Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Dollar Falls to Record Low Against Euro

NEW YORK (AP) — The dollar fell against most major currencies on Wednesday, including a new low against the euro, which fetched $1.55, as skepticism grew over the latest U.S. Federal Reserve Bank plan to restore calm to jittery global credit markets.

The Fed on Tuesday unveiled a rescue package that would direct as much as $200 billion into banks and investment houses. The action was in concert with help from the European Central Bank and central banks in Britain, Switzerland and Canada.

But the Fed action was overshadowed by U.S. economic struggles, halting the dollar's rise and pushing the euro to a record high of $1.5559, surpassing its previous record of $1.5495 set Tuesday.

Late Wednesday, the 15-nation euro fell back to $1.5526 — still above the $1.5319 it bought in New York late Tuesday.

"The positive dollar impact of yesterday's coordinated central bank operations is already proving unsustainable as the U.S. currency falls across the board," said Ashraf Laidi, the chief foreign exchange strategist for CMC Markets in New York.

Traders also weighed a report from Zawya Dow Jones that said the United Arab Emirates was deciding whether to continue pegging its currency to the plummeting U.S. dollar.

In January, Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamed bin Jassem Al Thani said his country was also reconsidering its link to the dollar.

The British pound rose to $2.0243 from $2.0029 even after British Treasury Chief Alistair Darling cut forecasts for domestic growth when he delivered his first annual budget against the backdrop of the worst global economic conditions for a decade.

In other late New York trading, the dollar dropped to 102.04 Japanese yen from 104.17 yen and to 1.0182 Swiss francs from 1.0337 Swiss francs it traded Tuesday. Meanwhile, the dollar edged up to 1.0096 Canadian dollars from 1.0067 Canadian dollars.

Crude rallies to surpass $110 as dollar falls

Futures hit new highs, shrug off surprise increase in U.S. inventories

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil futures gained more than $1 Wednesday to surpass $110 a barrel for the first time, moving higher as the dollar fell to a new low against the euro in a lift for dollar-denominated oil prices and as speculation increased in the futures market.

The gains came even after government data showed a surprising upturn in U.S. crude inventories in the latest week.

Crude oil for April delivery hit a new record high of $110.20 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange in late afternoon trading. It was last seen up $1.05 a barrel, or 1%, to stand at $109.80. The benchmark contract was mostly in negative territory during morning trading after the inventories report.

U.S. crude inventories rose 6.2 million barrels to 311.6 million barrels in the week ended March 7, the Energy Information Administration reported. Analysts surveyed by Platts had expected an increase of 1.6 million barrels.

"Today's report is overwhelmingly bearish," said Chris Lafakis, an analyst at Moody's Economy.com. "There isn't a positive element in today's report for the oil bulls."

But some analysts believe the bearish news could instead push oil prices higher as investment funds resort to a buy-the-dip mentality, especially with the dollar under pressure. Crude has been making consecutive new highs and has rallied more than $20 in one month.

Market bears are hoping that in the short term this week's supplies numbers "could dent the recent rally, but we would not hold our breath," said Edward Meir, an analyst at MF Global, in a research note.

The dollar on Wednesday fell to the lowest level against the euro, which hit a new high of $1.5524. See Currencies.

Crude prices, denominated in dollars, tend to rise when the greenback falls, as a weaker U.S. currency makes crude less expensive to buyers holding other currencies. It also eats into oil producers' dollar revenue and could prompt them to curtail production, thus adding more upward pressure on oil. See story on dollar and crude.

Also on Nymex, April reformulated gasoline fell slightly, to $2.7172 a gallon, and April heating oil rose to $3.0234 a gallon, up 2.77 cents.

April natural gas also rose slightly, changing hands at $10.005 per million British thermal units.

Increasing speculation

The gap between WTI crude, the underlying product of Nymex crude futures, and Brent oil, a type of crude typically refined in Northwest Europe, widened to more than $4 a barrel on Wednesday, an unusual gap reflecting growing speculative buying of the U.S. contract, an analyst said on Wednesday.

"We believe that this is evidence of increased buying by hedge funds in the U.S.," said Peter Hitchens, analyst at Seymour Pierce.

According to Hitchens, the traditional premium between WTI and Brent is in the range of $1 to $1.50 a barrel, which he said "normally reflects the transportation price of moving a barrel of Brent to the U.S."

Government data showed speculators and managers of large investment funds, those who don't need physical oil, dominated bets on rising oil prices, while refiners and other oil users were betting oil prices would move lower.

The latest data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission showed long positions from speculators, in which investors expect oil prices to move higher, outnumbered short positions, or bets on lower prices, by nearly 100,000 contracts last week.

Net long positions more than tripled in one month. This was the fourth consecutive week marking an increase in net long positions from financial traders, and some analysts are expecting another build-up in this week's net long positions.

Inventories in detail

Crude inventories at Cushing, Okla., the delivery point for crude traded on the Nymex, rose sharply, increasing by 2.7 million barrels to a total of 18.9 million barrels, EIA said in the report.
EIA also reported U.S. gasoline supplies rose by 1.7 million barrels in the latest week, while distillate stocks fell by 1.2 million barrels. Analysts surveyed by Platts, an energy information provider, had been expecting that gasoline supplies would fall by 900,000 barrels and that distillate stocks would drop by 2 million barrels.

U.S. refineries operated at 85% of their operable capacity last week, down from the previous week's 85.9%. U.S. crude oil imports averaged 10.5 million barrels a day last week, up 1.1 million barrels a day from the previous week. End of Story

6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran

Terry Atlas
Global Research
March 12, 2008

This report by the US mainstream press suggests in no uncertain terms that the US is heading for war with Iran and that opposition within the US high command has been significantly weakened with the forced resignation of Admiral William Fallon.

Is the United States moving toward military action with Iran?

The resignation of the top U.S. military commander for the Middle East is setting off alarms that the Bush administration is intent on using military force to stop Iran’s moves toward gaining nuclear weapons. In announcing his sudden resignation today following a report on his views in Esquire, Adm. William Fallon didn’t directly deny that he differs with President Bush over at least some aspects of the president’s policy on Iran. For his part, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it is "ridiculous" to think that the departure of Fallon — whose Central Command has been working on contingency plans for strikes on Iran as well as overseeing Iraq — signals that the United States is planning to go to war with Iran.

Fallon’s resignation, ending a 41-year Navy career, has reignited the buzz of speculation over what the Bush administration intends to do given that its troubled, sluggish diplomatic effort has failed to slow Iran’s nuclear advances. Those activities include the advancing process of uranium enrichment, a key step to producing the material necessary to fuel a bomb, though the Iranians assert the work is to produce nuclear fuel for civilian power reactors, not weapons.

Here are six developments that may have Iran as a common thread. And, if it comes to war, they may be seen as clues as to what was planned. None of them is conclusive, and each has a credible non-Iran related explanation:

1. Fallon’s resignation: With the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much of the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based warplanes and sea-launched missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran’s air defenses and nuclear infrastructure. Centcom commands the U.S. naval forces in and near the Persian Gulf. In the aftermath of the problems with the Iraq war, there has been much discussion within the military that senior military officers should have resigned at the time when they disagreed with the White House.

2. Vice President Cheney’s peace trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what is described as a Mideast trip to try to give a boost to stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other stops: One, Oman, is a key military ally and logistics hub for military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit chokepoint into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose support would be sought before any military action given its ability to increase oil supplies if Iran’s oil is cut off. Back in March 2002, Cheney made a high-profile Mideast trip to Saudi Arabia and other nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy toward Iraq and not war, which began a year later.

3. Israeli airstrike on Syria: Israel’s airstrike deep in Syria last October was reported to have targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear program. An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran (also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled Northern Iraq), and knowing the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to reduce the risks for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.

4. Warships off Lebanon: Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system for defense against air attacks.

5. Israeli comments: Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have quite consistently said they were prepared to act alone — if that becomes necessary — to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given the Israelis an assurance that they won’t have to act alone?

6.Israel’s war with Hezbollah: While this seems a bit old, Israel’s July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not only as a threat on it own but also as a possible Iranian surrogate force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon’s border with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah’s Iranian-supplied arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been able to rearm, though a United Nations force polices a border area buffer zone in southern Lebanon.

