Why Bush Won And Gore Lost In 2000 [Archive]

substand

Aug 5th, 2004, 2:32 AM

Sorry Sub.....but in those four years since this has happened look at where the US stands now.......with the economy & war and all of those allies we now have!!!!......Just like his Dad....Bush fk'd the country up and someone new needs to be in there to help fix it up

first, my life in the US is not markedly different now than it was 4 years ago, except that I make almost 5x as much money per hour now than i did then. Sure, it spiked higher than that on a weekly paycheck basis, and now its gone down weekly... But that bad "economy" started with the dot com bust during the Clinton years, and presidents have little power over the economy anyway, so I blame neither of them. Its not Bush's fault that jobs like mine are being outsourced any more than its John Adams' fault.

2nd, war was inevitable and the best option as far as I'm concerned, and we have just as many allies as we had before the "war" (i'm assuming you mean the one with Iraq, which france objected to, but they are still helping us in Afghanistan, hence, still and "ally")... and lets not think of the other 40+ countries who helped us in Iraq and the 100 or so helping with the war on terror. And please lets not bring up the utter bullshit of "they didn't send troops" or "they only sent 10 troops," since it is well known that we weren't looking for hundreds of thousands, or even hundreds, of troops to help carry the load. We were/are looking for "moral" support, and thats what we got. We appreciate the political sacrifice of those leaders who made it, and we really appreciate the support of those who died in supporting us... They died for a great cause, IMO, and I appreciate it. I'm not one to write them off as irrelevant like so many mad libs do.

But all that is BEYOND THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. You see, this thread did not bring up the fact that "someone new needs to be in [the presidency] to help fix [the country] up"... NO, the original post bitched about the way Bush was selected or elected or chosen or put there by God or something else....

If someone else is needed to fix bush's mistakes, by all means, campaign for them, vote for them, and put them in office. Stop bitching about how bush was selected or rigged the election with the help of his brother, or whatever. That was 4 years ago, so MOVE ON. I didn't vote for bush the first time, I wont vote for him this time, but fucking MOVE ON. Its getting old. Bush is president whether you like it or not or whether he's done a good job or not.

If he needs to be replaced, say so. Mention why. Don't say because he didn't win in the first place. Thats stupid and irrelevant and I'm at my wits end because, though I be retarded myself, I CANNOT STAND THE EXCESSIVE MORONICITY AND MONGOLOID POSTURING OF MAD LIBS WHO CANNOT GET OVER THE FACT THAT BUSH IS CURRENTLY THE U.S. PRESIDENT. I say it again, move the fuck on.

Sorry, just my 2 pence.

Bushnell

Aug 5th, 2004, 4:13 PM

I put the post up not because of what happen in the past. It was put up so something like this dose not happen in the future!! And talk about the past. I read post in this forum about allot of thing from the past!! Like JFK and how he was killed, 9/11 and what really happen,and allot more post from the past. Wake up people! you have to look at the past to fix the future! I am over 2000 and looking forward to 2004.You can not fix the future ( only hope to change it ) But you can learn from the past.

kathaksung

Aug 5th, 2004, 5:48 PM

People who vote don't decide whom be elected.
People who count the vote do.

The people who control the intelligence in US decide whom been elected. That's what happened in Florida election, 2000 in which Inside group selected Bush. And in Demo's Primary in 2004 in which they dropped Howard Dean.

In a rigged election, they could move votes by thousands.

Quote, ""DELAND, Fla., Nov. 11 - Something very strange happened on election night to Deborah Tannenbaum, a Democratic Party official in Volusia County. At 10 p.m., she called the county elections department and learned that Al Gore was leading George W. Bush 83,000 votes to 62,000. But when she checked the county's Web site for an update half an hour later, she found a startling development: Gore's count had dropped by 16,000 votes, while an obscure Socialist candidate had picked up 10,000--all because of a single precinct with only 600 voters."

- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22

Yes. Something very strange happened in Volusia County on election night November 2000, the night that first Gore won Florida, then Bush, and then as everybody can so well remember there was a tie.
Something strange indeed. But what exactly? In the above report ( click for full version), written days after the election, hotshot Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank goes on to attribute the strange 16,022 negative vote tally from Volusia's precinct 216 to an apparently innocent cause.
"…. faulty 'memory cards' in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed," he wrote.

