had been carried out in 2006 regarding the put option trading around 9/11 related to the two airlines involved, United Airlines and American Airlines. Poteshman came to this conclusion: “Examination of the option trading leading up to September 11 reveals that there was an unusually high level of put buying. This finding is consistent with informed investors having traded options in advance of the attacks.” [19] Another scientific study was conducted by the economists Wong Wing-Keung (Hong Kong Baptist University, HKBU), Howard E Thompson (University of Wisconsin) and Kweehong Teh (National University of Singapore, NUS), whose findings were published in April 2010 under the title “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” Motivated by the fact that there had been many media reports about possible insider trading prior to 9/11 in the option markets, the authors looked in this study at the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index (SPX Index Options), in particular with a focus on strategies emanating from a bear market, namely those under the labels “Put Purchase,” “Put Bear Spread” and “Naked ITM Call Write”, as each of these are in accordance with the assumption that one would be betting on a general bear market if one wanted to profit in anticipation of the 9/11 event. [20] Along these lines, the authors refer to an article which Erin E Arvedlund published on October 8, 2001, in Barron’s, the heading of which suggested precisely that thesis: “Follow the money: Terror plotters could have benefited more from the fall of the entire market than from individual stocks.” [21] Basically, Wong, Thompson and Teh came to the conclusion “that our findings show that there was a significant abnormal increase in the trading volume in the option market just before the 9-11 attacks in contrast with the absence of abnormal trading volume far before the attacks”. More specifically, they stated, “Our findings from the out-of-the-money (OTM), at-the-money (ATM) and in-the-money (ITM) SPX index put options and ITM SPX index call options lead us to reject the null hypotheses that there was no abnormal trading in these contracts before September 11th.” Instead, they found evidence for “abnormal trading volume in OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options” for September 2001, and also in “ITM-SPX index call options” for the same month. “In addition, we find that there was evidence of abnormal trading in the September 2001 OTM, ATM and ITM SPX index put options immediately after the 9-11 attacks and before the expiration date. This suggests that owning a put was a valuable investment and those who owned them could sell them for a considerable profit before the expiration date.” From all of this, they took the position that whilst they couldn’t definitively prove that insiders were active in the market, “our results provide credible circumstantial evidence to support the insider trading claim”. [22] Disambiguation: “in the money” means that the circumstances arise on which the owner of a put option is betting – the market price of the underlying asset, for example a stock (or in this case an index of shares), is lower at that moment compared to the price at the time when the transaction took place. “At the money” means that the price of the underlying asset has remained equal or nearly equal. And “out-of-the-money” means that the price of the underlying asset has gone up, so the opposite of what the owner of the put option was betting on took place. “In the money”: win. “Out of the money”: loss. There are also ITM, ATM and OTM options both for trading strategies with put and call options, depending on which kind of risk one would like to take. For example, according to Wong, Thomson and Teh, the “Put-Purchase Strategy” in the case of a downward movement of the underlying asset “is a cheaper alternative to short-selling of the underlying asset and it is the simplest way to profit when the price of the underlying asset is expected to decline”. The use of the OTM put option compared to the ITM put option, however, offers “both higher reward and higher risk potentials (…) if the underlying asset falls substantially in price. However, should the underlying asset decline only moderately in price, the ITM put often proves to be the better choice (…) because of the relative price differential.” That is why speculators would fare best, if they bought ITM put options, “unless the speculators would expect a very substantial decline in the price of the underlying asset.” [23] After they calculated such strategies in the light of the available trading data in the CBOE relating to 9/11, the three economists ultimately do not accept a possible counter-argument that their results could be attributed to the fact that the stock markets were generally falling and that there had already been a negative market outlook. Finally they pointed out: “More conclusive evidence is needed to prove definitively that insiders were indeed active in the market. Although we have discredited the possibility of abnormal volume due to the declining market, such investigative work would still be a very involved exercise in view of the multitude of other confounding factors,” such as confusing trading strategies, “intentionally employed by the insiders” in order to attract less attention. [24] That would be – and if only to invalidate these scientific results once and for all – primarily a task for the SEC, the FBI and other governmental authorities of the United States. However, we will have to wait for this in vain. I think that not less worthy of a mention is an article that the French financial magazine Les Echos published in September 2007 about a study conducted by two independent economics professors from the University of Zurich, Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini. Journalist Marina Alcaraz summarized the content of the findings in Les Echos with these words and with these explanations by Professor Chesney, which I for the first time translated into German (and do now translate from French into English): “The atypical volumes, which are very rare for specific stocks lead to the suspicion of insider trading.” Six years after the attacks on the World Trade Center this is the disturbing results of a recent study by Marc Chesney and Loriano Mancini, professors at the University of Zurich. The authors, one of them a specialist in derivative products, the other a specialist in econometrics, worked on the sales options that were used to speculate on the decline in the prices of 20 large American companies, particularly in the aerospace and financial sector. Their analysis refers to the execution of transactions between the 6th and 10th of September 2001 compared to the average volumes, which were collected over a long period (10 years for most of the companies). In addition, the two specialists calculated the probability that different options within the same sector in significant volumes would be traded within a few days. “We have tried to see if the movements of specific stocks shortly before the attacks were normal.” We show that the movements for certain companies such as American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup, Marsh & McLehnan are rare from a statistical point of view, especially when compared to the quantities that have been observed for other assets like Coca-Cola or HP,” explains Marc Chesney, a former Professor at the HEC and co-author of Blanchiment et financement du terrorisme (Money laundering and financing of terrorism), published by Editions Ellipses. “For example 1,535 put option contracts on American Airlines with a strike of $30 and expiry in October 2001 were traded on September 10th, in contrast to a daily average of around 24 contracts over the previous three weeks. The fact that the market was currently in a bear market is not sufficient to explain these surprising volumes.” The authors also examined the profitability of the put options and trades for an investor who acquired such a product between the 6th and 10th September. “For specific titles, the profits were enormous.” “For example, the investors who acquired put options on Citigroup with an expiry in October 2001 could have made more than $15 million profit,” he said. On the basis of the connection of data between volumes and profitability, the two authors conclude that “the probability that crimes by Insiders (Insider trading) occurred , is very strong in the cases of American Airlines, United Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Bank of America, Citigroup and JP Morgan. “There is no legal evidence, but these are the results of statistical methods, confirming the signs of irregularities.” [25] As Alcaraz continued to state for Les Echos, the study by Chesney/Mancini about possible insider trading related to the 9/11 attacks was not the first of its kind; but it was in sharp contrast to the findings of the US Securities and Exchange Commission SEC and the 9/11 Commission, since they classified the insider trading as negligible – the trades in question had no connection to 9/11 and had “consistently proved innocuous”. Different in the assessment is also the scientific work that Chesney and Mancini had published together with Remo Crameri in April 2010 at the University of Zurich, “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the option markets.” In the segment that is dedicated to the terror attacks of 9/11, the three authors come to the conclusion, that there had been notable insider trading shortly before the terrorist attacks on September 11 that was based on prior knowledge. Without elaborating on the detailed explanation of the mathematical and statistical method, which the scientific trio applied during the examination of the put option transactions on the CBOE for the period between 1996 and 2006, I summarize some of their significant conclusions. “Companies like American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing” – the latter company is a contractor of the two airlines as aircraft manufacturer – “and to a lesser extent, Delta Air Lines and KLM seem to have been targets for informed trading activities in the period leading up to the attacks. The number of new put options issued during that period is statistically high and the total gains realized by exercising these options amount to more than $16 million. These findings support the results by Poteshman (2006) who also reports unusual activities in the option market before the terrorist attacks.” [26] In the banking sector, Chesney, Crameri and Mancini found five informed trading activities in connection to 9/11. “For example the number of new put options with underlying stock in Bank of America, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Merrill Lynch issued in the days before the terrorist attacks was at an unusually high level. The realized gains from such trading strategies are around $11 million.” [27] For both areas, the aviation and the banking sector, the authors state that “in nearly all cases the hypothesis”, that the put options were not hedged, “cannot be rejected”. [28] Regarding the options traded on EUREX, one of the world’s largest trading places for derivatives, which in 1998 resulted from the merger between the German and Swiss futures exchanges DTB and SOFFEX, Chesney, Mancini and Crameri focused on two reinsurance companies, which incurred costs in terms of billions of dollars in connection with the World Trade Center catastrophe: Munich Re and Swiss Re. On the basis of EUREX trading data provided by Deutsche Bank, the three scientists detected one informed option trade related to Munich Re, which occurred on August 30, 2001. The authors write: “The detected put option with underlying Munich Re matured at the end of September 2001 and had a strike of € 320 (the underlying asset was traded at € 300, 86 on August 30th). That option shows a large increment in open interest of 996 contracts (at 92.2% quintile of its two-year empirical distribution) on August 30th. Its price on that day was € 10, 22. … On the day of the terrorist attacks, the underlying stock lost more than 15% (the closing price on September 10th was € 261, 88 and on September 11th € 220, 53) and the option price jumped to € 89, 56, corresponding to a return of 776% in eight trading days. … The gains … related to the exercise of the 996 new put options issued on August 30th correspond to more than 3.4 million.” Similar is true, according to the authors, for one informed option trade on Swiss Re on August 20, 2001 with “a return of 4,050% in three trading weeks”, or “more than € 8 million.” [29] In a new version of their study that was published on September 7, 2011, the authors stuck to their findings from April 2010. They added the emphasis that in no way the profits gained with the put options to which they point could have been achieved due to sheer fortunate coincidence, but that in fact they were based on prior knowledge which had been exploited. [30] With those results in terms of what went on at the EUREX according to Chesney, Crameri and Mancini, I again addressed the BaFin, which had written to me that for the financial centers in Germany insider trading around 9/11 could be excluded, and asked: How does this go with your information that the federal supervisory for securities trading (BAWe) could in its comprehensive analysis not find evidence for insider trading? Do the authors, so to speak, see ghosts with no good reason? In addition, I stated: If it is true what Chesney, Crameri and Mancini write, or if you at the BaFin cannot (ad hoc) refute it, would this then cause the BaFin to thoroughly investigate the matter again? If the findings of Chesney, Crameri, and Mancini were true, this would constitute illegal transactions relating to a capital crime, which has no status of limitations, or not? In case that a need for clarification had arisen at the BaFin, I added Professor Chesney to my e-mail-inquiry in the “carbon copy” – address field, as because these were the results of his scientific work. The response that I received from BaFin employee Dominika Kula was as follows: As I already told you in my e-mail, the former federal supervisory for securities trading (BAWe) carried out a comprehensive analysis of the operations in 2001. As a result, no evidence of insider trading has been found. For clarification purposes, I wish to point out that violations of statutory provisions of securities or criminal law can never be excluded with absolute certainty. In order to pursue and prosecute such matters concrete evidence of an unlawful act is required … Such evidence does not exist here. With regard to the sources you mentioned, I ask for understanding that I can neither comment on scientific analyses, nor on reviews by third parties. Regarding the statutes of limitations for offences relating to the violation insider trading regulations trading I can give you the following information: A violation of the law to prohibit insider trading is punishable with imprisonment up to 5 years or with fines. The statutes of limitations applied for crimes carrying this kind of penalty (section 78 paragraph 3 No. 4 Penal Code) are five years. These limitations are described in the statutes of limitations (§§ 78 et seq.) (Criminal Code). In addition, I turned to the EUREX with three questions: 1. How do you as EUREX comment on the findings of Messrs Chesney, Mancini and Crameri? 