Defense Secretary Gates said that Fallon, 63, asked for permission to retire. Gates said that the decision, effective March 31, was entirely Fallon’s and that Gates believed it was "the right thing to do." In Esquire, an article on Fallon portrayed him as opposed to President Bush’s Iran policy and said he was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program. In his statement, Fallon said he agreed with the president’s "policy objectives" but was silent on whether he opposed aspects of the president’s plans. "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region," Fallon, said in the statement issued by Centcom headquarters in Tampa, Fla. "And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there," he said. Gates announced that Fallon’s top deputy, Army Lt. Gen. Martin Dempsey, will take over temporarily when Fallon leaves. A permanent successor, requiring nomination by the president and confirmation by the Senate, might not be designated in the near term.

U.S. Considers Adding Venezuela to List of Terrorist States

Pablo Bachelet
McClatchy Newspapers
March 12, 2008

The Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism, following reports of close Venezuelan links with Colombian rebels, a senior government official has confirmed.

The investigation is the first step in a process that could see Venezuela join North Korea, Cuba, Sudan, Syria and Iran as countries designated by the State Department as supporters of terrorism.

U.S. laws give some leeway on what economic activity is subject to such sanctions, but experts say adding Venezuela to the list would force U.S. and even foreign firms to sever or curtail links with one of the world’s largest oil producers.

The legal review comes after Colombia captured four computers belonging to a guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid into Ecuador. The documents suggest the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC.

The U.S. and Colombian governments and the European Union have officially designated FARC as a terrorist organization, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said publicly that he considers it a legitimate insurgency.

A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the subject, said government lawyers had been asked to clarify “what goes into effect in terms of prohibitions, or prohibited activities,” with the state sponsor designation.

The official was reluctant to predict if the FARC computer discoveries will lead to sanctions, noting U.S. investigators first must corroborate their veracity. The lawyers have not yet returned their opinions, the official added.

But if the captured documents are shown to be true, the official said, “I think it will beg the question of whether or not Venezuela, given Chavez’s interactions with the FARC, has … crossed the threshold of state sponsor of terror.”

Read entire article

Plan To Spray Toxic Biological Chemicals Over San Francisco Announced

Rami Nagel
Natural News
March 12, 2008

People of the world, the US Government is planning to poison more than two million people, in California, using an untested biological "pesticide" this summer. The chemical to be sprayed is classified by the EPA as a "pesticide" and the plan is to douse cities with this chemical designed to stick on everything for 90 days or longer. This application is not a one time event, but will continue every 1-3 months for as long as five years. The pesticide to be sprayed is not designed to harm the light brown apple moth’s who it is designed for, but merely to confuse its mating habits. While harmless to moths, the pesticide has been documented to harm humans.

Side effects range from vomiting and flu like systems, to male and female reproductive cycle disruption. One child nearly died from the exposure, and some people have developed asthma from being exposed to this chemical concoction. It is cause for alarm that a chemical being labeled as harmless and "safe" even in minute doses, causes severe health effects in some people. The government is racing to cover up and hide the dangerous health effects so that they can continue their aerial spray plans this summer. Your attention and action on this subject is needed in the most important way.

On January 24th, 2008, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Chuck Conner announced the availability of $74.5 million in emergency funding to combat the light brown apple moth (LBAM) infestation in California (1). President Bush’s recent budget proposal sent to Congress sets aside $330 Million to eradicate plant pests, like the Light Brown Apple Moth. With crime, prison crowding, pollution, poverty, budget problems and the like, why should the government go through the effort to try to control the reproductive habits of a moth? While most people say the answer is money, a far more sinister plan seems to be at hand. It is unprecedented to design a long term plan to spray chemicals on people, which are untested for safety. This plan violates a myriad of state, federal and international laws.

On February 13th, 2008, the CDFA and USDA, in conjunction, announced their action plan for aerial spraying untested poison on people. This is from the CDFA Press Release "Aerial treatments are expected to begin June 1 in the infested areas of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, with subsequent aerial treatments expected to begin August 1 in San Francisco, Daly City, Colma, Oakland, Piedmont, Emeryville, Albany, El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Tiburon and Belvedere. The treatments in these areas are designed to be reapplied at 30- to 90-day intervals while the moths are active." (4)

In late 2007, there were 643 documented health complaints (www.1hope.org/SPRAYCOMPLES.PDF) from the aerial spray program conducted in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties. Keep in mind that this documentation is a mere fraction of the real health effects, as no legitimate effort was made to inform even doctors on how to recognize pesticide poisoning. Many doctors also refused to report suspected pesticide poisoning as required by law, and in order for a report to get officially filed, many times the patient had to insist upon it. These health injuries are not being honored in any way, because if they are honored, this sick chemical spray will be seen for what it is. It is a poison to many humans and likely to many other animals as well. I have a difficult time swallowing that a chemical compound designed to disrupt a moth’s mating cycle can accidentally create reproductive health problems.

There are many who believe that this spray is not directed at the moth population which the government says is the goal of the spray, but rather that it is directed at humans. There is a growing body of evidence to support this claim, considering that the moth itself does not cause any crop damage. It is similar to the government deciding that we must eradicate all the ants, because ants cause millions of dollars of damage. Like ants, the light brown apple moth is a harmless pest. Another strange observation is the name of the mating disruption chemical Checkmate. In order to pull off the deployment of this biological chemical, a hoax, or reason for aerial spraying had to be created. That reason is called the Light Brown Apple Moth infestation. The second requirement to pull off releasing a massive chemical cloud of disease, is to trick people into believing it is safe. This whole aerial spray program depends on the belief that the chemicals to be sprayed are safe.

Since the chemicals planned to be deployed have never been sprayed over cities before, and are even being developed as I write, and thus have not been proven safe for humans, this is by the facts a large scale experiment. The question people should ask is, "why?" While it may be just coincidence, a recent article displays this headline: “Top-secret Livermore anti-germ lab opens.” (2) This same lab, has routinely exploded thousands of pounds of lethal, chemically toxic, and radioactive Depleted Uranium in the greater San Francisco Bay area’s air for the past fifty years (3).

When people hear about this aerial spray, many people experience a sinking feeling in the pit of their stomach. This is truly a sickening action. The government is willfully breaking countless laws in order to combat a stupid leaf rolling moth that curls up into the leaves of some plants and that doesn’t cause any crop damage. It has not caused crop damage or embargo’s in Hawaii over the past 100 years, so why would it cause damage in California?

No ounce of sanity can explain why the government must insist on violating countless laws to spray people with never before tested chemicals, except as to realize a deadly game is being played.

Unlike the horrible malathion spraying over 20 years ago, which was a one-time ordeal with chemicals that evaporate, this spraying is a time release microscopic device, which will be continuously applied, short of the winter months, for up to five years. Even five years of spraying will at best reduce slightly the moth population, as pest control experts explain that mating disruption technology is used as a small part of an overall pest management plan. Pretty much any pest control expert, except for those on the government take, will tell you that the light brown apple moth cannot be eradicated, and that even if it could, the mating disruption technology is not the best means to do it. Since aerial spraying is to be the sole method of controlling the light brown apple moth in many locations, then even after many years of spraying, the moth will still be alive. It is not sane to spray people with chemicals. That begs attention, there is not any hard evidence that the spray even works at all. In fact on the EPA’s own website, there’s an article about pheromones released from microcapsules, it states: "The studies show that only a small proportion of the microcapsules actually release any pheromone." (5)

This is now clear and reprehensible evidence of State and Federal Governments attempting to commit a large scale crime against the American people. Let us forget about supposed terrorists for a second whose propagandized images are placed on the television, and lets pay attention to this biological attack planned on our fellow neighbors. The presence of a minuscule pest, is no excuse to douse millions with chemicals. There are NO CROPS IN CITIES! So why are they going to spray cities?

This is a Cover-Up

The LBAM infestation is a monumental hoax designed as a cover for an operation of devious goals to expose people to dangerous chemicals over several years.