But thanks to recent investigations into Black Box Voting by Washington State writer Bev Harris we now know this explanation is not correct. In fact it is not even in the ballpark.
Entire article

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

kathaksung

Aug 16th, 2004, 5:17 PM

See US politics From another angle .

It looks like a democratic system. It's not. The two parties are all under control of inside group. Politicians are puppets. The campaign is actually like a horse racing. And the candidates are like domesticated horses.

This time the inside group want Bush to stay in 2nd term of president because he is obedient. He followed the order to start an unjust war. So they keep him there because they want more war. The other candidate who may be a possible threat to Bush were advised to leave.

What is the target of politicians? President. Can you immagine a department manager give up the chance to be raised to the position of executive president? But Tom Daschle and Al Gore were advised to abandon to election 2004. Because they may defeat Bush. And they obeyed. That's why I say it's a domestic horse racing. Everything depends on Master's will.

They leave some incompetant horses for Demo and make it a chaotic circus. Through media propaganda, fake poll, rigged election, they got a weak candidate for Demo. All to make sure Bush can continue to be a "war president".

And of course, you always see those government accessaries, discredit this and support that. At the purpose to weak Demo and strenthen Bush.

Marajadex

Aug 16th, 2004, 7:14 PM

I put the post up not because of what happen in the past. It was put up so something like this dose not happen in the future!! Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. :devsmoke:

Emerald_Dragon

Aug 17th, 2004, 6:11 PM

kathaksung,

have some faith. there are still some good people around. i base my opinion/POV on what happened in Venezuela. Chavez won. It may yet happen here. Although, I agree that Kerry is not much different from Bush. At least it will tell the powers that be, they're moving in a direction that may face resistance. JMO.

kathaksung

Aug 25th, 2004, 6:12 PM

Emerald_Dragon,

Yes, good people are majority, but they have no power. A little group which control media and intelligence so they control US politics.

Manipulate media and election

Poll is a tool used to control American's mind. Intelligence(Feds) play the figure as they pleased because media is in their stronghold.

What good has Bush done? He started an injustice war in Iraq. He created a lot of enemies for US. He has a historical dificit in economy. He eroded civil liberty by "Patriot Act". Yet they still award him an approvement about 50% while actually should be below 30%. Because insider group need more war in Mid-east, and Bush follow their policy.

When American people realized war is not for the interest of US and choose Howard Dean as their candidate. The insider group throw out W. Clark to weaken Dean. As many people still don't know who Clark is, CNN has a poll said Clark could beat Bush and that his support leaded over other Demo candidates, just 2 days after Clark announced to join the campaign.

California recall started only 3 months after formal election while Governor G. Davis made no serious offense. When they want to steal the post of Governor to prepare for election 2004, they have Arnold to be their patsy. (There is one common character of Arnold and Clark: no politic experience, so they become perfect puppet) And this time CNN throw out a poll that Arnold has an approvement of 40% leading over Bustamante's 28%. (A sudden change from previous: Arnold 26%, Bustamante 28%) It's because McClintock will not pull out the campaign, to make the recall result reasonable, they gave a sudden boost poll result to justify Arnold's winning. (It is a fixed one)

American people are naive. When poll said so, they believe it. And seldom people tracking if there were cheating in election.(which is popular, people only noticed it when the result is too close such like what happened in florida.) That's why insider group could pick up Bush in 2000, and win mid-election in Minnisota. They will steal the post of California Governor this year and the election of 2004 as well.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

substand

Aug 30th, 2004, 10:56 PM

Yes, good people are majority, but they have no power. A little group which control media and intelligence so they control US politics.

Which is it? Are these "good people" morons? Have they no intelligence to take the media's "news" and refuse to regurgitate it? Do you have faith in people or not?

What good has Bush done? He started an injustice war in Iraq. He created a lot of enemies for US. He has a historical dificit in economy. He eroded civil liberty by "Patriot Act". Yet they still award him an approvement about 50% while actually should be below 30%. Because insider group need more war in Mid-east, and Bush follow their policy.