2. Did you at EUREX perceive the particular trading in Munich Re and Swiss Re it in any way as strange? 3. Have domestic (eg BAWe and BaFin) or foreign (such as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) authorities ever inquired if there may have been evidence of insider trading via the EUREX in connection with the 9/11 attacks? I subsequently received the following response from Heiner Seidel, the deputy head of the press office of the Deutsche Borse in Frankfurt. We do not give you a public written response on behalf of the Deutsche Börse or Eurex regarding the topics of your inquiry. This is for the following reason: the trade monitoring agency (HüSt) is part of the Exchange, but it is independent and autonomous. Their investigations are confidential and are carried out in close coordination with the BaFin. They are never public, a request which HüSt is therefore not meaningful. I leave it to the reader to draw his/her conclusions from these two replies from the press offices of BaFin and Deutsche Borse. Regarding the topic of option trades related to 9/11, I once more talked with Swiss historian Dr Daniele Ganser (“Operation Gladio”), by asking him this time about the importance of those put options, which were traded shortly before the attacks of September 11, 2001. Daniele Ganser: This is an important point. This is about demonstrating that there was insider trading on the international stock exchanges before 11 September. Specifically put options, ie speculation on falling stock prices were traded. Among the affected stocks were United Airlines and American Airlines, the two airlines involved in the attacks. A colleague of mine, Marc Chesney, professor at the Institute of banking at the University of Zurich, has examined these put options. You first of all have to check if there may have been international speculation that the aviation industry would be experiencing a weak period and whether accordingly also put options on Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa and Swiss were bought. This was not the case. Very significant put option trades were only transacted for these two airlines involved in the attacks. Secondly, you must examine the ratio of put options to call options and look if they had also been purchased to a similarly significant extent that would constitute speculations on rising stock prices. And that is also not the case. There were only significant put options and only significant transactions for United Airlines and American Airlines. Now you need to look further in order to see who actually bought the put options, because that would be the insider who made millions on September 11. Most people are unaware that money was also earned with the attacks on September 11. The Security and Exchange Commission, SEC, the Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States, however, does not publish the information on who bought the put options, because you can do this anonymously. It is disturbing that this data is not made public. What you have is the 9/11 Commission report, and here it is pointed out , that there has been insider trading, but that this insider trading cannot be traced to [al-Qaeda leader] Osama bin Laden, which means that it is highly unlikely that it had been Bin Laden. Question: If this is not pursued any further, what does it mean? Daniele Ganser: This means that the investigation of the terrorist attacks was incomplete, and always at the point where there are contradictions to the SURPRISE story, no further investigations are made. It looks very much as if one wants to examine only one story, the investigation is therefore one-sided. But this does not only apply to the put options. [31] Interestingly enough, when Dr Ganser points out in his reply that this important data is not published, it is actually only half of the truth. Why? The answer is very simple and odd at the same time: David Callahan, the editor of the US magazine SmartCEO, filed a request to the SEC about the put options which occurred prior to September 11 within the framework of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The SEC informed Callahan in its reply of December 23, 2009 under the number “09 07659-FOIA” as follows: This letter is in response to your request seeking access to and copies of the documentary evidence referred to in footnote 130 of Chapter 5 of the September 11 (9/11) Commission Report… We have been advised that the potentially responsive records have been destroyed. [32] Therefore, we will unfortunately never know exactly how the SEC and the 9/11 Commission came to their conclusions regarding the 9/11 put options trading for their final report, because relevant documents were not only held back, but also destroyed – and that in spite of an agreement between the SEC and the National Archive of the United States, in which the SEC has agreed to keep all records for at least 25 years. [33] The 9/11 Commission report wrote this in footnote 130 of Chapter 5, which briefly focuses on the alleged insider trading: Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9 / 11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options – investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price – surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10 – highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. (Joseph Cella interview (Sept 16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10-11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners, “Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004). The author Mark H Gaffney commented on this finding of “innocuousness”: Notice … the commission makes no mention in its footnote of the 36 other companies identified by the SEC in its insider trading probe. What about the pre-9/11 surge in call options for Raytheon, for instance, or the spike in put options for the behemoth Morgan Stanley, which had offices in WTC 2? The 9/11 Commission Report offers not one word of explanation about any of this. The truth, we must conclude, is to be found between the lines in the report’s conspicuous avoidance of the lion’s share of the insider trading issue. Indeed, if the trading was truly “innocuous”, as the report states, then why did the SEC muzzle potential whistleblowers by deputizing everyone involved with its investigation? The likely answer is that so many players on Wall Street were involved that the SEC could not risk an open process, for fear of exposing the unthinkable. This would explain why the SEC limited the flow of information to those with a “need to know”, which, of course, means that very few participants in the SEC investigation had the full picture. It would also explain why the SEC ultimately named no names. All of which hints at the true and frightening extent of criminal activity on Wall Street in the days and hours before 9/11. The SEC was like a surgeon who opens a patient on the operating room table to remove a tumor, only to sew him back up again after finding that the cancer has metastasized through the system. At an early stage of its investigation, perhaps before SEC officials were fully aware of the implications, the SEC did recommend that the FBI investigate two suspicious transactions. We know about this thanks to a 9/11 Commission memorandum declassified in May 2009 which summarizes an August 2003 meeting at which FBI agents briefed the commission on the insider trading issue. The document indicates that the SEC passed the information about the suspicious trading to the FBI on September 21, 2001, just ten days after the 9/11 attacks. Although the names in both cases are censored from the declassified document, thanks to some nice detective work by Kevin Ryan we know whom (in one case) the SEC was referring to. The identity of the suspicious trader is a stunner that should have become prime-time news on every network, world-wide. Kevin Ryan was able to fill in the blanks because, fortunately, the censor left enough details in the document to identify the suspicious party who, as it turns out, was none other than Wirt Walker III, a distant cousin to then-president G W Bush. Several days before 9/11, Walker and his wife Sally purchased 56,000 shares of stock in Stratesec, one of the companies that provided security at the World Trade Center up until the day of the attacks. Notably, Stratesec also provided security at Dulles International Airport, where AA 77 took off on 9/11, and also security for United Airlines, which owned two of the other three allegedly hijacked aircraft. At the time, Walker was a director of Stratesec. Amazingly, Bush’s brother Marvin was also on the board. Walker’s investment paid off handsomely, gaining $50,000 in value in a matter of a few days. Given the links to the World Trade Center and the Bush family, the SEC lead should have sparked an intensive FBI investigation. Yet, incredibly, in a mind-boggling example of criminal malfeasance, the FBI concluded that because Walker and his wife had “no ties to terrorism … there was no reason to pursue the investigation.” The FBI did not conduct a single interview. [34] For this translation, I asked Kevin Ryan via e-mail if he could send me a link for his “nice detective work”. Ryan, who’s in my humble opinion one of roughly 10 people around the world who have to be taken seriously regarding 9/11, replied: You are referring to my paper “Evidence for Informed Trading on the Attacks of September 11.” [see here.] The following two references from the paper are relevant to what you are describing. [2] 9/11 Commission memorandum entitled “FBI Briefing on Trading”, prepared by Doug Greenburg, 18 August 2003, [22]. The 9/11 Commission memorandum that summarized the FBI investigations refers to the traders involved in the Stratesec purchase. From the references in the document, we can make out that the two people had the same last name and were related. This fits the description of Wirt and Sally Walker, who were known to be stock holders in Stratesec. Additionally, one (Wirt) was a director at the company, a director at a publicly traded company in Oklahoma (Aviation General), and chairman of an investment firm in Washington, DC (Kuwam Corp). Here are two other recent articles on Stratesec and its operators. [see here and here.] The stock of Stratesec, I should add by myself, increased in value from $0.75 per share on September 11 to $1.49 per share when the market re-opened on September 17. As a firm that provides technology-based security for large commercial and government facilities, Stratesec benefited from the soaring demand of security companies right after 9/11. It is also remarkable what Ryan wrote to me regarding a company on which he did some research, too: Viisage Corp, another high-tech security firm. Kevin Ryan: In late 2005, George Tenet became a director for Viisage, which had been flagged by the SEC for 9/11 trading but never investigated. Viisage was led by Roger LaPenta, formerly of Lockheed. Seven months later, in 2006, FBI director Louis Freeh also joined the Viisage board. One might think that when both the CIA director (on 9/11) and the FBI director (from 1993 to June 2001) joined a company suspected of 9/11 insider trading, we might want to go back and actually investigate the SEC’s flagging of that company. But, of course, that was not the case. In 2009, “Bandar Bush” hired Freeh as his personal attorney. Freeh is nowadays the bankruptcy trustee of the alleged market manipulator MF Global. And about his client, the former Saudi ambassador Prince Bandar, I should add that we know for sure that he bankrolled indirectly via his wife two of the alleged would-be 9/11 hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi. [35] But let’s get back to the subject of destruction. On September 11, not only human life, aircraft and buildings were destroyed in New York City, but also data on computers and in archives. For example, several federal agencies occupied space in Building 