Following is a link to a recently published proposal of spray boundaries, the yellow lines indicating the proposed spray zones (www.hopefortruth.com/lbam_2008.jpg) . More than two million people who live in these and other targeted cities are scheduled to be exposed this summer to chemicals that that have never been tested on humans or animals before. Let me repeat: the government of the United States is conducting a human biological experiment, on a massive scale, breaking State, Federal and International laws. Children, pregnant women, and the sick and elderly will be most as risk to this increased exposure to long lasting chemicals. Chemicals which are newly designed, chemicals which have not been proven safe. Just like the reproductive health effects reported from the spray, it is important to realize that a large team of "experts" working on this project do not mistakenly douse people with chemicals. This is done on purpose, with a purpose.

Does it make sense to douse over two million people with literally hundreds of billions of microscopic balls of volatile chemicals over an extended period of time to try to limit the mating habits of a few thousand moths? Is it legal to do this? Is it ethical? Is it moral? Yet rather than halting the spray plans to investigate the damage it has done to many people, the spray plans continue to grow exponentially.

To see this insanity clearly, let’s examine the moth population. In San Francisco County, 3,501 moths total have been trapped and killed over an eight month period. The entire city of San Francisco, whose population is 744,041, is in the proposed spray boundaries. About 744,000 people are to be exposed to ‘never tested safe for humans, microencapsulated pheromones’ for several years. This is really a needle in the haystack approach to pest control. Keep in mind, each moth found is a moth that has been trapped and exterminated (6). In Alameda County, 431 months have been found in the past 8 months out of 2,327 traps. The moth population in Alameda County is thus sparse at best. Just look out your window. Imagine how many insects are in the tree, the yard, or the local park. I have seen more than 431 ants crawl into my kitchen on a rainy day. So in a giant area of 141 square miles, and the tens or hundreds of millions of insects in that zone, to try to eradicate a few hundred moths by just spraying chemicals everywhere is both ludicrous and unsafe.

When I learned that Santa Cruz, my previous hometown was to be aerially sprayed, I was in a state of shock. This was followed by a long period of disbelief.

Apparently the CDFA or the USDA, or both, decided that the previous chemical formulas used, Checkmate LBAM-F and Checkmate OLR-F were not good enough, which really points to the fact that the past two aerial sprays in Monterey, and the one in Santa Cruz County, were a waste of time and money. Not to mention the tragedy of the many severe health reactions experienced by thousands of people from chemical exposure. It doesn’t matter to those in charge at the CDFA, EPA, or USDA, if a new chemical is needed to be used, because the goal is not to stop the moth, the moth cannot be stopped, it can only be controlled. This is known. The goal may be to coat people with a toxic mesh of disease causing microcapsules.

The chemicals that were sprayed, and that are planned on being sprayed, have not undergone thorough safety evaluations. And they won’t undergo such evaluations in a legitimate way, because if they did, they would prove only one thing - that these chemicals are potentially deadly.

The chemicals planned to be sprayed will no doubt be similar to the ones used in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties in 2007. They are a plastic encapsulated microtechnology, a microscopic plastic dust. The reported microcapsule size of the aerial mating disrupter is as small as 10 microns and averages 25-35 microns in size for an undeployed moth spray. For comparison, a human hair is approximately 70 microns in thickness. The size of these chemical containing plastic balls comes suspiciously close to micro-sized particles that are used to evade the body’s defensive systems for biological weapons, those are reported to be 3-4 microns in size. Miniature particles between 2.5-10 microns in size, especially from pesticides, are known to cause both short term and long term health effects, including decreased overall life span.

A University of California at Davis report confirmed that some unsprayed and undegraded microcapsules are indeed 10 microns in size. The small particle size explains the severe reactions, that I, along with countless others have had when being exposed to minute dosages of the chemical. Minute dosages of chemicals designed for moth’s, advertised as harmless, do not accidentally make people sick. In other words, the people who designed these chemicals and manufactured them had to have an intimate understanding of what each chemical does, and how they react with each other. So, too, should the EPA have this understanding. It is not unreasonable to assume that a chemical designed to stop moths, that is being sprayed on humans, would have such drastic health effects, but it does. The only conclusion is that this is intentional in the design. Imagine someone designing a "safe" car. If this "safe" car had no brakes, then nobody would assume that the car accidentally had no brakes. Likewise, chemicals designed for moths, in minuscule doses, cannot accidentally harm people. It is more than just chance.

Again, nobody in the public as of yet knows how small the degraded microcapsules are, or how this will effect people in the short and long term, because no such testing exists. Once sprayed, these microscopic balls can easily enter deep into the mouth, eyes, skin and lungs. Even after 90 days and several rains, some people in Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties are still experiencing symptoms of spray poisoning. When they leave the counties, their symptoms many times abate. This aerial program is a real sword through the heart of democracy and decency. The government has really gone too far and it must be stopped now.

I must inform you that through a freedom of information request, a local newspaper has learned that the CDFA has hired media spin doctor extraordinaire Porter Novelli at the tune of almost $500,000 tax payer dollars to convince the public that it is okay for the state to dump chemicals all over them, their gardens, their pets, and their neighbors. The state of California is in a budget crisis, and this is one example that explains why. Here the state is using tax payer dollars to lie to and mislead the public, to try to convince the public that the state should be spending millions of dollars of resources on polluting the air, sea, and land with chemicals that the public in general does not want or need. Since a majority of spray funding is coming from the federal arm, know that your tax paying dollars are going to a government sponsored large scale crime.

Originally, the USDA announced that the moth might cause $100 million in crop damage if allowed to multiply. Then they keep expanding their figures to create false reasons to justify this unethical chemical assault. The most recent estimate of LBAM damage is $160 million to $640 million just in California. Mind you this moth has a hard time finding its way into crop fields and seems for some very bizarre reason to live only in cities. The estimate of this level of crop damage is absurd. The figures used to estimate the damage came from one particular year in Australia and have little meaning in California, as the climate is different. Even if this $160 million crop loss did come true, one has to consider that $90 million has now been ear marked to contain the moth, primarily the funds are for aerial spraying chemicals on cities which contain people, and not crops like apples, oranges and grapes. One expert estimates that if the CDFA stays on this track, by the time the aerial treatment is complete after five years, close to $500 million will be spent on aerial eradication. With little to no impact on the apple moth population.

The pheromone being used, (E)-11-Tetradecen-l-y Acetate is identical to pheromone’s which many native moths and perhaps other species also contain. So this spray will effect other non-target species. The pheromone only represents between 10-20% of the ingredients of the aerial spray.

Now, organizations like the Breast Cancer Fund, Center For Environmental Health, Calpirg, and the Sierra Club are issuing statements opposed to aerial spraying.

What to Expect Next

The CDFA, USDA, and EPA will do anything and everything to convince, lie, cajole and get people to agree with the plan to spray chemicals. The facts of this situation are irrelevant to those in charge because the goal is to spray people, not to operate under the laws of this constitutional government of checks and balances. They are going to go to meetings, pretend it is safe, have doctors testify it is safe, pretend to listen to the public, ignore any health complaints, and try to lull people into complacency on the matter. They have even gone as far as promising an environmental review, which will contain a giant pile of documents again to try to prove that it is okay to spray people with chemicals. The CDFA will continue to find more moth finds, and create more fake evidence of how much harm the moth will do. They will get more money from Mr. Bush’s pesticide funds and continue to enlarge their aerial spray program. Strangely the moth will continue to spread, finding its way into other cities, and in the coming years, cities like Los Angeles and San Diego will be targeted.

Knowing that the government is actively lying, hiding evidence, manipulating the public, and that they are spraying chemicals illegally on people should be enough evidence to convict these felons under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) laws.

Freeing Yourself From the Government’s Pro Spray Propaganda

These 643 health injury reports represent a fraction of the real injuries. The actual spray has surely caused thousands to be poisoned from this biochemical formulation. See my related article (www.naturalnews.com/022434.html) . Despite these reports which include 330 official illness claims filed with the CDFA, the CDFA states the following lies on their website, “Pheromones are extremely safe” and “Public safety is the primary concern.” The statement that pheromones are safe is a misleading distorted truth. Sure, pheromones can be safe when used responsibly, for example a benign moth sticky trap in an apple orchard (away from people) that contains pheromones to attract the moths. But when you create a microscopic biodegradable ball of volatile chemicals, and then place within it a synthetic moth pheromone, which itself is described as an explosive chemical, you have more of a drug which can interact and create changes within the human body, than a pesticide. Furthermore, no thorough investigation has been done of these 330 official illness complaints, and some of these people have not yet recovered. And a further investigation won’t be done, because a legitimate investigation would find that the spray made people sick, and thus, the aerial spray program would be halted.