I will not debate the patriot act here, because it need not be debated. But some people, despite the fact that you may think them irrational, think ousting Saddam was a good thing. Most of us see no new enemies because of this "injustice war." Certainly not even the fervently anti-war Russians, French, Belgians, etc, could be classified now as "enemies." In fact, I would venture to say that this war has created no new important enemies. Finally, many people understand the deficit as a by product of an economic recession, nothing new, or business as usual for the US government. I'm not saying deficits are good, but certainly its nothing new, and to be expected from a government that thinks of its citizens money not as its citizens, but as its own.

When American people realized war is not for the interest of US and choose Howard Dean as their candidate. The insider group throw out W. Clark to weaken Dean. As many people still don't know who Clark is, CNN has a poll said Clark could beat Bush and that his support leaded over other Demo candidates, just 2 days after Clark announced to join the campaign.
First, I think its a little presumptuous to say the "American people realize war is not in the interest of US..." I happen to think it was in good interest, and many others do as well. Many others don't. Its split, at worst. 2nd, I'm not at all sure how "throwing out Clark" would weaken Dean, unless you are talking of a different definition of "throwing out" than I am thinking of (ie, "throwing him out into the mix" vs "throwing him out of contention"). 3rd, Dean defeated himself because he's much too wackoleftist to make it, and he couldn't even attempt to pretend otherwise. Selecting Dean as a candidate for president would have meant suicide for Democrats in this election, and I dont think you'll find too many observers who would disagree with that.

After continuing reading, its sounding like you are talking about 6+ month old news as if it came out today...

American people are naive.

As a matter of fact, I beleive you!

Damn my naiveté!

kathaksung

Sep 6th, 2004, 6:03 PM

Which is it? Are these "good people" morons? Have they no intelligence to take the media's "news" and refuse to regurgitate it? Do you have faith in people or not?

Damn my naiveté!

These good people are not morons, only been cheated. They are the majority, but the media and polls made them thought they were the minority. It's not a proper question "Do you have faith in people or not?"
I think I should say I have no faith to this government and media.

--------------

Cheating

They steal the election through intelligence work.(control election office, make cheating easy) And make people believe the result by poll. Unless you can make the election more transparent and being under monitor, you live under a covert totalitarism.

An example of how they cheat people:

Most people of the world oppose war in Iraq. Americans are the same. But through media, they censor the anti-war sentiment and gave a poll of that more than 60% U.S. people support war. But when it went to Capital Hill, they can't cheat like what they did on poll because there is a count on each "yes" or "no" from congressmen and senator. And these law makers knew what their constituents think. That's why there was a DC sniper shooting at the time to pass the authorizing Iraq war power to President Bush. It's a intimidation. Many law makers bent to the threat and vote against their constituents' will.

Quote, "----- Original Message -----
From: "mike burke"
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Democracy Now Exclusive: Survey Shows
Congress Overwhelmed w/ Anti-War Calls

*** DEMOCRACY NOW EXCLUSIVE ***

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 27, 2002

CONGRESS OVERWHELMED WITH ANTI-WAR CALLS FROM
"THE SILENCED MAJORITY"

Republican and Democratic Senate offices report
"overwhelming" opposition from their constituents to war with Iraq. This comes as Congress prepares to pass a war resolution granting President Bush sweeping powers to invade Iraq.

The national news radio show Democracy Now!
conducted an informal survey on Thursday of 70 Republican
and Democratic Senate offices.

Of the 26 offices which responded to our inquires, 22 reported an overwhelming majority - in some cases up to 99 percent -- of constituents opposed war in Iraq; three said the response was split and just one office Among the findings:

Democrats
* Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl: Aides say they are receiving 1,000-2,000 calls per week with the overwhelming number opposed to an attack on Iraq.

* Washington Sen. Patty Murray: Over 5,000 letters and
phone calls were received last week on Iraq, aides say. Only about 100 came from constituents who supported an attack.

* California Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Staff in her San Francisco office reported about 200 calls a day with 99 percent of the callers opposing the war.

* New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman: The D.C. office has been receiving at least 1,300 calls a day with about 70 percent opposed to war.

Republicans
* North Carolina Jesse Helms: Staff declined to give figures but said the "majority is against" when it comes to calls on Iraq.

* Nebraska Charles Hegal: According to aides, constituents favor diplomacy over war at a rate of 5 to 1.