7 of the World Trade Center, including the Securities and Exchange Commission on floors 11 to 13. Those and other data could have given information about the alleged 9/11 insider trading (though it seems to be very unlikely that no backup existed elsewhere independent of the local computer systems). In fact, some technology companies were commissioned to recover damaged hard disks, which had been recovered from the debris and dust of Ground Zero. One of these companies was the English company group Convar, more precisely: their data rescue center in the German city Pirmasens. Erik Kirschbaum from the news agency Reuters reported in December 2001 that Convar had at that time successfully restored information from 32 computers, supporting “suspicions that some of the 911 transactions were illegal”. ‘The suspicion is that inside information about the attack was used to send financial transaction commands and authorizations in the belief that amid all the chaos the criminals would have, at the very least, a good head start,’ says Convar director Peter Henschel.” [36] Convar received the costly orders – according to Kirschbaum´s report the companies had to pay between $20,000 and $30,000 per rescued computer – in particular from credit card companies, because: “There was a sharp rise in credit card transactions moving through some computer systems at the WTC shortly before the planes hit the twin towers. This could be a criminal enterprise – in which case, did they get advance warning? Or was it only a coincidence that more than $100 million was rushed through the computers as the disaster unfolded?” [37] The companies for which Convar was active cooperated with the FBI. If the data were reconstructed they should have been passed on to the FBI, and the FBI, according to its statutory mandate, should have initiated further investigation based on the data to find out who carried out these transactions. Henschel was optimistic at the time that the sources for the transactions would come to light. Richard Wagner, a Convar employee, told Kirschbaum that “illegal transfers of more than $100 million might have been made immediately before and during the disaster. ‘There is a suspicion that some people had advance knowledge of the approximate time of the plane crashes in order to move out amounts exceeding $100 million,’ he says. ‘They thought that the records of their transactions could not be traced after the main frames were destroyed’.” [38] Wagner’s observation that there had been “illegal financial transactions shortly before and during the WTC disaster” matches an observation which Ruppert describes in Crossing the Rubicon. Ruppert was contacted by an employee of Deutsche Bank, who survived the WTC disaster by leaving the scene when the second aircraft had hit its target. According to the employee, about five minutes before the attack the entire Deutsche Bank computer system had been taken over by something external that no one in the office recognized and every file was downloaded at lightning speed to an unknown location. The employee, afraid for his life, lost many of his friends on September 11, and he was well aware of the role which the Deutsche Bank subsidiary Alex Brown had played in insider trading. [39] I was curious and wanted more information from Convar regarding their work on the WTC-computer hard drives, but also about the statements made by Peter Henschel and Richard Wagner. Thus, I contacted the agency which represents Convar for press matters, with a written request. But their agency “ars publicandi” informed me swiftly: Due to time constraints, we can currently offer you neither information nor anyone on the part of our client to talk to regarding this requested topic. I also approached KrollOntrack, a very interesting competitor of Convar in writing. Ontrack Data Recovery, which also has subsidiaries in Germany, was purchased in 2002 by Kroll Inc – “one of the nation’s most powerful private investigative and security firms, which has long-standing involvement with executive protection US government officials including the president. This would require close liaison with the Secret Service.” [40] At the time of the 9/11 attacks, a certain Jerome Hauer was one of the managing directors at Kroll Inc. He had previously established the crisis center for the mayor of New York City as director of the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which occupied office space on the 23rd floor of the WTC Building 7. Hauer helped former FBI agent John O’Neill to get the post of the head of Security Affairs at the WTC, and spent the night of September 11 with O’Neill in New York before the latter lost his life on September 11 in the WTC. Hauer was most likely involved in the planning of “Tripod II”, the war game exercise at the port of New York City. [41] Therefore, I found it appealing to uncover some more details of this aspect, or, more accurately to find out if Ontrack or KrollOntrack had received an order in 2001 or after to rescue computer hard drives from the WTC. The answer I received from KrollOntrack said: Kroll Ontrack was not at the site of the data recovery – the devices at the Twin Towers have been completely destroyed or vaporized. The firm Kroll was, however, at that time active in the field of computer-forensic investigations, securing devices in the surrounding buildings. In essence, these two inquiries did not help me at all. If anything, a further question arose: why did KrollOntrack send me a response, where it was really obvious that the content did not match the facts? After all, I had written in my inquiry that Convar had received orders to restore damaged computer hard drives from the World Trade Center. I sent a new inquiry, attaching a link for Erik Kirschbaum’s Reuters article and additional cinematic reports on Convar’s which showed that some of the WTC disks had not been “completely destroyed or vaporized”. I stated to KrollOntrack: “Your answer does not seem to match the facts, when it comes to ‘completely destroyed or vaporized’. Will you still stick to your answer?” KrollOntrack then replied that their previously given assessment constituted “not a statement, but an opinion”. I do not find this assessment worthless, because it is in line with the knowledge of the general public and can easily be refuted in argumentum in contrario by Convar´s activities. One film report to which I referred to in my second inquiry to KrollOntrack originated from the German television journal Heute-Journal broadcast on March 11, 2002, on ZDF, and the other from the Dutch TV documentary Zembla, broadcast on September 10, 2006. The ZDF report showed that Convar received the WTC disks from the US Department of Defense and that Convar had managed until March 2002 to recover more than 400 hard drives. It also reported that the private companies that employed Convar had paid between $25,000 and $50,000 per hard drive. In the TV documentary Zembla, Convar essentially maintained its position as it had been reported by Erik Kirschbaum in 2001. Obviously, in connection with 9/11 there has not only been insider trading via put options, but there is additional evidence that there have been illegal financial transactions via credit cards through which more than 100 million US dollars were removed from the WTC computer systems. Those occurred shortly before and during the WTC disaster. It remains unclear what the FBI did later on with the data recovered by Convar. On the other hand, it may have been not very much, as can be seen from a memorandum from the 9/11 Commission, which was released in May 2009. The 9/11 Commission asked the FBI about the use of credit cards for insider dealing. On the basis of the information provided by the FBI, the commission came to the conclusion that no such activity occurred because “the assembled agents expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort or the alleged scheme” – but above all “everything at the WTC was pulverized to near powder, making it extremely unlikely that any hard-drives survived”. [42] The activities of Convar, however, prove the exact opposite. But it gets even better. According to Zembla, the FBI was directly involved with the data rescue efforts of Convar. And on top of it, the broadcast of Heute-Journal reported that Convar worked in that “highly sensitive” matter with several federal agencies of the United States government. So there have been ample indications for insider trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks, but there are very few hard facts as Catherine Austin Fitts, a former managing director and member of the board of the Wall Street investment bank Dillon, Read & Co, Inc (now part of UBS), pointed out when I talked with her about this topic. Ms Fitts, what are your general thoughts related to the alleged 9/11-insider trading? Catherine Austin Fitts: Well, I’ve never been able to see concrete evidence that the insider trading has been proved. There’s a lot of anecdotal information from investment bankers and people in the investment community that indicate that there was significant insider trading, particularly in the currency and bond markets, but again it hasn’t been documented. I think around situations like 9/11 we’ve seen things that can only be explained as insider trading. Therefore, it wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out the allegations are true, because my suspicion is that 9/11 was an extremely profitable covert operation and a lot of the profits came from the trading. It wouldn’t even surprise me if it turns out that the Exchange Stabilization Fund traded it and that some of the funding for the compensation fund for the victims came from the ESF. Insider trading happens around these kinds of events, but if you really want to produce evidence of insider trading, you need the subpoena powers of the SEC, and of course we know that they haven’t exercised them. If anything, right after 9/11, the government settled a significant amount of cases I presume because a lot of the documents were destroyed by the destruction of WTC building number 7, where the SEC offices and other governmental investigation offices were. [43] Fitts, who had written a longer essay in 2004 related to this, replied to my question about who had benefited from 9/11: Catherine Austin Fitts: 9/11 was extraordinarily profitable for Wall Street, they of course got a kind of “Get Out of Jail Free card” as I’ve just described. In addition, the largest broker of government bonds, Cantor Fitzgerald, was destroyed, and there was a great deal of money missing from the federal government in the prior four or five years. If you look at the amount of funds involved, it is hard to come to a conclusion other than massive securities fraud was involved, so I find it very interesting that this happened. [44] A short explanation: Cantor Fitzgerald’s headquarters were located in the North Tower of the WTC (floors 101-105). On 9/11, the company lost nearly two-thirds of its entire workforce, more than any other tenant in the WTC. (Also two other government bonds brokers, Garbon Inter Capital and Eurobrokers, occupied office space in the WTC towers that were destroyed.) Back to Fitts and the question: “Cui bono 9/11?” Catherine Austin Fitts: In addition, the federal government took the position that they couldn’t produce audited financial statements after 9/11, because they said the office at the Pentagon that produced financial statements was destroyed. Now given what I know of the federal set up of financial statements, I am skeptical of that statement. But needless to say, if you take the government on its word, you had another “Get Out of Jail Free card” for four trillion dollars and more missing from the federal government. So if you’re just looking at the financial fraud angle, there were a lot of parties that benefited from 9/11. But then of course what 9/11 did, it staged the passage of the Patriot Act and a whole series of laws and regulations that I collectively refer to as “The Control on Concentration of Cash Flow Act.” It gave incredible powers to centralize. In addition, if you look at monetary policies right after 9/11 – I remember I was over in the City of London driving around with a money manager and his phone rang and he answered it on his speaker phone. It was somebody on Wall Street who he hadn’t talked to since before 9/11, and he said to him: “Oh Harry, I am so sorry about what has happened, it must have been very traumatic.” And the guy said: “Don’t be ridiculous! We were able to borrow cheap short and invest long, we’re running a huge arbitrage, we’re making a fortune, this is the most profitable thing that ever happened to us!” – So you could tell the monetary policies and sort of insider games were just pumping profits into the bank at that time, so that was very profitable. But of course the big money was used for a significant movement of the military abroad and into Afghanistan and then into Iraq … You could see that the country was being prepared to go to war. And sure enough, 9/11 was used as a justification to go to war in Afghanistan, to go to war in Iraq, and commit a huge number of actions, and now much of the challenges about the budget are the result of extraordinary expenditures on war including in Afghanistan and Iraq and the costs of moving the army abroad and engaging in this kind of empire building with ground military force. So I think if you ask Cui Bono on 9/11, one of the big categories was all the people who made money on engineering the popular fear they needed to engineer these wars. I believe whether it was financial fraud, engineering new laws or engineering wars, it was a fantastically profitable