One must realize that any documentation regarding the safety of pheromones reported is from non-aerial applications, such as a moth sticky trap that is scented with pheromones and stuck on a tree, or a pheromone laced twist tie applied to apple orchards or vineyards. These safety assertions also do not relate to the aerial method of application. A sticky trap laced with pheromones is a different entity than a microscopic ball that can easily enter the body and then biodegrade and release chemicals within the body. Part of the less dangerous aspect to pheromone laced traps is the fact that the pheromone is so volatile that it rapidly evaporates, so the chemical won’t travel too far. The microcapsules are the opposite, they are designed to stick around in the air for months. They are infinitely more dangerous than sticky traps, and you cannot really compare them. It’s like saying that a tank is the same as a motorcycle because they are both vehicles. Microcapsulated pheromones are a different beast than pheremone laced moth traps.

The newly designed chemicals, which are scheduled for June and August deployment will not have their ingredients disclosed to the public. We do not even know what this stuff is? How can the government say the chemicals are safe, and then hide the ingredients from scrutiny? If these chemicals are so safe why not tell us honestly what they are? Clearly the intention of the CDFA, USDA, and EPA, is to cover up the real nature of this biochemical assault. They are trying to hide what they do from the public’s eye. They do not want you to know the truth. The truth is people get sick. Not everybody gets sick from the moth spray, but many people do. Its effects can be strong and violent. The truth is, the US Government is a vehicle being used to poison us.

The CDFA reports that they want their newest moth weapon deployed this summer, to be even longer lasting, which to me means that the microcapsules will be even more dangerous, possibly indefinitely sticking in the environment, and irritating people’s sensitive ducts and glands; much like allergies from pollen. In each aerial application, spray planes are contracted through Dynamic Aviation (www.dynamicaviation.com/home.htm) , which has other specialties beyond aerial application of pesticides. They also do “Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.” The spraying is conducted at a height of between 500-800 feet and residents in the sprayed area report feeling like they are in a war zone. Once in contact with residential neighborhoods, parks, and playgrounds, the balls slowly disintegrate over time. The hope is that during this time, they release pheromones and limit the moth’s mating patterns. Again, this is a whimsical hope because no legitimate studies exist proving this new technology is effective at either releasing pheromones, or at stopping the moth’s mating habits.

Typically a drug takes many years for the Food and Drug Administration to approve for safety for humans. Under an emergency declaration, the EPA can exclude new chemicals from rigorous testing. The catch to this exception is that these laws were designed for agricultural emergencies and are being violently misused because they are planning on spraying large urban populations and not agricultural zones. These laws cannot lawfully apply to cities. Among other things, we have legal control and authority of our bodies, and our properties. We can say "No" to the spray, and if necessary, defend ourselves from this highly toxic assault. The EPA and USDA have flagrantly crossed legal and ethical boundaries by applying laws designed for agricultural fields to densely inhabited city centers.

Further, consider that the testing of these chemicals is not done to make sure that it is safe for humans, as the safety is merely an untested assumption. As an example, it took several months after the first aerial spray of Monterey County for the CDFA to pay the University of California Davis to see if the Checkmate formula was toxic to certain very small ocean insects. It took several months for this first test of the Checkmate formula to be conducted. This test only happened after the chemical was sprayed on well over two hundred thousand people. The testing being conducted in New Zealand is not to ensure safety for humans, but to see if the mating habits of the moths are disrupted. This spraying is illegally approved by the EPA because Congress passed legislation to legally prevent the EPA from conducting human experiments. “EPA’s rules make it clear that all pregnant women, all nursing women, and all children are excluded from all studies involving intentional exposure that are intended for submission under the pesticide laws.” (www.epa.gov/oppfead1/guidance/human-test.htm) If the EPA cannot test pesticides on pregnant women, nursing women, and children, then under what jurisdiction and authority can they simply endorse and approve the exposure of pregnant women, nursing women and children with untested pesticides?

How many more children do we need to see poisoned by these indefensible government actions until we wake up and say, enough! How many more of our friends, relatives and neighbors do we need to see develop chronic health conditions due to exposure to aerially sprayed chemicals until we take effective action to stop this insanity? How much longer are we going to allow the government that is created for the people, to represent the people, to break its own laws and poison its own people and then disregard any reported health concerns?

I call for the arrest and trial of the appropriate employees in the CDFA, EPA, and USDA, for conspiring to poison people of the State of California, for lying and deceiving the public, and for polluting our environment.

Here’s How I Suggest You Take Action:

* Share this information with your friends and neighbors.

* Ask your California representative to support the following bills -

1) AB 2765, (Huffman) sets new limits on the emergency powers of the Department of Agriculture.

2) AB 2763 would enact the Invasive Pest Planning Act of 2008, by Assemblymember John Laird.

3) AB 2764 (Hancock) will prohibit the Secretary of Food and Agriculture from approving the
application of a pesticide in an urban area, unless the Governor has proclaimed a state of
emergency.

4) AB 2760 (Leno) would require the completion of an EIR before any pesticide could be applied in
an urban area.

Also, State Senator Carole Migden plans to file for a moratorium on aerial spraying.

* Don’t be fooled when the CDFA says that the “pheromone” is safe. I have been poisoned myself by these microcapsules, and so has my family, it is a terrible feeling. Ask for test results to show it is safe for humans, you’ll see they have none.

* Demand accountability. Ask your local California representative why they are continuing to allow the state to spray chemicals on people, even though the state has laws, like the state constitutional right to personal safety, and legislative laws such as the California Environmental Quality Act, meant to prevent such actions. Your state representative can amend or modify the LBAM law that went into affect that gave the CDFA the unanimous green light to eradicate the apple moth. Surely your representative does not support aerial spraying? Each county has to have their local agricultural commissioner or someone to that effect to sign a permit to allow the state to spray. Stop these people from signing the permit!

* State and Federal representatives can also design an independent committee to come up with non-biased recommendations. The CDFA created such a working group, but they strangely seem to believe that aerial spraying people to stop moths from mating is a good idea.

* Gather your local city council members’ support. Use local resources to conduct research, and file lawsuits against the state.

* Ideally the city attorneys and mayors should file legal suits against CDFA, the EPA and the USDA for polluting the air and water, for violating State and Federal laws, and for planning to create large scale poisoning.

* Contact your US Senate and House Representatives, and ask them to stop or at least investigate federal funding from the USDA for the aerial spray program. Federal officials can also declassify this tiny moth from a class A pest. Ask them to strengthen protections so that populations cannot be aerially sprayed unless there is a grave and immediate danger to public health.

* Additional Note: If the aerial spray does occur, take samples. Put a turkey baster-sized aluminum tray in your back yard. Put the tray out on the night prior to the aerial spray, and another on the night of the aerial spray. Seal each tray well. Each city should organize its own tests of the chemicals, including tests for biological agents, contaminants, radioactive substances, and a microscope analysis to see how big the microcapsules are, and to see if the microcapsules contain miniature microcapsules. Analysis ideally should also include a detailed chemical profile of the substance sprayed, since the government won’t tell us what it is.

Finally, the way I see it, it is a crime to poison children and our fellow people who live in California. Just because the people who are polluting and poisoning the air with chemicals work for the government, should not make them immune to criminal liability and prosecution. Unfortunately, no city officials, yet, have the decency and standards to attack this matter for what it is, a crime. Crimes require criminal investigations, and criminal charges.

People can be alarmed, and if cities take equitable action, we do not need to be afraid. For example, we pay taxes so we can have a fire and police department to protect ourselves from crimes. Why not use the police force to protect residents from government sponsored crimes? Many of the actions of the CDFA fall under the category of illegal activities. The police force are the people on the local level, given the right and authority to protect people from crimes.