* Virginia John Warner: About 150 constituents a day are calling into the D.C. offices. "A very small minority supported military action," said one aide.

"It's extraordinary that, as Senators work with the Bush Administration to draft a war resolution, their constituents are expressing overwhelming opposition an attack against Iraq," said Amy Goodman, the host of Democracy Now! "Unfortunately we are hearing very little about this in the media. These calls
represent the silenced majority, not the silent majority."

Democracy Now is a daily nationwide news show
based in New York. It is broadcast on over 130 public
radio and television stations around the country.

The election need transparancy and monitor from people. Otherwise it is only a covert totalitarian.

kathaksung

Sep 15th, 2004, 4:55 PM

What good is Bush?

1. He cannot even express correctly what he thinks.

e.g. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

2, He has no common knowledge. He doesn't know the money of Russia and Iraq.

Bush speaks of 'Soviet dinar' in speech about Iraq

Wed Aug 18, 8:28 PM ET HUDSON, United States (AFP) - US President George W. Bush spoke of "the Soviet dinar," even though dinars are the Iraqi currency.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040819/pl_afp/us_vote_bush_dinar&cid=1521&ncid=1963&sid=96378801

3. He had no ability to handle and foresee the development of a big event. He said "(Iraq war) Mission is accomplished". We know it is not.

4. He is dumb to react an emergence. He had no reaction to a big attack(When WTC was bombed) for 7 minutes.

To react properly in above events is not difficult for most people. How can be in such a great country like US, we have no better selection but an incompetent Bush?

No wonder he is the big joke abroad. George W. Bush is a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards in Canada.

Bush wins fest's top 'stupid award'
But U.S. president loses to Saddam for Just for Laughs' lifetime awards
Nelson Wyatt
The Canadian Press
July 25, 2004

MONTREAL - The November elections may still be ahead of him, but U.S. President George W. Bush has already come out a big winner at the World Stupidity Awards.

Mr. Bush was a dominating presence at the second edition of the awards presented at the Just for Laughs comedy festival taking place in Montreal

Mr. Black said the awards "celebrate the pros" and "perfection in idiocy" because real stupidity is hard work.

http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/soundoff/story.html?id=e3860266-8e91-439e-a02c-bcb68dc5382b

Bush, with his low IQ, even not dare to face kerry's challenge to debate each week. Yet, media from time to time said Bush is leading over Kerry. Do you believe it?
--------------
This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Thor

Sep 15th, 2004, 8:23 PM

yep, and KERRY is the ONE...LOL...I can't wait to see what happens if Kerry wins! We will need to vote on everything since he can't make up his mind what he is for....I would actually take this seriously if Hillary were running...she's a smart lady

knac1055

Sep 15th, 2004, 8:52 PM

This is how The Electoral College System works?

By my understanding states are broken down into districts

14, 15 16 whatever, each district cast there votes who ever wins in that district gets one vote

Example: say a state has 3 electoral votes district 1 vote for candidate 1, district 2 votes for candidate 2, district 3 votes for candidate 1, will candidate 1 won and got the entire 3 electoral votes.

prison inmates have no right to vote........ until there sentence is overtruned they have no rights at all except not to be beaten by the prison staff....

Thor

Sep 15th, 2004, 8:58 PM

I gotta admit Kerry SLAYS Bush in a verbal eloquence conttest, Bush seems to have a mental block when it comes to speaking eloquently, but that's about where it ends...Kerry can't seem to say the say thing twice in a row...I think the "Waffle House" flip-flop award is justified... what IS Kerry's platform anyway, does he even HAVE one? Help me understand this election...

knac1055

Sep 15th, 2004, 9:10 PM

http://users.adelphia.net/~ray1126/this_land.swf

Kohler

Sep 16th, 2004, 9:55 AM

What is the DBT, is it a person or a company??