covert operation. [45] In that category of people who benefit from 9/11 are also the arms manufacturer Raytheon, whose share price gained directly from the 9/11 attacks. Trading of the shares of Raytheon, the producer of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles (and parent company of E-systems, whose clients include the National Security Agency and CIA), experienced an abrupt six-time increase of call option purchases on the day immediately before September 11. [46] The outright purchase of call options implies the expectation that a stock price will rise. In the first week after 9/11, when the New York Stock Exchange opened again, the value of Raytheon actually shot up considerably. Looking at the development of the stock price, the impression is a very weak performance before the attacks – and then, after resumption of trade, a “gap” (at substantial volume) upwards. In other words: just under $25 on September 10, the low in the period between August 20 to September 28, at $31, 50 on September 17 and up to $34,80 on September 27, 2001. With regards to government bonds, buyers of US Treasury securities with a maturity of five years were also winners. These securities were traded in an unusually large volume shortly before the attacks. The Wall Street Journal reported at least in early October 2001 that the Secret Service had started an investigation into a suspiciously high volume of US government bond purchases before the attacks. The Wall Street Journal explained: Five-year Treasury bills are the best investments in the event of a global crisis, in particular one like this which has hit the United States. The papers are treasured because of their safety, and because they are covered by the US government, and usually their prices rise if investors shun riskier investments, such as shares. [47] Adding to this phenomenon, the government issues these bonds that serve as a basis of money creation for funding a war such as the immediately declared “war on terror”, engaging the Tomahawks from Raytheon. And here it may again be useful to have a quick look at the “cui bono” relationship: The US Federal Reserve creates money to fund the war and lends it to the American government. The American government in turn must pay interest on the money they borrow from the Central Bank to fund the war. The greater the war appropriations, the greater the profits are for bankers. [48] A multi-layered combination, one could say. I also talked about the topic of 9/11 insider trading with one of the world’s leading practitioners at the interface between the international capital markets, the national security policy of the US as well as geopolitics, James G Rickards. He gave me some answers in a personal discussion, which I am allowed to repeat here with his expressed approval. Question: Did suspicious trading activities of uncovered put options on futures markets occur shortly before 9/11? James G Rickards: Well, the trading documents certainly look suspicious. It is simply a fact that an unusually high volume of purchases of put-options for the two airlines occurred over the three trading days before the attacks. This is a mere fact, no speculation, no guessing around. This is clearly obvious from the documents of the trading sessions on the derivatives exchanges. Question: Do you think that the intelligence agencies could have got a warning signal based on this information? James G Rickards: Theoretically that is possible, if are you are looking and watching out for this. But there was far more significant information, which was ignored. Question: Do you also think that some people with foreknowledge operated speculatively in the option markets? James G Rickards: Based on the documentation of the trading session it seems that this has been the case, yes. Let’s sum up a bit at the end. We have, among other things: The “nice detective work” by Kevin Ryan related to Stratesec/Wirt Walker III. Some highly inconsistent information vis-a-vis Convar/illegal credit card transactions. Scientific papers supporting the allegations that there were indeed unusual trading activities in the option market before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, although the 9/11 Commission (based on the investigation of the SEC and the FBI) ruled that possibility out. As it became clear that I would publish this article here at Asia Times Online, I contacted the US Federal Bureau of Investigation via its press spokesman Paul Bresson in order “to give the FBI the opportunity to give a public statement with regards to three specific issues”. Those three specific issues were the ones I have just highlighted. Related to each of them I’ve asked Mr Bresson/the FBI: “Could you comment on this for the public, please?” Up to this moment, Mr Bresson/the FBI did not respond to my inquiry in any way whatsoever. Does this come as a surprise? I’ve also got back in touch with “ars publicandi”, the firm that does public relations for Convar in Germany. The response said: “Unfortunately I have to inform you that the status has not changed, and that Convar considers the issue of 9/11 as dead in general.” As you have read, the status in August of last year was slightly different. At the end of this article, I should perhaps mention that this research ultimately led to negative consequences for me. After I contacted the FBI, I was informed by the publisher of a German financial website, for which I conducted interviews for a professional fee (and had already prepared more work), that no further cooperation was possible. Now that I will come in one way or another into the focus of the FBI, any association with me would be undesirable. Well, you know the rules. As far as the abnormal option trades around 9/11 are concerned, I want to give Max Keiser the last word in order to point out the significance of the story. Max Keiser: Regardless of who did it, we can know that more than a few had advance warning – the trading in the option market makes that clear. References: [1] Compare Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age Of Oil“, New Society Publishers, Gabriola Island, 2004, page 152. [2] Ibid., page 153. [3] Ibid., page 154 – 155. [4] Ibid., page 170. [5] Ibid., page 238 – 253: “9/11 Insider Trading, or ‘You Didn’t Really See That, Even Though We Saw It.’“ [6] Ibid., page 239. [7] Compare Chris Blackhurst: “Mystery of terror ‘insider dealers’”, published at The Independent on October 4, 2001 under: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/mystery-of-terror-insider-dealers-631325.html [8] Compare “Profits of Death“, published at From the Wilderness on December 6, 2001 under: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html [9] For the fact, that it was George Tenet who recruited Krongard, compare George Tenet: “At the Center of the Storm”, Harper Collins, New York, 2007, page 19. [10] Compare Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, University of Zurich, April 2010, online at: http://www.bf.uzh.ch/publikationen/pdf/publ_2098.pdf [11] Nafeez M. Ahmed: „Geheimsache 09/11. Hintergründe über den 11. September und die Logik amerikanischer Machtpolitik“, Goldmann Verlag, Munich, 2004, page 182. (Translated back into English from German.) [12] Compare Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 244 – 247. [13] Wing-Keung Wong, Howard E. Thompson und Kweehong Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”, published at Social Sciences Research Network, April 2010, under: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523 [14] Compare “Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC’s attack probe”, published at Bloomberg News on October 3, 2001, archived under: http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/bloombberg_BAamong38.html [15] Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 243. [16] Ibid. [17] “Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks”, published at From the Wilderness on October 9, 2001 under: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html [18] Compare “Early September 2001: Almost Irrefutable Proof of Insider Trading in Germany”, published at History Commons under: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=ernst_welteke [19] Allen M. Poteshman: “Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001”, published in The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, 2006, Vol. 79, Edition 4, page 1703-1726. [20] Wing-Keung Wong, Howard E. Thompson und Kweehong Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?”, see endnote 13. [21] Ibid. The authors refer to Erin E. Arvedlund: “Follow the money: terrorist conspirators could have profited more from fall of entire market than single stocks“, published in Barron’s on October 8, 2001. [22] Wong, Thompson, Teh: “Was there Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?” [23] Ibid. [24] Ibid. [25] Marina Alcaraz: “11 septembre 2001: des volumes inhabituels sur les options peu avant l’attentat”, published in Les Echos, page 34, September 10, 2001, online at: http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2007/LesEchos/20001-166-ECH.htm [26] Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, see endnote 10. [27] Ibid. [28] ibid. [29] Ibid. [30] Compare Marc Chesney, Remo Crameri and Loriano Mancini: “Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Option Markets”, published at the University of Zurich on September 7, 2011 under: http://www.bf.uzh.ch/publikationen/pdf/2098.pdf [31] Vgl. Lars Schall: “Sapere Aude!“, German Interview with Dr. Daniele Ganser, published at LarsSchall.com on August 18, 2011 under: http://www.larsschall.com/2011/08/18/%E2%80%9Csapere-aude%E2%80%9C/ [32] Compare a copy of the letter by the SEC on MaxKeiser.com under: http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/FOIAresponseGIF1.gif [33] Compare related to this agreement Matt Taibbi: “Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?”, published at Rolling Stone on August 17, 2011 under: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-streetcrimes-20110817 [34] Mark H. Gaffney: “Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side”, published at Foreign Policy Journal on March 2, 2011 under: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/02/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side-2/2/ [35] Compare Peter Dale Scott: “Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia”, The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol 10, Issue 12, No 3, March 19, 2012, online at: http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723 [35] Erik Kirschbaum: “German Firm Probes Last-Minute World Trade Center Transactions“, published at Reuters on December 19, 2001, online at: http://www.naderlibrary.com/911.germanfirmprobeslastminutewtctrans.htm [36] Ibid. [37] Ibid. [38] Michael C. Ruppert: “Crossing the Rubicon“, page 244. [39] Ibid., page 423. [40] Ibid., page 423 – 426. [41] Commission Memorandum: “FBI Briefing on Trading“, dated August 18, 2003, page 12, online at: http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf [42] Lars Schall: “9/11 Was A Fantastically Profitable Covert Operation”, Interview with Catherine Austin Fitts, published at LarsSchall.com on September 3, 2011 under: http://www.larsschall.com/2011/09/03/911-was-a-fantastically-profitable-covert-operation/ [43] Ibid. Compare further related to the “cui bono“ topic Catherine Austin Fitts: “9-11 Profiteering: A Framework for Building the ‘Cui Bono?’“, published at GlobalResearch on March 22, 2004 under: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FIT403A.html [44] Lars Schall: “9/11 Was A Fantastically Profitable Covert Operation”, see endnote 42. [45] Compare “Bank of America among 38 stocks in SEC’s attack probe”, see endnote 14. “A Raytheon option that makes money if shares are more than $25 each had 232 options contracts traded on the day before the attacks, almost six times the total number of trades that had occurred before that day. A contract represents options on 100 shares. Raytheon shares soared almost 37 percent to $34.04 during the first week of post-attack U.S. trading.” [46] Compare Barry Grey: “Suspicious trading points to advance knowledge by big investors of September 11 attacks”, published at World Socialist Web Site on October 5, 2001 under: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oct2001/bond-o05.shtml [47] J. S. Kim: “Inside the Illusory Empire of the Banking Commodity Con Game”, published at The Underground Investor on October 19, 2010 under: http://www.theundergroundinvestor.com/2010/10/inside-the-illusory-empire-of-the-banking-commodity-con-game/