The media creates a false fear about some hypothetical terrorist releasing chemical weapons in the United States. Meanwhile, the US government is doing something very similar, releasing potentially deadly chemicals on its population, for no good reason.

I pray for grace for everyone, so that people in the proposed spray zones remain safe from harm, and that those who are inspired to take action to stop this be inspired to act effectively, with humility, strength and compassion.

Take Action

In Santa Cruz and Monterey, local residents have started the California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS). This alliance is developing evidence and documentation to stop the aerial spraying for the Light Brown Apple Moth. Just because this alliance is formed, does not mean the moth spray will be stopped. Each area needs to form their own groups, and work together to defeat the real pest, State and Federal governments who are performing illegal operations.

Important websites were you can learn more and take action include:

(www.lbamspray.com) – On the right hand column of this website is a portal to CASS. You can find many ways to participate and help the cause. Also this contains the most relevant information. In the CASS section of the site, there are resources and people you can contact.

(www.hopefortruth.com) – My LBAM site.

(www.1hope.org/chkmate.htm) – Lots of documentation and recent news postings.

(www.dontspraycalifornia.org)- Related website against pesticide spraying.

For those who are taking community action, two generous people have volunteered to provide further resources:

Roy Upton, California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS)
831-461-6317, herbal@got.net

Bonnie Keet, California Alliance to Stop the Spray (CASS)
bonnie619@yahoo.com

When Governor Schwarzenegger says he supports the health and welfare of children, he is lying to you. Governor Schwarzenegger supports biochemical spraying which has been documented to cause life-threatening harm to some children.

Call Governor Schwarzenegger and tell him what you think of his policies.
Voice: (916) 445-2841 2841 (press #1, #5, #0)
Fax: (916) 445-4633

Alert Senator Diane Feinstein
San Fransisco Office - (415) 393-0707

Alert Senator Barbara Boxer
San Fransisco Office - (415) 403-0100

Alert Democracy Now!
They want to hear our stories, (http://www.democracynow.org/contact?to=1)

As a final addendum, many people have written to me about mosquito fogging, about chemtrails, and about large scale chemical sprayings which occur in the United States unmonitored in more rural areas. While my article does not address these concerns, those concerns are valid. The government cannot ethically, legally, or morally expose, or allow for the exposure of people needlessly to chemicals. There are volumes of evidence about how chemicals in our food, water and air can cause short and long term health effects. Your concern about chemical exposure is vital. Listen to it!

References:

1. ((www.usda.gov/wps/portal/!ut/p/_s.7_0_A/…)

2. ((http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c…)

3. ((http://www.mytown.ca/ev.php?URL_ID=1221…)

4. ((www.cdfa.ca.gov/egov/Press_Releases/Pre…)

5. ((http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/19…)

6. ((www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_p…)

About the author

Rami Nagel is the author of "Cure Tooth Decay: Heal And Prevent Cavities With Nutrition," which teaches readers how to reclaim their dental health. Learn the real cause and cure for cavities and root canals at: www.curetoothdecay.com
Rami is a father who cares about the way we affect each other, our children, and our planet through our lifestyle choices. His health background is in hands-on energy healing, Hatha & Bhakti yoga and the Pathwork.
Rami is author of several health resources:
www.healingourchildren.net - Learn the Cause and Prevention of the Diseases of Pregnancy and Childhood
www.preconceptionhealth.org - A Program for Preconception Health based on Indigenous Wisdom
www.curetoothdecay.com - Heal and Prevent Cavities with Nutrition!
www.yourreturn.org - The cause of disease and the end of suffering of humanity.

Why the US has really gone broke

Chalmers Johnson
Le Monde Diplomatique
March 12, 2008

Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life.

The military adventurers in the Bush administration have much in common with the corporate leaders of the defunct energy company Enron. Both groups thought that they were the “smartest guys in the room” — the title of Alex Gibney’s prize-winning film on what went wrong at Enron. The neoconservatives in the White House and the Pentagon outsmarted themselves. They failed even to address the problem of how to finance their schemes of imperialist wars and global domination.

As a result, going into 2008, the United States finds itself in the anomalous position of being unable to pay for its own elevated living standards or its wasteful, overly large military establishment. Its government no longer even attempts to reduce the ruinous expenses of maintaining huge standing armies, replacing the equipment that seven years of wars have destroyed or worn out, or preparing for a war in outer space against unknown adversaries. Instead, the Bush administration puts off these costs for future generations to pay or repudiate. This fiscal irresponsibility has been disguised through many manipulative financial schemes (causing poorer countries to lend us unprecedented sums of money), but the time of reckoning is fast approaching.

There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.

Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.

Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.

Fiscal disaster

It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.

Before we try to break down and analyse this gargantuan sum, there is one important caveat. Figures on defence spending are notoriously unreliable. The numbers released by the Congressional Reference Service and the Congressional Budget Office do not agree with each other. Robert Higgs, senior fellow for political economy at the Independent Institute, says: “A well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicised) basic budget total and double it” (1). Even a cursory reading of newspaper articles about the Department of Defense will turn up major differences in statistics about its expenses. Some 30-40% of the defence budget is “black”,” meaning that these sections contain hidden expenditures for classified projects. There is no possible way to know what they include or whether their total amounts are accurate.

There are many reasons for this budgetary sleight-of-hand — including a desire for secrecy on the part of the president, the secretary of defence, and the military-industrial complex — but the chief one is that members of Congress, who profit enormously from defence jobs and pork-barrel projects in their districts, have a political interest in supporting the Department of Defense. In 1996, in an attempt to bring accounting standards within the executive branch closer to those of the civilian economy, Congress passed the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act. It required all federal agencies to hire outside auditors to review their books and release the results to the public. Neither the Department of Defense, nor the Department of Homeland Security, has ever complied. Congress has complained, but not penalised either department for ignoring the law. All numbers released by the Pentagon should be regarded as suspect.

In discussing the fiscal 2008 defence budget, as released on 7 February 2007, I have been guided by two experienced and reliable analysts: William D Hartung of the New America Foundation’s Arms and Security Initiative (2) and Fred Kaplan, defence correspondent for Slate.org (3). They agree that the Department of Defense requested $481.4bn for salaries, operations (except in Iraq and Afghanistan), and equipment. They also agree on a figure of $141.7bn for the “supplemental” budget to fight the global war on terrorism — that is, the two on-going wars that the general public may think are actually covered by the basic Pentagon budget. The Department of Defense also asked for an extra $93.4bn to pay for hitherto unmentioned war costs in the remainder of 2007 and, most creatively, an additional “allowance” (a new term in defence budget documents) of $50bn to be charged to fiscal year 2009. This makes a total spending request by the Department of Defense of $766.5bn.

But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in 2003, when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.

Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.

Military Keynesianism

Such expenditures are not only morally obscene, they are fiscally unsustainable. Many neo-conservatives and poorly informed patriotic Americans believe that, even though our defence budget is huge, we can afford it because we are the richest country on Earth. That statement is no longer true. The world’s richest political entity, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, is the European Union. The EU’s 2006 GDP was estimated to be slightly larger than that of the US. Moreover, China’s 2006 GDP was only slightly smaller than that of the US, and Japan was the world’s fourth richest nation.

A more telling comparison that reveals just how much worse we’re doing can be found among the current accounts of various nations. The current account measures the net trade surplus or deficit of a country plus cross-border payments of interest, royalties, dividends, capital gains, foreign aid, and other income. In order for Japan to manufacture anything, it must import all required raw materials. Even after this incredible expense is met, it still has an $88bn per year trade surplus with the US and enjoys the world’s second highest current account balance (China is number one). The US is number 163 — last on the list, worse than countries such as Australia and the UK that also have large trade deficits. Its 2006 current account deficit was $811.5bn; second worst was Spain at $106.4bn. This is unsustainable.

It’s not just that our tastes for foreign goods, including imported oil, vastly exceed our ability to pay for them. We are financing them through massive borrowing. On 7 November 2007, the US Treasury announced that the national debt had breached _$9 trillion for the first time. This was just five weeks after Congress raised the “debt ceiling” to $9.815 trillion. If you begin in 1789, at the moment the constitution became the supreme law of the land, the debt accumulated by the federal government did not top $1 trillion until 1981. When George Bush became president in January 2001, it stood at approximately $5.7 trillion. Since then, it has increased by 45%. This huge debt can be largely explained by our defence expenditures.