DontBeAfraid

Sep 16th, 2004, 5:41 PM

Why is knacs signature so big..... Its supposed to be short and clever.

kathaksung

Sep 25th, 2004, 5:30 PM

Unpopular Bush (Bush 2)
Even before Iraq war, the world viewed him a villain already. It was from report of his own State department.
Quote,"Many see Bush as villain, US embassies report
by Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post
Washington - the messages from US embassies around the globe have become urgent and disturbing: Many people in the world increasingly think President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Iraq President Saddam Hussein....." (S.J.M.N. 2/24/03)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55326-2003Feb23.html

Now many viewed him as war criminal. In Belgium, Bush and Blair had been filed with lawsuit of war crimes. They were banned to Church of Nativity. Bush also had been indicted for war crimes by a group of Japanese lawyers. Of course, you can never see this kind of news from US mainstream media.
Inside group very carefully protect their puppet.

When Bush visited London last November, he met with a large protest from people which turned a state visit to a public humiliation. To save Bush's fame, D.O.J. at the same time threw out Michael Jackson's molesting case to distract.

What about American people? The biggest protest ever to Republican Convention in New York this September says all.

Early this year, more than 60 leading scientists-including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university presidents-issued a statement to protest Bush's scientific policies.
In March, a US business group that monitors federal spending took out a full-page advert in The New York Times, likening President George W. Bush to a corrupt chief executive officer who has forfeited public trust
In May, some 50 retired US diplomats wrote a letter to Bush urging him to reverse the Mid-east policy.

Professionals, from their own angle, protest Bush's policy. Bush is notorious, either in domestic or abroad.

Even Bush's closest ally Tony Blair keeps distance from him.

Quote, "LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair is refusing to fly to the United States to receive a medal bestowed on him by the nation for his support over last year's Iraq war, a London newspaper has reported.
US President George W. Bush has put huge pressure on his closest ally to pick up the medal in person, which was awarded over a year ago, the Sunday Mirror said, quoting a senior British government source.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1538&e=10&u=/afp/britain_us_iraq

Yet, from time to time, name brand media such like CNN, ABC, USA Today, Gallop issued poll result that Bush steadily has the approve rate around 50% and often leads over his Demo rival. What is the base of it?

---------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Donsun

Sep 27th, 2004, 12:43 PM

all i can say is thank you katherine harris. i mean congresswoman. :toast:

niteflyer

Sep 27th, 2004, 5:09 PM

Well, I dont really know, but in the history of American presidential elections, he who has the most "blue blood" has always won. It has always been like this, no exceptions. Look it up yourselves. Interestingly enough, that means Kerry will win this one, as his blood is "more blue". Personally, I think Bush is the next winner?? It should also be pointed out that this is the first time in history that 2 "skull and bones" club members have ever run against each other...what this all means is anybodies guess as far as I know??

dutchie

Sep 28th, 2004, 1:29 AM

Forgive this ignorant Dutchie, coming from a monarchy... What exactly do you mean by "blue" blood?!?

DontBeAfraid

Sep 28th, 2004, 3:48 AM

The priveledged dutchie.... There are still 2 classes of people in the US, the common folk and the blue bloods.... Those with REALLY old family money.

dutchie

Sep 28th, 2004, 3:57 AM

Ah.. Privileged?!? I'd rather get rid of the monarchy today in stead of tomorrow.. There's absolutely no use at all for a monarchy in this day and age, it just costs a lot of money, money far better spent on schooling and healthcare...

Emerald_Dragon

Sep 28th, 2004, 10:01 AM

[conjecture]i think "blue-bloods" are people who can trace their lineage back to Adam/Eve. I think. However, the term was used to describe the baby's born of royal blood, whose skin tone was tinged slightly blue, to give off the impression their blood was blue.

But now, I'm more inclined to believe, that bluebloods, are descendants of the Nefilim, who were chosen to lead the human race, after it was created. And through the centuries, these descendants fought amongst each other for the right to rule, until peace broke out, due to the people getting tired of fighting. So out of tradition and cosmic order, those amongst the blueblood, have allowed other bluebloods to lead, so long as they were of higher ranking.

How is the ranking decided? I would guess, based on the ancient god the high priests worshipped and their ranks. I could be all wrong, though, just piecing together from many sources.