CURRENT UPDATE INTERPOL ======================= ======================= ======================= Conservative NATIONAL-REVIEW and HUMAN EVENTS === WORRIED // http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/191918/why-does-interpol-need-immunity-american-law-andrew-c-mccarthy http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35115 ================================================================= Under the jackboot of an American secretary general, INTERPOL now tracking dissidents --------------------------------------------- By Wayne Madsen Posted on February 7, 2012 by Wayne Madsen --------------------------------------------- Welcome to the new INTERPOL—the International Criminal Police Organization—a carbon copy of the INTERPOL that was briefly headquartered in Berlin under the Nazi regime. Today, INTERPOL, an international law enforcement agency composed of 190 members nations, INTERPOL, headquartered in Lyon, France, is under the control of Secretary General Ron K. Noble, a former Undersecretary for Enforcement of the U.S. Treasury Department. Under Noble, INTERPOL is tracking political dissidents while leaving gangsters and other criminals, especially those wanted by Russia, remain at large. Noble was the head of the Treasury Department’s “Waco Administrative Review Team,” which covered up the actions of his Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms in their siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. That siege resulted in the deaths of 84 members of the separatist Seventh Day Adventist sect, including their leader David Koresh, and four of Noble’s BATF agents in a deadly shootout that was followed by the burning down of the sect’s compound. In 2000, Noble was elected the first American Secretary General of INTERPOL. He is now in his third term. Perhaps it was fitting that Noble was re-elected INTERPOL Secretary General in 2005 at the INTERPOL General Assembly in Berlin. In 1942, INTERPOL headquarters were moved from Vienna to Berlin. From 1938, following the Austrian union with Nazi Germany, INTERPOL’s Secretaries General included four German SS generals: Otto Stenhausl, Gestapo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD) Security Service chief Reinhard Heydrich—assassinated in a Prague suburb by Czechoslovak agents in 1942, Arthur Nebe—head of the KRIPO criminal police and executed for his part to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944, and Ernst Kaltenbrunner—executed for war crimes after the Nuremburg trials. During INTERPOL’s control by Nazi generals, the international law enforcement organization became a virtual arm of Nazi German intelligence. Today, the so-called international law enforcement organization is a subsidiary of not only American intelligence, but the intelligence and security services of its dictatorial member states. Noble, an African-American, who, like his friend and fellow African-American, Attorney General Eric Holder, makes no effort to hide his reverence for police state tactics in the United States and abroad, has embarked on a tolerance for INTERPOL member states issuing arrest warrants for political dissidents. Noble, who is the son of an African-American father and a white German mother, represents a new cadre of police state-oriented mulatto U.S. leaders. This tendency among a new generation of African-American political leaders can also seen with Barack Obama, the son of a black African father and white American mother and Holder, the off-spring of light-skinned Barbadian parents hailing from a gentry descendant from wealthy sugar cane plantation owners and their slave hands. Noble has been mentioned as a strong candidate to replace Robert Mueller as the director of the FBI, thus continuing the grooming of “pass-for-white” security state promoters and defenders into positions of authority. On December1, 2011, INTERPOL issued a Red Notice arrest warrant for West Papua independence leader Benny Wenda, the Oxford-educated leader of the Free West Papua who is now a citizen of the United Kingdom. Wenda heads the Free West Papua Campaign and lives in exile with his family in the United Kingdom. Wenda is fighting for the independence of his homeland from Indonesia, which annexed the former Dutch New Guinea after a dubious 1969 plebiscite organized by the United Nations. The Free Papua Movement (OPM), which Indonesia charges Wenda supports, has waged a campaign against Indonesian security forces, some of whom are in West Papua to protect the activities of the U.S. mining company Freeport McMoran, a company on whose board former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has served on. West Papuan activists charge that Freeport McMoran has achieved a concordat with the Indonesian government to suppress the activities of the OPM and its allies, in order to protect the firm’s mining interests in the territory. President Barack Obama’s Indonesian stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, was in charge of an Indonesian army unit assigned to put down the rebellion in West Papua. In the late 1960s, Soetoro was assigned to a unit preventing West Papuans from receiving support from their Papuan comrades in Papua New Guinea, then an Australian colony. Noble, by issuing the Red Notice, is essentially requiring the UK and any other nation where Wenda visits to arrest the activist with the provision that he be extradited to face trial in Indonesia where he is considered an “enemy of the state.” The Wenda case is not the only one in which Noble and his staff, which includes senior counsel Yoran Gottlieb, appear more interested in protecting Israeli leaders wanted for war crimes and Russian Jewish oligarchs on the lam from Russian authorities than in applying the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights pursuant to Article 2 of INTERPOL’s constitution. INTERPOL enjoys diplomatic immunity and extraterritorial rights in France and INTERPOL’s activities, including the amassing of huge databases on people around the world, are exempt from French laws like the 1978 act governing the protection and use of personal data. Pursuant to a December 17, 2009, executive order issued by President Obama, INTERPOL was granted increased immunity when operating within the borders of the United States, including protection from lawsuits by American citizens and residents, including political refugees and asylum seekers, affected by INTERPOL’s arrest and surveillance orders. U.S. citizens are barred from accessing files maintained on them by INTERPOL since subpoenas, Freedom of Information and Privacy Act requests, or even legal search warrants do not apply to the organization, thanks to Obama’s executive order. The result of Obama’s executive order providing INTERPOL with such immunity is that INTERPOL agents operating in the United States, including FBI agents seconded to INTERPOL, enjoy virtual diplomatic immunity and operate above U.S. law. Current Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich pointed out the danger to American citizens arising from Obama’s executive order in asking, “Why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?” The United States has routinely arrested individuals based on flimsy Red Notices issued by foreign dictatorships, most of which are clients of the United States. In the United States, INTERPOL is represented by a National Central Bureau (NCB), which is operated by the FBI. The NCB has routinely ignored the political nature of INTERPOL Red Notices and Blue Notices—requests to closely track and conduct covert surveillance on wanted individuals—to arrest and deport Rwandan opposition political leaders arbitrarily fingered as “genocidists” by Rwandan dictator and U.S. ally Paul Kagame. On the other hand, Russian Red Notices for Russian-Israeli oligarchs like Leonid Nevzlin, wanted for murder by the Prosecutor General for Russia, go unheeded by Washington, which has granted Nevzlin a visa to travel between the United States and Israel at his convenience. The United States has also ignored INTERPOL Red Notices for the arrest of associates of the jailed Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. As with Nevzlin, the two wanted ex-Yukos oil and gas company businessmen, Mikhail Brudno, a resident of Israel and Lithuania, and Vladimir Dubov, who also lives in Israel, have been issued visas to travel to and from the United States at their leisure. INTERPOL fugitive and exiled Russian-Israeli tycoon Boris Berezovsky has also managed to avoid arrest thanks to protection from the United Kingdom and Israel. It is more than apparent that Noble and Gottlieb sit in the massive INTERPOL headquarters in Lyon to protect the interests of members of the “club,” including the United States, Israel, Indonesia, Rwanda, China, Bahrain, Sweden, Maldives, and Sri Lanka. Usually, political dissidents are subject to Red Notice arrest warrants on trumped up charges that they have committed fraud or are engaged in money laundering. In some cases, businessmen and politicians are subject to a Red Notice for failing to pay a bribe to corrupt police officials to avoid a Red Notice. The bottom line in dealing with Noble’s INTERPOL is if you are a political dissident like Benny Wenda wanted for seeking independence for your people, you face arrest. However, if you are a Russian-Israeli oligarch who has looted the Soviet and Russian Treasuries of billions of rubles, you are home free. Noble has certainly earned his points with the elites who run the planet. There is no reason for an American, with his open and hidden agendas, to serve as Secretary General of INTERPOL. In his State of the Union address, President Obama declared that those who believed American is in decline “don’t know what they’re talking about.” To the contrary, Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about. America is in decline as a superpower and it is high time that Americans no longer be granted automatic lordship over such institutions as the World Bank, INTERPOL, and the military command of NATO. In fact, all three institutions can do the proper thing and dissolve themselves or be prepared to be dissolved.

COLBY//But I actually agree developing countries shouldnt be forced to totally open their economies but that doesnt apply to Korea let alone the US. ##################################### When one gives out incorrect data (in a data context),then one looks to motivation. Some people are payed to lie for the elites.......know what I mean ?? ---------------------=----------------------=--------------------- http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/2011/08/incorrect_numbers_continue_to_pop_up_in_trade_reporting_trade-ifact_iii.html About Us Eyes on Trade is a blog by the staff of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch (GTW) division. GTW aims to promote democracy by challenging corporate globalization, arguing that the current globalization model is neither a random inevitability nor "free trade." Eyes on Trade is a space for interested parties to share information about globalization and trade issues, and in particular for us to share our watchdogging insights with you! GTW director Lori Wallach's initial post explains it all. ------------------------0---------------------------- August 05, 2011 Incorrect Numbers Continue to Pop Up in Trade Reporting: Trade-ifact III ========================0============================ The announcement late Wednesday of a nebulous "agreement" in the Senate on a legislative "path forward" for the Korea, Colombia, and Panama trade deals (or FTAs), has renewed the trade chatter in the newswires. But we're still seeing a lot of questionable claims about the FTAs in these stories, so it's time for another edition of Trade-ifact. For the third installment , we've organized the stories by theme. Faulty Export Numbers Misquotes of the official U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) studies of the three trade deals continue to pop up in news articles, either directly or through quotes of FTA proponents. As we have said before, FTA supporters only look at the USITC's bilateral export numbers and do not consider the USITC's projections on the change in overall U.S. imports. When the global changes in exports and imports are taken into account, the USITC studies reveal that net exports would decline by $482 million under the Korea and Colombia trade deals (instead of the bilateral exports only of $11-12 billion). The USITC made no overall trade estimate for Panama.) There were several stories that misreported this $12 billion export number as fact, including: - Doug Palmer (Reuters), US Congress leaders agree path to pass trade deals (8/3/2011) - Angus Loten (Wall Street Journal), Trade Pacts Urged for Export Growth (7/27/2011) There were several additional stories that reported the incorrect number as the opinion of an interviewee or the Obama administration, but failed to note its misleading origin. These included: - Mark Drajem (Bloomberg), U.S. Senate Leaders End Impasse on Three Free-Trade Deals, Workers Aid (8/4/2011) - Jim Abrams (AP), Senate deal on taking up worker, trade bills (8/4/2011) - Suzy Khimm (Washington Post), How can Washington help create jobs? (8/3/2011) - Doug Palmer (Reuters), U.S. business hopes debt deal clears way for trade (8/1/2011) Doug Palmers stories also round up the administration's export claims from $12 billion to $13 billion. Faulty Jobs Numbers News stories are also continuing to report that the trade deals will create or support 70,000 jobs. This has got to be one of the most popular outright errors in the history of trade debates. As we show here, it is derived from applying an incorrect methodology to an incorrect number (bilateral export projection). But even if one accepts the administrations methodological choices, applying that method to the correct number (net exports) would reveal a decline in jobs. Doug Palmer's US Congress leaders agree path to pass trade deals (8/3/2011) misreported this number as fact. There were several additional stories that reported the incorrect number as the opinion of an interviewee, but failed to note its misleading origin. These included: - Suzy Khimm (Washington Post), How can Washington help create jobs? (8/3/2011) - AFP (no byline), SKorea deal unlikely before September: US lawmaker (7/27/2011) - Doug Palmer (Reuters), U.S. business hopes debt deal clears way for trade (8/1/2011) Palmer also cites the National Association of Manufacturers, which claims, "American workers would have earned $12 billion more in wages and benefits over the past several years had the pacts not been delayed." The National Association of Manufacturers gets to this number simply by multiplying the faulty $13 billion export number by the share of manufacturers' revenue