The top spenders



Chart


The world’s top 10 military spenders and the approximate amounts each currently budgets for its military establishment are:

Our excessive military expenditures did not occur over just a few short years or simply because of the Bush administration’s policies. They have been going on for a very long time in accordance with a superficially plausible ideology, and have now become so entrenched in our democratic political system that they are starting to wreak havoc. This is military Keynesianism — the determination to maintain a permanent war economy and to treat military output as an ordinary economic product, even though it makes no contribution to either production or consumption.

This ideology goes back to the first years of the cold war. During the late 1940s, the US was haunted by economic anxieties. The great depression of the 1930s had been overcome only by the war production boom of the second world war. With peace and demobilisation, there was a pervasive fear that the depression would return. During 1949, alarmed by the Soviet Union’s detonation of an atomic bomb, the looming Communist victory in the Chinese civil war, a domestic recession, and the lowering of the Iron Curtain around the USSR’s European satellites, the US sought to draft basic strategy for the emerging cold war. The result was the militaristic National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) drafted under the supervision of Paul Nitze, then head of the Policy Planning Staff in the State Department. Dated 14 April 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman on 30 September 1950, it laid out the basic public economic policies that the US pursues to the present day.

In its conclusions, NSC-68 asserted: “One of the most significant lessons of our World War II experience was that the American economy, when it operates at a level approaching full efficiency, can provide enormous resources for purposes other than civilian consumption while simultaneously providing a high standard of living” (4).

With this understanding, US strategists began to build up a massive munitions industry, both to counter the military might of the Soviet Union (which they consistently overstated) and also to maintain full employment, as well as ward off a possible return of the depression. The result was that, under Pentagon leadership, entire new industries were created to manufacture large aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines, nuclear warheads, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and surveillance and communications satellites. This led to what President Eisenhower warned against in his farewell address of 6 February 1961: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience” — the military-industrial complex.

By 1990 the value of the weapons, equipment and factories devoted to the Department of Defense was 83% of the value of all plants and equipment in US manufacturing. From 1947 to 1990, the combined US military budgets amounted to $8.7 trillion. Even though the Soviet Union no longer exists, US reliance on military Keynesianism has, if anything, ratcheted up, thanks to the massive vested interests that have become entrenched around the military establishment. Over time, a commitment to both guns and butter has proven an unstable configuration. Military industries crowd out the civilian economy and lead to severe economic weaknesses. Devotion to military Keynesianism is a form of slow economic suicide.

Higher spending, fewer jobs

On 1 May 2007, the Center for Economic and Policy Research of Washington, DC, released a study prepared by the economic and political forecasting company Global Insight on the long-term economic impact of increased military spending. Guided by economist Dean Baker, this research showed that, after an initial demand stimulus, by about the sixth year the effect of increased military spending turns negative. The US economy has had to cope with growing defence spending for more than 60 years. Baker found that, after 10 years of higher defence spending, there would be 464,000 fewer jobs than in a scenario that involved lower defence spending.

Baker concluded: “It is often believed that wars and military spending increases are good for the economy. In fact, most economic models show that military spending diverts resources from productive uses, such as consumption and investment, and ultimately slows economic growth and reduces employment” (5).

These are only some of the many deleterious effects of military Keynesianism.

It was believed that the US could afford both a massive military establishment and a high standard of living, and that it needed both to maintain full employment. But it did not work out that way. By the 1960s it was becoming apparent that turning over the nation’s largest manufacturing enterprises to the Department of Defense and producing goods without any investment or consumption value was starting to crowd out civilian economic activities. The historian Thomas E Woods Jr observes that, during the 1950s and 1960s, between one-third and two-thirds of all US research talent was siphoned off into the military sector (6). It is, of course, impossible to know what innovations never appeared as a result of this diversion of resources and brainpower into the service of the military, but it was during the 1960s that we first began to notice Japan was outpacing us in the design and quality of a range of consumer goods, including household electronics and automobiles.

Can we reverse the trend?

Nuclear weapons furnish a striking illustration of these anomalies. Between the 1940s and 1996, the US spent at least $5.8 trillion on the development, testing and construction of nuclear bombs. By 1967, the peak year of its nuclear stockpile, the US possessed some 32,500 deliverable atomic and hydrogen bombs, none of which, thankfully, was ever used. They perfectly illustrate the Keynesian principle that the government can provide make-work jobs to keep people employed. Nuclear weapons were not just America’s secret weapon, but also its secret economic weapon. As of 2006, we still had 9,960 of them. There is today no sane use for them, while the trillions spent on them could have been used to solve the problems of social security and health care, quality education and access to higher education for all, not to speak of the retention of highly-skilled jobs within the economy.

The pioneer in analysing what has been lost as a result of military Keynesianism was the late Seymour Melman (1917-2004), a professor of industrial engineering and operations research at Columbia University. His 1970 book, Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War, was a prescient analysis of the unintended consequences of the US preoccupation with its armed forces and their weaponry since the onset of the cold war. Melman wrote: “From 1946 to 1969, the United States government spent over $1,000bn on the military, more than half of this under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations — the period during which the [Pentagon-dominated] state management was established as a formal institution. This sum of staggering size (try to visualize a billion of something) does not express the cost of the military establishment to the nation as a whole. The true cost is measured by what has been foregone, by the accumulated deterioration in many facets of life, by the inability to alleviate human wretchedness of long duration.”

In an important exegesis on Melman’s relevance to the current American economic situation, Thomas Woods writes: “According to the US Department of Defense, during the four decades from 1947 through 1987 it used (in 1982 dollars) $7.62 trillion in capital resources. In 1985, the Department of Commerce estimated the value of the nation’s plant and equipment, and infrastructure, at just over _$7.29 trillion… The amount spent over that period could have doubled the American capital stock or modernized and replaced its existing stock” (7).

The fact that we did not modernise or replace our capital assets is one of the main reasons why, by the turn of the 21st century, our manufacturing base had all but evaporated. Machine tools, an industry on which Melman was an authority, are a particularly important symptom. In November 1968, a five-year inventory disclosed “that 64% of the metalworking machine tools used in US industry were 10 years old or older. The age of this industrial equipment (drills, lathes, etc.) marks the United States’ machine tool stock as the oldest among all major industrial nations, and it marks the continuation of a deterioration process that began with the end of the second world war. This deterioration at the base of the industrial system certifies to the continuous debilitating and depleting effect that the military use of capital and research and development talent has had on American industry.”

Nothing has been done since 1968 to reverse these trends and it shows today in our massive imports of equipment — from medical machines like _proton accelerators for radiological therapy (made primarily in Belgium, Germany, and Japan) to cars and trucks.

Our short tenure as the world’s lone superpower has come to an end. As Harvard economics professor Benjamin Friedman has written: “Again and again it has always been the world’s leading lending country that has been the premier country in terms of political influence, diplomatic influence and cultural influence. It’s no accident that we took over the role from the British at the same time that we took over the job of being the world’s leading lending country. Today we are no longer the world’s leading lending country. In fact we are now the world’s biggest debtor country, and we are continuing to wield influence on the basis of military prowess alone” (8).

Some of the damage can never be rectified. There are, however, some steps that the US urgently needs to take. These include reversing Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for the wealthy, beginning to liquidate our global empire of over 800 military bases, cutting from the defence budget all projects that bear no relationship to national security and ceasing to use the defence budget as a Keynesian jobs programme.

If we do these things we have a chance of squeaking by. If we don’t, we face probable national insolvency and a long depression.

Ron Paul on Faux News: Federal Reserve “Injection” a Disaster

YouTube
March 12, 2008


UK Cop Who Investigated CIA Falls Off Cliff, Dies

Nigel Bunyan, Nick Allen and Gordon Rayner
UK Telegraph
March 12, 2008

A chief constable who plunged to his death in Snowdonia had been drinking before he was found dead at the bottom of a cliff.

Michael Todd had also used his mobile phone to text members of his family in the hours before he died, sources said.

It was believed he may have been texting up to the moment he jumped or fell off the cliff.