DontBeAfraid

Sep 28th, 2004, 4:15 PM

Nobody can trace their blood back to the FICTIONAL adam and eve.....

niteflyer

Sep 28th, 2004, 4:38 PM

Well, its like this....about 26,000 years ago a very superior pair of beings were created for a mission to earth. Their purpose was to uplift the human race, thru interbreeding with superior genes, and thru social interactions, by using their superior intellects to educate and develop spirituality in the existing human stocks.
These beings were blue, both in skin and blood. As time progressed these were the natural leaders of the human race, human, but blessed with better intellect, genes, and spiritual capacity. As time went on of course the blood got diluted, but of course the purer specimens kept their lines as pure as possible, and their leadership intact.
As time went on, the blue got more and more diluted, and the last of the blues that were pure enough to be colored blue died out, but there still existed strains of relatively pure blue stock, still blessed, and still natural leaders.
Until historic times, the "bluebloods" were the natural leaders, but now, the blood is so dilute that the inferior pre uplift genes dominate, and as most know, it is not good for family without impeccable genes to intermarry, so the existing impure "bluebloods" interbred themselves out of a position of natural leadership.
Their ininterupted leadership still gives them powerful positions and connections, although many if not most no longer have superior genes, actually, many of them are so inbred that some trailer trash may have better genes. Money is still power though, and most of the real leaders of the world come from ancient bloodlines, although few admit much knowledge of it, they are very aware.
Today, you can only see the blue coloring in some of the Eithiopean stock, and to a lesser degree, some Dane and Norse stock. Anyone that possesses the recessive gene for blue eyes has a little more than average, and
blue eyes were unknown on earth prior to the Adamic uplift. Caucasions and Eithiopeans seem to have the most apparent...
Ever wondered why the post dark age paintings originally portrayed Jesus as blue (he wasnt)..it was to show his "nobility". (Jesus deliberatly picked very average stock). If you look at the Vedas and other Chinese and Indian art, you will see the "royalty" depicted as blue...
This is not widely known now though, seeing there are no blue colored people running around. Its funny how soon people forget the past. Im just waiting for the human genome project to "discover" this uplift...it will be real interesting how they interpret it...
Hope that explains it...

niteflyer

Sep 28th, 2004, 4:49 PM

You are very wrong. I personally know members of at least 40 families that can, and have a list of over 300 that was presented to me at a very early age by my maternal grandmother. Also, note that it was an expectation that I marry and produce offspring from that list, and as luck?? would have it, met and married my Yale sweetheart from a family on that list. It is a very old tradition...and these are all prominent families...

DontBeAfraid

Sep 28th, 2004, 5:06 PM

Niteflyer creation is a myth.... The list of people who say they can trace their lineage back to adam and eve is just a list.... fabricated a long time ago, maybe, by someone who thought too highly of themselves or had too much time on their hands....

Dont bother sending me your instructions for the levitating television.... You are a fake and have ceased to amuse me.

niteflyer

Sep 28th, 2004, 5:13 PM

But the beings represented by Adam and Eve did exist....and the human race was already present.
By the way, I just did a quick bit of research and it turns out that Kerry and Bush are once removed 14th cousins..Im telling you, family is very important to THE families, and if you are right, and Adam and Eve didnt exist, then all the families I mentioned are descended from the same couple, whoever they are. Prepare for a shock because science is getting VERY close....

DontBeAfraid

Sep 28th, 2004, 5:17 PM

Are there blue bloods? yes... Do the blue bloods still run everything? certainly... Are they all one big happy family? Ill bet they are... Are they descendants from a mythical couple? Most certainly NOT.

niteflyer

Sep 28th, 2004, 5:26 PM

Well, if you ARE right, then alot of US have lists that go back 26,000 years to common ancestry. Every little branch is documented. Ive inherited 2 filing cabinets dedicated to my bloodline and alot of it is VERY old. Some my father sealed in plasic and replaced the air with CO2 to preserve. Alot of very old families are gonna be disappointed..the human genome project will prove the ancestry to 1 couple...interpret it how you want.

dutchie

Sep 29th, 2004, 12:49 AM

DontBeAfraid

Sep 29th, 2004, 3:52 AM

His records pre-date paper.. :/

Emerald_Dragon

Sep 29th, 2004, 9:43 AM

>....about 26,000 years ago a very superior pair of beings were created for a mission to earth.

a book i've read, talks about the ADA.MU and the EVE, being created by the Sumerian gods, using their DNA and elements of "clay" from the earth. Zecharia Sitchin, "The Twelfth Planet", its 1 man's 30 year quest, to finding the origins of man, which lead him to the Fertile Crescent as the cradle of life. He goes on to explain the lineage of god-kings and human-kings, over the millenia, as recorded/recovered in the Sumerian tablets.