that go into labor compensation (27 percent), and then multiplying that number by the number of years that have passed since President Bush signed the FTAs. So, in essence, it is simply a repackaging of the same wrong numbers. Josh Bivens at the Economic Policy Institute has concluded that, far from boosting workers' wages, unbalanced trade costs the average working family $2,000 each year. - Angus Loten (Wall Street Journal), Trade Pacts Urged for Export Growth (7/27/2011) Loten writes that the trade pacts are expected to create more than 250,000 jobs, according to the U.S. International Trade Commission. Loten then goes on to quote the 70,000 number in the same story. The USITC study does not find any job gain associated with the FTAs, let alone 250,000. This number seems to stem from a claim that Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) made in March, which is based on three factual errors. Once these errors are corrected for, the FTAs would actually cost jobs, according to this method. We explored these errors in detail here. Nonspecific Jobs Claims Go Unchallenged In the case of the recent debate over the debt ceiling, the media at least presented claims of both sides of the debate, even though they did not attempt to suss out the truth in the opposing claims. For example, one side had basic macroeconomic accounting on its side (cutting government spending will lower GDP), while the other had "confidence fairies", in Paul Krugman's memorable phrase. Both sides were presented as equally legitimate in most reporting. With the debate over the NAFTA-style trade deals, though, its even worse: the pro-FTA sides baseless claims of generic job creation are cited, while the other side is not cited, or cited only as having sentiments rather than facts. Examples of unrebutted citation of generic FTA-job gain claims include: - Doug Palmer (Reuters), US Congress leaders agree path to pass trade deals (8/3/2011) - Vicki Needham & Bernie Becker (The Hill), White House, Senate Dems say no agreement yet on moving trade deals (7/27/2011) - Scott Wong (Politico), Breakthrough on trade agreements (8/4/2011) - Tom Barkley (Dow Jones), Senate Leaders Seal Bipartisan Plan For Vote On Trade Pacts, Job Training (8/3/2011) - Tom Barkley (Dow Jones), USTR: Still Working On Sequencing Of Votes On Trade Pacts, Job Training (8/4/2011) - Felicia Sonmez (Washington Post), Senate leaders reach agreement on Colombia, South Korea, Panama trade deals (8/4/2011) Vicki Needham of The Hill writes in Senate leaders reach deal paving way for passage of trade deals (8/3/11) that President Obama and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk claim jobs will be gained from the trade pacts, but the strongest counter from the other side that she musters is Rep. Nancy Pelosi saying those claims were "debatable". Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post's Right Turn blog quips that "Its debatable? By whom the AFL-CIO executive board?" Actually, the government's own independent projections of the trade deals and historical experience show that the projections of increased deficits and lost jobs are not just debatable, they constitute the historical record. Another example: after quoting the Obama administration's numbers on the jobs that will supposedly be supported by the trade deals, Angus Loten of the Wall Street Journal writes in Trade Pacts Urged for Export Growth (7/27/2011) that "Yet since the recession, Americans have grown more hostile to free trade agreements, possibly clouding the prospects for congressional approval. In October, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found that 53% of 1,000 Americans surveyed said free-trade pacts have hurt the U.S., up from 46% in a similar poll three years ago and 32% in 1999." Citing the polls thankfully brings the American people into the trade debate, but from this story, one would not know that they have fact as well as sentiment on their side. In reality, while there is a lot of support for the public's view that trade deals cost jobs, there is not much support for the view that they create jobs on net. Trade Adjustment Assistance Benefits Will Be Cut Under Proposed Deal Many news stories continue to characterize the proposed Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) legislation as an "extension" or "renewal" of TAA, when the deal struck between the White House and congressional Republican leadership will actually result in the downsizing of the program relative to its 2009 and even 2002 levels. Under the new TAA plan, workers displaced by trade could receive a maximum of 130 weeks of income support while undergoing retraining, while currently workers can receive up to 153 weeks of income support. It also would restrict income support eligibility for workers who are not in retraining programs, cutting the types of waivers for income support from six to three. These details, or at least the fact that the program is being cut, would be of interest to readers with diverse opinions on the merits of FTAs and of government spending. Examples of reporting on the TAA proposal that lacked this essential context included: - Jim Abrams (AP), Senate deal on taking up worker, trade bills (8/4/2011) - Elizabeth Williamson (Wall Street Journal), Trade Fight Has Flower Growers Digging In (8/1/2011) - Felicia Sonmez (Washington Post), Senate leaders reach agreement on Colombia, South Korea, Panama trade deals (8/4/2011) - Doug Palmer (Reuters), U.S. business hopes debt deal clears way for trade (8/1/2011) - Doug Palmer (Reuters), U.S. trade deals could be delayed past August: Daley (7/19/11) - Doug Palmer (Reuters), U.S. lawmaker presses Obama to back trade deals plan (7/27/2011) In his most recent story on TAA, House Democrats wary of "path" to trade deals (8/4/2011), Palmer did specify that the deal on TAA constitutes a "slimmed down version of TAA." Trade Deficit is Drag on GDP Tim Fernholz (National Journal Daily) FTAs Increase Trade, But Impact Can Be Hard to Measure (7/17/2011 - subscription only) Fernholz writes, "Though specific sectors and firms advocate free-trade deals to their own benefit, trade is a key driver of overall growthof the 2.9 percent expansion of the economy last year, 1.9 percent came from exports." Actually, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, net exports (gross exports minus gross imports) contributed negative 0.49 percentage points to economic growth last year. (Exports accounted for a positive 1.34 percent contribution, while imports accounted for a negative 1.83 percent contribution.) In other words, the 2.9 percent growth of the U.S. economy last year would have been almost 0.5 percent higher if not for the $539.3 billion trade deficit. FTAs Unlikely to Boost Exports Elizabeth Williamson of the Wall Street Journal writes in Trade Fight Has Flower Growers Digging In (8/1/2011) that "The [Korea, Colombia, and Panama] trade deals are key to Mr. Obama's goal of doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014." Felicia Sonmez of the Washington Post also writes in Senate leaders reach agreement on Colombia, South Korea, Panama trade deals (8/4/2011) that the trade deals are a "key component" of the goal to double exports. Does the evidence support this idea, though? A Public Citizen analysis of the government's own trade flow data over 1998-2009 found that the growth of exports to FTA partners actually underperformed compared to the growth of exports to non-FTA partners. In fact, our analysis of changes in goods exports found that exports to FTA partners grew at half the pace of U.S. exports to the rest of the world. It is hard to see how FTAs can contribute, much less be "key", to doubling export growth when the U.S. has had slower export growth to FTA partners. In "FTAs Increase Trade, But Impact Can Be Hard to Measure" (7/17/2011 - subscription only), Tim Fernholz of the National Journal Daily writes, "Free-trade agreements, by eliminating tariffs on imports and exports, have nearly always increased trade between the countries in question, thus benefiting U.S. exporters and bringing cheaper products to American consumers." Again, compared with U.S. trade relationships with non-FTA countries, trade relationships with FTA partners have not much benefited U.S. exporters. U.S. Market Share Not Suffering in Pacific Tim Fernholz (National Journal Daily) FTAs Increase Trade, But Impact Can Be Hard to Measure (7/17/2011 - subscription only) Fernholz writes, the United States has lagged behind other Pacific countries in building trading relationships and is seeking to reassert its leadership as American trade lags in the region and China becomes more assertive. The U.S. trade relationship with the Pacific economies is doing just fine in relative terms. In fact, U.S. exports to the Pacific region have grown 35 percent since 2005, while overall U.S. exports to the world have grown at a slower rate, 25 percent, over the same period. According to U.N. trade flow data, the U.S. has increased its rank or market share in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, and Taiwan relative to 2005 all without FTAs. In both Thailand and Taiwan (also not FTA partners), the U.S. is selling more in dollar terms than it was in 2005. AFP SKorea deal unlikely before September: US lawmaker (7/27/2011) This AFP story with no byline states that "The pace of the agreement has given European firms a head start over the United States in Asia's fourth-largest economy." This assumes that FTAs represent a "head start" in gaining market share. However, the rank of the U.S. in exports to Australia has actually declined since the Australia FTA went into effect, from first to second, while China (which does not have an FTA with Australia) increased its market share and rank in Australia. No Support for Claim of Majority Congressional Support for FTAs Julie Pace (AP) AP sources: Trade deals could slip into September (7/18/2011) Pace's opening paragraph reads, "The all-consuming negotiations in Washington on the nation's debt and deficit may not leave any time this summer for Congress to finalize a trio of free trade agreements backed by most lawmakers and billed by the White House as job creators." There is scant support for the contention that most lawmakers are in favor of the trade deals. Over 220 House members (over half) from both parties have opposed unfair trade deals in the past. An additional third of the House (132 members) from both parties havent been in office long enough to vote for or against a trade pact. This leaves just over 80 members, or under 20 percent of the House, that has consistently backed such trade deals. While theres not much evidence that the trade deals are sure to have majority backing, we do know that a majority of House Democrats voted against a NAFTA-style deal with Peru in 2007 and signed onto the TRADE Act, which envisions a complete overhaul of unfair trade deals. We also know that Republicans have adopted fair trade as an issue. In 182 races of the 2010 election cycle monitored by Public Citizen, 205 candidates campaigning on a fair trade platform, including 75 Republicans, 43 of whom won their races. In the 2006 and 2008 elections, there was a net gain of 72 members of the House and the Senate who had fair trade positions. Oil Does Not Explain NAFTA Deficit Tim Fernholz (National Journal Daily) FTAs Increase Trade, But Impact Can Be Hard to Measure (7/17/2011 - subscription only) Fernholz states that "U.S. reliance on oil imports from Canada" may have obscured the supposed benefits of NAFTA. In fact, the percentage of the trade deficit with Canada attributable to oil trade actually fell from 50 percent in 1993, the year before NAFTA was enacted, to 36 percent in 2000. While it is true that oil has accounted for a sizable share of the trade deficit with Canada in recent years, the U.S. has run a non-oil manufactured goods deficit with Canada for 15 of the 17 years of NAFTA, suffering massive job losses as a result. Moreover, Department of Labor data confirms that the trade deficit with Canada under NAFTA has cost hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. Since NAFTA was enacted, imports from Canada or outsourcing to Canada have contributed to the loss of 200,000 U.S. jobs, according to official certifications under the TAA program. Hundreds of thousands of additional jobs have probably been lost to Canada because of NAFTA, but they do not appear in the TAA database because either they did not meet the strict TAA criteria or workers laid off due to offshoring never applied for the program. Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Incorrect Numbers Continue to Pop Up in Trade Reporting: Trade-ifact III: Posted by Travis McArthur at 2:18pm in Andean and Panama FTAs , Asian FTAs , Elections and Polls , Trade Deficit / Economic Impact | ############################################## vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv Death By Globalism Death By Globalism By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS writing at CounterPunch Have economists made themselves irrelevant? If you have any doubts, have a look at the current issue of the magazine, International Economy, a slick publication endorsed by former Federal Reserve chairmen Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, by Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, by former Secretary of State George Shultz, and by the New York Times and Washington Post, both of which declare the magazine to be ahead of the curve. The main feature of the current issue is The Great Stimulus Debate. Is the Obama fiscal stimulus helping the economy or hindering it? Princeton economics professor and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Moodys Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi represent the Keynesian view that government deficit spending is needed to lift the economy out of recession. Zandi declares that thanks to the fiscal stimulus, The economy has made enormous progress since early 2009, an opinion shared by the Presidents Council of Economic Advisors and the Congressional Budget Office. The opposite view, associated with Harvard economics professor Robert Barro and with European economists, such as Francesco Giavazzi and Marco Pagano and the European Central Bank, is that government budget surpluses achieved by cutting government spending spur the economy by reducing the ratio of debt to Gross Domestic Product. This is the let them eat cake school of economics. Barro says that fiscal stimulus has no effect, because people anticipate the future tax increases implied by government deficits and increase their personal savings to offset the added government debt. Giavazzi and Pagano reason that since fiscal stimulus does not expand the economy, fiscal austerity consisting of higher taxes and reduced government spending could be the cure for unemployment. If one overlooks the real world and the need of life for sustenance, one can become engrossed in this debate. However, the minute one looks out the window upon the world, one realizes that cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, and housing subsidies when 15 million Americans have lost jobs, medical coverage, and homes is a certain path to death by starvation, curable diseases, and exposure, and the loss of the productive labor inputs from 15 million people. Although some proponents of this anti-Keynesian policy deny that it results in social upheaval, Gerald Celentes observation is closer to the mark: When people have nothing left to lose, they lose it. The Krugman Keynesian school is just as deluded. Neither side in The Great Stimulus Debate has a clue that the problem for the U.S. is that a large chunk of U.S. GDP and the jobs, incomes, and careers associated with it, have been moved offshore and given to Chinese, Indians, and others with low wage rates. Profits have soared on Wall Street, while job prospects for the middle class have been eliminated. The offshoring of American jobs resulted from (1) Wall Street pressures for higher shareholder returns, that is, for more profits, and from (2) no-think economists, such as the ones engaged in the debate over fiscal stimulus, who mistakenly associated globalism with free trade instead of with its antithesis--the pursuit of lowest factor cost abroad or absolute advantage, the opposite of comparative advantage, which is the basis for free trade theory. Even Krugman, who has some credentials as a trade theorist has fallen for the equation of globalism with free trade. As economists assume, incorrectly according to the latest trade theory by Ralph Gomory and William Baumol, that free trade is always mutually beneficial, economists have failed to examine the devastatingly harmful effects of offshoring. The more intelligent among them who point it out are dismissed as protectionists. The reason fiscal stimulus cannot rescue the U.S. economy has nothing to do with the difference between Barro and Krugman. It has to do with the fact that a large percentage of high-productivity, high-value-added jobs and the middle class incomes and careers associated with them have been given to foreigners. What used to be U.S. GDP is now Chinese, Indian, and other country GDP. When the jobs have been shipped overseas, fiscal stimulus does not call workers back to work in order to meet the rising consumer demand. If fiscal stimulus has any effect, it stimulates employment in China and India. The let them eat cake school is equally off the mark. As investment, research, development, etc., have been moved offshore, cutting entitlements simply drives the domestic population deeper in the ground. Americans cannot pay their mortgages, car payments, tuition, utility bills, or for that matter, any bill, based on Chinese and Indian pay scales. Therefore, Americans are priced out of the labor market and become dependencies of the federal budget. Fiscal consolidation means writing off large numbers of humans. During the Great Depression, many wage and salary earners were new members of the labor force arriving from family farms, where many parents and grandparents still supported themselves. When their city jobs disappeared, many could return to the farm. Today farming is in the hands of agri-business. There are no farms to which the unemployed can return. The let them eat cake school never mentions the one point in its favor. The U.S., with all its huffed up power and importance, depends on the U.S. dollar as reserve currency. It is this role of the dollar that allows America to pay for its imports in its own currency. For a country whose trade is as unbalanced as Americas, this privilege is what keeps the country afloat. The threats to the dollars role are the budget and trade deficits. Both are so large and have accumulated for so long that the prospect of making good on them has evaporated. As I have written for a number of years, the U.S. is so dependent on the dollar as reserve currency that it must have as its main policy goal to preserve that role. Otherwise, the U.S., an import-dependent country, will be unable to pay for its excess of imports over its exports. Fiscal consolidation, the new term for austerity, could save the dollar. However, unless starvation, homelessness and social upheaval are the goals, the austerity must fall on the military budget. America cannot afford its multi-trillion dollar wars that serve only to enrich those invested in the armaments industries. The U.S. cannot afford the neoconservative dream of world hegemony and a conquered Middle East open to Israeli colonization. Is anyone surprised that not a single proponent of the let them eat cake school mentions cutting military spending? Entitlements, despite the fact that they are paid for by earmarked taxes and have been in surplus since the Reagan administration, are always what economists put on the chopping bloc. Where do the two schools stand on inflation vs. deflation? We dont have to worry. Martin Feldstein, one of Americas pre-eminent economist says: The good news is that investors should worry about neither. His explanation epitomizes the insouciance of American economists. Feldstein says that there cannot be inflation because of the high rate of unemployment and the low rate of capacity utilization. Thus, there is little upward pressure on wages and prices in the United States. Moreover, the recent rise in the value of the dollar relative to the euro and British pound helps by reducing import costs. As for deflation, no risk there either. The huge deficits prevent deflation, so the good news is that the possibility of significant inflation or deflation during the next few years is low on the list of economic risks faced by the U.S. economy and by financial investors. What we have in front of us is an unaware economics profession. There may be some initial period of deflation as stock and housing prices decline with the economy, which is headed down and not up. The deflation will be short lived, because as the governments deficit rises with the declining economy, the prospect of financing a $2 trillion annual deficit evaporates once individual investors have completed their flight from the stock market into safe government bonds, once the hyped Greek, Spanish, and Irish crises have driven investors out of euros into dollars, and once the banks excess reserves created by the bailout have been used up in the purchase of Treasuries. Then what finances the deficit? Dont look for an answer from either side of The Great Stimulus Debate. They havent a clue despite the fact that the answer is obvious. The Federal Reserve will monetize the federal government deficit. The result will be high inflation, possibly hyper-inflation and high unemployment simultaneously. The no-think economics establishment has no policy response for economic armageddon, assuming they are even capable of recognizing it. Economists who have spent their professional lives rationalizing globalism as good for America have no idea of the disaster that they have wrought. Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. The economic critique in this column is powerfully laid out in his latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, which has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press.

Expatriates аt Higher Risk fοr Mental Health Issues аnd Substance Abuse Problems - - ==========o============ http://www.psychologydegreeonlinetoday.com/psychology-degree-online/expatriates-at-higher-risk-for-mental-health-issues-and-substance-abuse-problems/ ================================o================ Bloomington, IL (PRWEB) March 14, 2012 +0 - - 0 - - 0 - - 0+ A חеw study, conducted jointly bу Chestnut Global Partners (CGP) аחԁ tһе Truman Group, reveals tһаt expatriates face a higher overall risk fοr mental health problems, including internalizing аחԁ externalizing problems, аחԁ substance υѕе disorders. More broadly, tһе study found tһаt more tһаח 50% οf tһе expatriates іח tһе study wеrе аt high risk fοr internalizing problems (such аѕ anxiety аחԁ depression), a rate 2.5 times tһеіr U.S.-based counterparts. “Studies estimate tһаt American expatriates һаνе rates οf assignment failure аѕ high аѕ 40%, wһісһ οftеח results frοm stress caused bу cultural differences аחԁ demanding workloads,” ѕауѕ study co-author Dave Sharar, Ph.D., Managing Director οf Chestnut Global Partners, tһе international employee аѕѕіѕtаחсе arm οf Chestnut Health Systems. “Tһіѕ study іѕ tһе first tο examine аחԁ establish tһаt expatriates аחԁ tһеіr families ԁο experience higher levels οf stress tһаח tһеіr U.S. counterparts. Aѕ tһе number οf expatriates іѕ expected tο increase, ουr findings underscore tһе need tο design programs аחԁ provide services tһаt mitigate tһе challenges οf living аחԁ working abroad.” According tο tһе 2011 Global Relocation Trends Survey report frοm Brookfield GRS, tһеrе wаѕ a 61% increase іח expat assignments іח 2011 following a downturn tһе previous year tһаt resulted frοm economic pressures. Moreover, tһе study highlighted tһе role οf family dynamics іח expatriate assignments аחԁ cited tһе top challenges аѕ partner resistance (47%) аחԁ family adjustment (32%). “Family members саח bе deeply affected bу relocation, wһісһ mаkеѕ іt imperative tο һаνе readily accessible programs аחԁ services tο address tһеіr needs аѕ well аѕ those οf tһе expat,” ѕауѕ study co-author Sean D. Truman, Ph.D., LP, director οf clinical services аt tһе Truman Group. “At tһе same time, tһіѕ study suggests tһаt tһеrе аrе meaningful аחԁ powerful links between each expat’s internal experience οf stress аחԁ tһе ways іח wһісһ tһеу relate tο people іח tһеіr life. Tһеrе іѕ аח explicit need fοr programs аחԁ services tһаt аrе comprehensive іח scope аחԁ sensitive tο tһе personal, interpersonal, аחԁ professional dynamics tһаt contribute tο tһе overall wellbeing οf expats аחԁ tһеіr family members.” Study findings аƖѕο note tһаt… Three times аѕ many expatriate аѕ U.S.-based workers expressed/endorsed feelings οf being trapped/depressed. Twice аѕ many expatriates аѕ U.S.-based workers expressed/endorsed feelings οf being anxious/nervous Tһе study used аח online, scientifically based survey developed bу tһе Research Institute οf Chestnut Health Systems, tһе Gain Short Screener (GSS), tο compare tһе mental health status οf global expatriate employees tο domestic U.S. non-expatriate employees аt multi-national employers. Tһе GSS measured self-reported responses іח three primary areas: 1) internalizing (e.g., depression, anxiety, sleep issues, traumatic stress, suicide); 2) externalizing (e.g. attention deficit, hyperactivity, conduct аחԁ impulse control); аחԁ 3) substance abuse аחԁ dependence. Findings frοm tһе study wеrе recently published іח tһе International Journal οf Mental Health. [Truman, S., Sharar, D., Pompe, J. (2011-2012). Tһе mental health status οf expatriate versus U.S. domestic workers. International Journal οf Mental Health, Vol. 40 (4), pp. 3-18.] Abουt Chestnut Global Partners Chestnut Global Partners, LLC, іѕ a wholly owned subsidiary οf Chestnut Health Systems, Inc. (Bloomington, IL), a חοt-fοr-profit behavioral health organization based іח Bloomington, Illinois. Iח addition tο offering a full range οf employee аѕѕіѕtаחсе аחԁ related workplace services tο both domestic аחԁ multi-national companies, Chestnut Global Partners’ Division οf Commercial Science helps providers аחԁ employers deploy scientific assessment technologies, outcome measures, аחԁ analytical methodologies ѕο tһаt EAPs, wellness companies, disease management entities, аחԁ purchasers саח determine tһе effects οr worth οf programs. Fοr additional information, call 309-820-3570, οr visit http://www.chestnut.org/global/. Abουt Tһе Truman Group Tһе Truman Group (St. Paul, MN) provides mental health care tο English-speaking expatriates living overseas, providing psychological services tο clients through live video connection. Oυr mental health providers аrе licensed, experienced practitioners wһο understand tһе demands tһаt accompany living іח a foreign country аחԁ culture. Tһе Truman group works wіtһ individuals, couples аחԁ adolescents over tһе age οf 14 аחԁ see patients living anywhere іח tһе world outside tһе U.S., including China, Southeast Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern аחԁ Western Europe аחԁ tһе Middle East. Fοr additional information, call 651-964-0224, οr visit http://www.truman-group.com/.