One source said the high flying officer was “reeking of gin” when he was found. A half drunk bottle of gin was found nearby.

He was partially clothed, although it was unclear whether he had taken his own clothing off or it was ripped off in the fall.

Mr Todd was found slumped face down. No tablets or pills were found at the scene.

He was carrying his warrant card and his jacket was found nearby.

Police will study the text messages he sent to assess his state of mind at the time he died.

Coroner Dewi Pritchard-Jones is understood to be keeping an open mind about whether Mr Todd intended to kill himself.

The high-flying 50 year-old married father of three is understood to have had at least one extra-marital affair and to have fathered an illegitimate child.

Sources said it was an “open secret” that he had relationship with a woman police officer when he worked in London.

He had spoken about committing suicide to friends in Manchester only days before he died.

Read entire article

Russia Moves to Crack Down on Web News Sites

Brian Whitmore
Radio Free Europe
March 12, 2008

One new bill proposes tighter state control over Russian online news sites. Another restricts foreign ownership of Internet service providers (ISPs). And a new government decree compels ISPs to allow the authorities to read their clients’ e-mails.

As censorship of the traditional media increased under President Vladimir Putin, the Internet quickly carved out a niche as a rare bastion of dissent and free expression for Russians. With its lively blogs and chat rooms, the Russian Internet has become the 21st-century equivalent of Soviet-era samizdat and hushed, kitchen-table political discussion.

Are the bureaucrats and government censors finally preparing to stifle this last oasis of media freedom?

According to Oleg Panfilov, a free press advocate who heads the Moscow-based Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations, the Russian authorities have been wary of the Internet’s growing importance for years.

“They are afraid. This fear of the Internet emerged about four years ago when the Kremlin saw how it became the main source of information during the Orange Revolution,” Panfilov, who himself writes a popular blog on the website “LiveJournal,” says.

Buyer Beware

A decree from the Information Technologies and Communications Ministry, made public on February 26, requires all telecommunication companies and ISPs to allow the Federal Security Service (FSB) unrestricted monitoring of all communications — phone calls, text messages, and e-mails.

Telecoms and ISPs are also required to install, at their own expense, equipment allowing the FSB to monitor communications at any time without the provider’s — or the user’s — knowledge. The equipment costs as much as $100,000. The decree is related to a program called SORM-2, which was introduced in 1998 to allow the FSB to monitor the Internet.

Separately, a provision in a new bill on investment working its way through parliament would forbid foreigners from acquiring majority stakes in ISPs without express government permission.

Insiders say the legislation is likely to face strong opposition from within the industry.

“I don’t think it is very realistic to pass such a law, because there is a strong lobby against it. There are already a lot of companies that have a high level of foreign shareholders,” Aleksandr Militsky, who runs a website that monitors ISPs, tells RFE/RL’s Russian Service.

While state-controlled television and most print media dutifully reported the government line with fawning coverage of Putin and his chosen successor, Dmitry Medvedev, blogs like “LiveJournal” and news sites like newsru.com were critical, animated, and irreverent.

Robert Amsterdam, an attorney on jailed former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s international defense team and the author of an influential blog on Russian affairs, says the emerging trend toward greater state control reflects an entrenched Kremlin view that managing the media is an important aspect of defending national security.

“This is all going in one direction,” Amsterdam says of the emerging Kremlin strategy. “One of the things I don’t think any of us understand well enough is the extent to which the Russians view this as part of their security — the securitization of media. And this comes under this whole format of seeing free communications as somehow being a security threat. My view is that they have been late jumping on the Internet bandwagon and they are going to continue this under [President-elect] Medvedev. At least that is how it appears.”

‘Responsible’ Journalism

In March, Putin established a new federal agency to regulate media and the Internet and oversee content. A month later, authorities used loopholes in the law to shut down the Siberian online publication “Novy Fokus” for failing to register as a news organization despite the fact that Russian law does not explicitly require online news sites to register.

Vladimir Slutsker, a member of the Federation Council, the upper house of Russia’s parliament, is now seeking to make registration mandatory. Slutsker recently told the daily “Kommersant” that legislation was needed to stop “irresponsible journalists from spreading rumors and hiding behind anonymous websites.”

After a website published rumors linking Slutsker and his wife to criminal activity, he introduced legislation requiring all websites with more than 1,000 hits a day to register with the government as media outlets. If Slutsker’s bill becomes law, Russia’s popular blogs and news sites would need to apply for licenses and be subject to the same regulations as print and broadcast media.

Analysts have labeled Slutsker’s bill impractical given the sheer volume of websites and the difficultly tracking them, adding that the time when the authorities could realistically control the Internet is long gone.

“This attempt to register websites like mass media is stupid,” Panfilov says. “It is simply not possible. It is just the desire of a couple of deputies, but it won’t happen. Just imagine, how do you register blogs? Also, the meters monitoring web traffic in Russia all give different information.”

Panfilov adds that a system similar to what exists in China, where the state controls the Internet and blocks websites it deems subversive, is not possible in Russia today. He notes that unlike in China, most Russian ISPs are privately owned and more difficult to control.

“They needed to do this 10 years ago,” Panfilov says. “Then they could have controlled it. Now it is practically impossible. Now enough people know how to use satellite servers, they know how to access the Internet via mobile communications, they know a lot. And to isolate Russia from the Internet is not possible.”

‘Great Firewalls’?

Some Russia watchers say the Kremlin isn’t interested in Chinese-style controls. Amsterdam points out that Russia’s media control strategy — which allows for opposition newspapers like “Novaya gazeta” and radio stations like Ekho Moskvy — is more sophisticated than that.

“You’re missing the boat if you don’t think they can control it,” Amsterdam says. “What we need to understand is that they are not trying to, and don’t have to control 100 percent of it. One of the things that the survival of ‘Novaya gazeta’ and [radio station] Ekho Moskvy shows is that they are very happy for liberals to talk to liberals. They just don’t want liberals talking to anybody else.”

Amsterdam adds that a combination of intimidation, selective use of libel laws, cooptation, and other means has been very effective in controlling the print and broadcast media.

And there are indications that such time-proven mechanisms can be of use to the authorities in the modern media environment as well.

Recent charges against blogger Savva Terentyev for allegedly “inciting hate” against police officers through his “LiveJournal” posts serve as one example. Terentyev faces a possible $4,000 fine or up to two years in prison.

“The attack on the Internet can be this subtle incremental attack,” Amsterdam says “Let’s be clear, it’s multidimensional. Look what they have done to the regular press. Look what they have done to television. They have been so successful with a mixture of cooptation, which is having rich friends buy assets, with the incremental intimidation of self-censorship which is done very well, that they probably don’t feel that they have to [control it entirely].”

The US Federal Reserve averts crisis - for now

TELEGRAPH.CO.UK


When the Federal Reserve joined forces with four other central banks to inject liquidity into the international finance system in December, we wondered whether that unprecedented intervention would be enough. Now we have our answer.

Yesterday's second "shock and awe" rescue of the US mortgage industry dwarfs the first and confirms just how much pain the sub-prime crisis is causing.

The Fed's move, acting once again in harness with other leading central banks, in effect confirms that the first intervention has not worked. Nor, yet, have the Fed's dramatic cuts in interest rates, down 2.25 percentage points to three per cent since the credit crisis broke late last summer, or the emergency tax-cut package agreed by Congress.

The market suspects that the immediate trigger for yesterday's move was rumours that the American investment bank Bear Stearns and the federal mortgage agency Fannie Mae were both in trouble because of the credit crunch.

The rumours were denied, but that did not prevent panic sweeping the credit markets. With the American economy facing a potentially calamitous meltdown, the Fed had little alternative but to act. The bold intervention had the required impact and markets rallied strongly.

This co-ordinated activity by the central banks is commendable. They might have been asleep at the switch when the sub-prime crisis was developing, but their response since it broke has been timely and responsible. But it is evident that the credit crisis is continuing to paralyse the banking system by making inter-bank loans too expensive.

This lack of liquidity is feeding through to consumers: figures yesterday showing mortgage lending falling to a nine-year low make that clear enough.

It is now eight months since this crisis began. We have had deep cuts in the cost of borrowing and two large-scale international operations to inject liquidity. Yet the situation remains precarious. There is a nagging worry that we have yet to see the full picture of the sub-prime collapse. If there are more horrors to come, the Fed and the other central banks cannot have many more shots left in their locker.

Iraq Violence Sees Spike

BAGHDAD (AP) — Violence appeared to be on the rise in Iraq after a day that saw at least 42 people die — numbers that cast doubt on the easing of sectarian violence following a surge of U.S. forces to the country last year.

An Iraqi official confirmed the grisliest attack of Tuesday when 16 passengers on a bus in southern Iraq were killed by a roadside bomb. The U.S. military, however, claimed no one died in the attack, which was targeting a passing military convoy. The reason for the discrepancy was not immediately clear.

Dr. Hadi Badr al-Riyahi, head of the Nasiriyah provincial health directorate, confirmed Wednesday that the attack on the bus traveling from Najaf to Basra killed 16 civilians and wounded 20.

At the time, a local policeman and the assistant bus driver also said 16 people were killed.

But Maj. Brad Leighton, a military spokesman in Baghdad, disputed that claim on Wednesday, telling The Associated Press that only one coalition soldier and one Iraqi civilian were wounded in the attack about 50 miles from Nasiriyah, about 200 miles southeast of Baghdad.

At least 26 people were killed Tuesday in other violence around the country.

The spike comes in the wake of a 60 percent drop in attacks across the country since June, according to U.S. military figures.

According to an Associated Press count, at the height of unrest from November 2006 to August 2007, on average approximately 65 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence. As conditions improved, the daily death toll steadily declined. It reached its lowest point in more than two years in January, when on average 20 Iraqis died each day.

Those numbers have since jumped. In February, approximately 26 Iraqis died each day as a result of violence, and so far in March, that number is up to 39 daily. These figures reflect the months in which people were found, and not necessarily — as in the case of mass graves — the months in which they were killed.

Last Thursday, two massive bombs killed 68 people in Baghdad's Karradah neighborhood, while on March 3, two car bombs killed 24 people in the capital.

Military spokesman Rear Adm. Gregory Smith said Sunday that recent violence should not be taken as evidence of "an increase or a trend of an increase."

"I think we need to continue to look at historically what has happened over the last year to really put in perspective a one-week or two-weeks' worth of activity inside Baghdad," Smith said.

An American soldier died Tuesday after his patrol was hit by a roadside bomb near Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, a day after eight soldiers died in a pair of bomb attacks marking the heaviest single day of U.S. casualties since September.

On Wednesday, two Iraqi civilians were killed and 10 others wounded when a roadside bomb exploded near a passing U.S. military patrol, local police said. There were no reports of American casualties.

Al Qaeda probed over Lahore blasts

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (CNN) -- The death toll from twin suicide blasts in the eastern Pakistani city of Lahore grew to 28 Wednesday, as police opened an investigation into possible al Qaeda involvement in the attacks.

Lahore police said the offices of the Federal Investigative Agency -- Pakistan's national investigative agency -- had been completely destroyed after two suicide car bombers drove a vehicle into the eight-story building on Tuesday morning.

A third bomber drove a van into a house being used by an advertising agency in a residential area known as Model Town, killing at least three people. Police said at least 175 people were injured in the two bombings. Video Watch cell phone video of the aftermath »

Asked about possible al Qaeda involvement, provincial police chief Azhar Hasan Nadeem told The Associated Press it was too soon to establish who was responsible for the blasts.

"Of course (al Qaeda) has a huge organization, and they have a very vast network, but it would be premature to pinpoint exactly as to which particular organization is responsible," Nadeem said.

The attacks came as President Pervez Musharraf signed a summary of election results, clearing the final obstacle to lawmakers being sworn into office as a new parliament convenes on Monday.

The move came after the Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N, which won the majority of National Assembly seats in the February 18 parliamentary election, formed a coalition and called on Musharraf to immediately convene parliament.

PPP, the party of assassinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, is led by her widower Asif Ali Zardari. PML-N is led by former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

On Wednesday an anti-corruption court quashed further graft charges against Zardari relating to alleged kickbacks on a government contract with a Swiss firm secured when Bhutto was in power, AP said.

The court quashed five charges against Zardari last week and is due to rule on one last outstanding charge on Friday, defense attorney Farooq Naek said, AP reported.

Speaking on Tuesday, Musharraf and Caretaker Prime Minister Mohammadmian Soomro strongly condemned the day's bomb attacks.

"The acts of terrorism cannot deter government's resolve to fight the scourge with full force," Musharraf said, according to the Associated Press of Pakistan. Soomro said every effort would be made to catch the culprits and punish them.

Meanwhile, two Pakistani police officers were killed Wednesday when a bomb they were trying to defuse exploded in Pakistan's Swat province, the military said.

Two other officers were wounded.

Police, tipped off to the remote-controlled bomb on a road near Allahabad village, dispatched a bomb disposal squad, a military spokesman said. The dead and wounded officers were part of that squad, he said.

Swat is a volatile region rife with Islamic extremists located in North West Frontier Province, part of Pakistan's tribal region.

Also on Wednesday, a leader of Zardari's PPP said the remains of up to 20 victims of the suicide attack which killed Benazir Bhutto last October would be buried at the former party leader's tomb in a village of her home province of Sindh, AP reported.

50 Inmates Injured in Riot at Federal Detention Center in Houston

Faux News

HOUSTON — Authorities were investigating what caused a riot that injured about 50 inmates at the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston.

One unidentified man was taken to the hospital with a head injury, said District Chief Tommy Dowdy, a Houston Fire Department spokesman. The other wounded prisoners were treated late Tuesday inside the administrative facility, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Houston police and firefighters responded to the facility Tuesday evening after receiving reports that up to 80 prisoners on the sixth floor were fighting, Dowdy said.

Guards used a stun grenade called a "flash-bang" to stop the brawl. The device momentarily stuns people with noise and bright light, but without aftereffects, Dowdy said.

"The institution staff responded quickly and effectively and all of the inmates were returned to their cells inside the unit," said Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. "All the units are now secure."

None of the inmates' injuries appeared to be life-threatening and no guards were hurt, Billingsley said.

Typically, prisoners in such federal facilities are nonviolent drug offenders or white-collar criminals. But as federal authorities indict more criminals involved in organized syndicates and racketeering, that has changed, said Houston lawyer Kent Schaffer.

"You used to have a much better class of federal prisoners. Now you're mixing documented gang members into a facility that's traditionally been nonviolent," he said.

The facility housed about 960 male and female pre-trial and hold-over inmates last week.

Tibetan exiles vow to march on Chinese border

DHARMSALA, India (CNN) -- Tibetan exiles vowed to defy an Indian government order that they stop their march from the northern Indian city of Dharmsala to Tibet's border in a protest against China's rule over their homeland.

About 100 people -- mostly students and monks -- plan to reach India's border with Tibet for a confrontation with Chinese authorities just before the Beijing Olympics begin in August, according to Himachal Pradesh, president of the Tibetan Youth Congress and one of the march organizers.

"As long as the issue of Tibet is not resolved, we will resist China occupation," Pradesh said.

Several hundred monks clashed with Chinese police near the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, on Tuesday, according to Radio Free Asia. It was the second day of protests by monks on the 49th anniversary of a failed uprising that forced the Dalai Lama into exile.

The protests coincided with other demonstrations Tuesday by Tibetan exiles in New Delhi, India and Katmandu, Nepal.

The Indian government, which hosts 100,000 Tibetan exiles, has opposed the march and protests. Indian police in Dharmsala said they would enforce an order that bans the marchers from leaving the district, which is home to the Tibetan exile government and the Dalai Lama.

Pradesh said his group is acting independently of the government or Dalai Lama.

"What we are saying is that we are Tibetan, and we belong to Tibet and we need to go back to our country," he said. "It's as simple as that."

The marchers will try to cross into the Punjab district in defiance of the restraining order on Thursday, he said.

Pradesh said the marchers were not afraid of being arrested by Chinese authorities when they try to enter Tibet in the weeks and days before the Olympics open.

A U.S. State Department report released Tuesday characterized China's human rights record as one of the most repressive in the world and cited tightening controls over religious freedom in Tibet.