John Geraghty likes RFK case = motovated ++ Come back John !! SIMKIN'S BOX ALWAYS ,FULL NO ACCEPT. OF THE MODERATORS SCULLY BEST TO ME. EVIDENCE NOT ON NET,hard to get. PLEASE REPOST YOUR NON INTERNET DATUM NOW TO BE A GOOD EXAMPLE AND SHOW ME HOW ITS DONE KIND SIR. DAY ONE COLBY NO REPOST NON INTERNET DATUM...counting,counting,,,,counting,,,,, sg

COLBY // AS it stated at GLOBAL RESEARCH LINK the ARTICLE WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE CBO report of 3/14/12 --==-==--==--==--== http://wsws.org/arti.../heal-m17.shtml But they didn’t provide the title of or a link to the supposed report ++++++++++++++++++ GAAL// Golly I put in her name on the sites' search (found her article 2 seconds, over all time 30 seconds to find link,gee COLBY, effort study low / effort fingers on keyboard high) ============================================= COLBY //“CUM LAUDE & HONORS” from a crappy school, spent a few years with undisclosed position at the “student affairs” department, no longer on staff, hired shortly after a woman with the same unusual last name was named “Director of Alumni Affairs”. Einstein this guy ain’t, in any case as noted above, ‘despite his 'lofty' credentials what he said about the EO doesn't match its text.’ +++++++++++++++++++++++ GAAL// Its Colby vs Colby again.COLBY ="Proof that a PhD in and decades of teaching ‘critical thinking’ doesn’t mean one thinks critically " +++++++++++++++++++++++ COLBY// Can you show a causal link between worsening economy and free trade? Despite a down turn since 2008, due to unrelated factors, living standards in the US have increased sharply ovewr the last decade or so. Brazil started opening up its economy 20 years ago and has seen its economic importance living standard sharply rise. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv GAAL// How Free Trade Agreements Lead to Job Loss and Wealth Gaps http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-nashhoff/how-free-trade-agreements_b_919480.html ------------------------------------------------------- Making 9 Million Jobless "Vanish": How The Government Manipulates Unemployment Statistics By Daniel R. Amerman, CFA http://danielamerman.com/articles/2012/WorkC.html ---------------------------------------------------- Typical U.S. family got poorer during the past 10 years http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-13/census-household-income/50383882/1 -------------------------------------------------------------- Published on Friday, March 16, 2012 by Institute for Policy Studies Blog http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/03/16-6 What Do World Bank Poverty Statistics Really Tell Us? The statistics upon which most poverty elimination strategies are based are extremely misleading, and often steer experts toward the wrong solutions. by Robin Broad and John Cavanagh Now here is what sounds like a New York Times headline to celebrate: “Dire Poverty Falls Despite Global Slump, Report Finds.” That report would be a 6-page World Bank briefing note, the press release for which is titled: “New Estimates Reveal Drop in Extreme Poverty 2005-2010.” Echoes The Economist: “For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere.”If it were only that easy. Let us dig into what the World Bank’s new briefing note really tells us and ask two questions: Do the statistics really show a fall in extreme poverty across the world? And, what policies lie behind the changing poverty figures? What the figures tell us and do not tell us: The figures do not tell us anything about the impact of the recession: The actual data cover 1981-2008; figures ending in 2008 cannot possibly tell us anything about the impact of a recession that started in the United States in late 2008. The briefing note alludes to “preliminary estimates” for 2010; based on these, the Bank makes the bold assertion that the Millennium Development Goal of halving poverty (defined as $1.25/day) from its 1990 level was achieved in 2010. But, preliminary estimates are, well, just preliminary estimates. These are extrapolated from significantly smaller samples. Hence, the data cannot back up the Bank’s confident claim because, again, the real data end in 2008. We have been following World Bank projections and estimates for decades now and have found them highly unreliable – and typically over-optimistic. If one sticks to the 1981-2008 period, China is the key: Between 1981 and 2008, the entire drop in the number of people living in “extreme poverty,” that is those who live below $1.25 a day, is accounted for by China — where the number of extreme poor fell by 662 million. Over this period, the number of people living below $1.25 a day outside China actually rose by 13 million, and hovered around 1.1 billion people throughout this period. More people fell into poverty in South Asia over this period (interesting, given India’s rapid growth over the past decade) and in sub-Saharan Africa. Hence, a more accurate headline would have read: “Numbers in poverty plunge in China over past three decades from 1981-2008, while rising marginally in the rest of the world.” To extend this last point: As we have argued elsewhere (pdf), in countries such as South Africa, where government services are generous, $1.25 a day goes further than, say, in Haiti. Furthermore, as nations grow rapidly, as have China and India over the past decade and a half, the amount of money needed for people in the cash economy to maintain a decent standard of living also rises. As for those who subsist in rural areas on less than $1.25 a day, many consume much of what they produce. Many live in self-built homes and depend on traditional medicines. While their poverty may be “extreme” by the Bank’s monetary measure, their quality of life may be much better than that of their urban counterparts, even though their incomes are often smaller. Related to this, our experience living with poor families in rural areas suggests that it has been the opening of their natural resources to global agribusiness, factory fishing fleets, and corporate interests that often leads to real poverty. Millions have been pushed off their land over the past few generations into urban slums where they live in squalor, although they may bring home a few dollars a day. In sum, the statistics upon which most poverty elimination strategies are based are extremely misleading, and often steer experts toward the wrong solutions. This raises the other question of what policies are behind the figures: Neoliberalism and poverty: What is behind the data that shows those in poverty outside China increasing in most regions from 1981 to 2005? This period coincided with the heyday of corporate-friendly neoliberal policies in most countries. So the data could be read as a confirmation of what critics of neoliberalism have been saying: the wave of market fundamentalism contributed to increases in the numbers of people in poverty. That data also reveals that in one region, sub-Saharan Africa, the percent of people living below the poverty threshold also rose over this period. We hardly need to point out that in the one country where poverty plunged – China – leaders did not pursue blind neoliberalism, but instead combined state direction of much of the economy with market-openings in selected sectors. How about the subsequent period from 2005 to 2008, a time range during which the data reveal poverty numbers and rates falling in all regions of the world? As opposed to 1981-2005, this was a period of spreading cracks in the neoliberal Washington Consensus. It was also a period of rising of commodity prices and rising of balance of payments surpluses in many Southern countries. As a result, many Southern countries were able to repay the IMF and World Bank and wean themselves from World Bank and IMF loans and neoliberal conditionality. Hence, the new World Bank poverty figures may tell a very different story from what has been suggested elsewhere: The numbers in poverty outside China rose during the heyday of neoliberal policies, and began to fall as the grip of those policies was loosened after 2005. © 2012 Institute for Policy Studies Dr. Robin Broad is Professor of international development at American University. She teaches courses on economic globalization & development as well as environment & development, with a focus on social, environmental, and economic accountability. more Robin Broad John Cavanagh has been director of the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies since 1998. IPS has recently released the new report Barely Making the Grade: Obama’s First Year. Cavanagh has written 13 books on the global economy, most recently (with Robin Broad), Development Redefined: How the Market Met its Match. He is on the boards of the International Forum on Globalization, the new foundation of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and several other groups. He has been involved in coalition-building efforts on economic justice from the anti-NAFTA fights of the early 1990s to the coalitions around the WTO and debt and, most recently, the work against the bailout of Wall Street. o o o o = o o o o ##################### ##################### ##################### LEFTY OBAMA THREAD CONTINUES (this in two parts) o-o-o-o-o Obama doesnt fight Wall Srteet Oil Speculation (YAH,'real' LEFTY) PART ONE The Solution http://www.stopoilspeculationnow.com/Pages/solution.aspx ======== PART TWO Behind Gas Price Increases, Obama's Failure To Crack Down On Speculators o-o-o-o-o-o http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/gas-price-increase_b_1346035.html +++++++++++++ =================oooooooo==========

__John Geraghty. emailed ____________________

OMG he has a BA from a middling obscure U. and worked at the same school's "Division of Student Affairs" for a few years, what he says must be true! despite his 'lofty' credentials what he said about the EO doesn't match its text. WTF is USAWatchdog.com? If true what's your point? So says an obscure writer on an obscure website sighting a supposed unnamed CBO report. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ AS it stated at GLOBAL RESEARCH LINK the ARTICLE WORLD SOCIALIST WEB SITE CBO report of 3/14/12 --==-==--==--==--== http://wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/heal-m17.shtml +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WTF cant you see FREE TRADE continues = economy worse (usawatchdog article). Geseese !! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brandon CUM LAUDE & HONORS and ON STAFF. Probably brighter than most.

COLBY// A fruit loop blogger claiming that something is true and it in fact being true a quite different propositions ################################ not much different than COLBY himself (maybe better) --------- fruit loop below ------------------------ Division of Student Affairs Staff Profile - Brandon Turbeville Education Bachelor of Arts, Francis Marion University (Cum Laude and Honors) Profession Experience <!--[if !supportLists]-->· <!--[endif]-->Employed at FMU in current position since 2008 ################################=============== = 30 years of free trade +++++++++ 9% Unemployment Rate is a Statistical Lie” is a pretty catchy title, and being the kind of vicious little rat that I am, and who suspects treachery and betrayal at every turn, I naturally take a look at it to confirm my worst suspicions. The bad news is that it is, indeed, scary stuff! The article is by Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com, who writes that John Williams of ShadowStats.com has calculated that “If unemployment was computed the way BLS did it prior to 1994, the true unemployment rate would be 22.2%.” http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/14/10-myths-about-free-trade/ ---------====------------- related http://usawatchdog.com/collapse-coming-not-recovery/ ############################################################## ############################################################## ############################################################## LEFTY OBAMA THREAD CONTINUES Twenty million could lose employer coverage under Obama health care overhaul by Kate Randall http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29820

Come on Steve there are links to the mods profile pages at the bottom of the main PC Forum page*. You can send them PMs via their pages. Also you presumably have John Simkin's e-mail or you would not have been able to join the forum. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showforum=209 The other questions remain unanswered. For your convenience here's your answer sheet again. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Tried to send info to TOM SCULLY, BUT STATED CANT RECEIVE NEW MESSAGES.