His Earth Chronicles are an interesting read. He corroborates Bible texts, archaeological finds, and language translations, to bridge the gaps in pre-historic times. According to him, the biblical creation myth was taken directly from the Sumerian myths. He argues that Adam and Eve did exist, but as a sort of lab experiment.

>These beings were blue, both in skin and blood.

I find this too hard to believe.
I've read its because they were born that way, but the tinge went away as they aged.
BTW, blood is blue, until it gets oxygenated. I think blue bloods are born with lots of veins close to the skin surface, making them appear blue. When you have kids, can you prove or disprove my theory?

>Until historic times, the "bluebloods" were the natural leaders,

hereditary. the chosen. the god-selected rulers.

>the human genome project will prove the ancestry to 1 couple...interpret it how you want.

i know. they've already narrowed it down to like, 3 (?) earth mothers. 1 euro-caucasian, 1 african, 1 middle-eastern/asian. Intriguing stuff.

niteflyer

Sep 29th, 2004, 10:28 AM

Well, like it or not "WE" believe this stuff; and "WE" rule the world. My genetics are 2nd generation Adamic thru the Nodites, one of the Sankik tribes. Specifically a Nodite leader by the name of Van, mated with a daughter of Adam and Eve. And yes, the "creation" myth that is known today originated with the Sumerians, and the Adamic bloodlines all came from the Tigris and Euphrates river basins. Yes, the records predate paper, and predate the Sumerians by thousand of years, but the records of the bloodlines were considered the hope of humanity in prehistoric times and religiously preserved. It was considered vital to the race...the records persist today, and are very jealously sheltered from harm. I can give anyone who asks a HUGE history lesson, as I was taught. I keep telling you all that I have a very unusual background, and I have been thoroughly educated in my birthright.
I might be just a minor player, but I HAVE been blessed with a very high IQ, and my bloodlines mean that I have trust and acceptance from others that trace their lines by birthright, which gives me lots of connections, advantages, and potential power just because of my blood. Its a very exclusive club, and it still rules the world. I can ask help or favors from others I have never even met, and it is their (and my)duty to enhance my (or their) material well being and safety if requested. You have no idea how deep this is..

niteflyer

Sep 29th, 2004, 10:33 AM

By the way. On the earth today we still have reasonably pure black men, white men, yellow men, and red men, all remainders of the Sankik tribes. With the desireability of the blue blood, why is it so hard to accept that they have been mongrelized out??

Emerald_Dragon

Sep 29th, 2004, 12:33 PM

> I can give anyone who asks a HUGE history lesson, as I was taught.

teach me. it may be wasted effort on others, mainly cuz its so far out there. but my conclusions, are pretty far out there.

i know you're history may not exactly jive with what we've all grown to accept, but i'm sure it will collaborate with something i've read. just piecing it together and learning what to believe. your input would be appreciated.

your "exclusive club" may help to explain some of the numerous secret societies.... or something like that...

Bushnell

Sep 29th, 2004, 4:54 PM

BLUE BLOOD
[Q] From Jennifer in the USA: “I was wondering about the origin of the phrase blue blood.”
[A] Unlike so many other expressions, this one is well documented. It’s a direct translation of the Spanish sangre azul. Many of the oldest and proudest families of Castile used to boast that they were pure bred, having no link with the Moors who had for so long controlled the country, or indeed any other group. As a mark of this, they pointed to their veins, which seemed bluer in colour than those of such foreigners. This was simply because the blue-tinted venous blood showed up more prominently in their lighter skin, but they took it to be a mark of their pure breeding. So the phrase blue blood came to refer to the blood which flowed in the veins of the oldest and most aristocratic families. The phrase was taken over into English in the 1830s.

kathaksung

Oct 5th, 2004, 7:07 PM

Bad economy (Bush 3)

Bush boasted his tax cut policy. But since his three years of tax cut, the economy in consecutive years goes worse.

Bush government manipulate numbers to cheat people. Said economy is improved. Let's see some absolute numbers:

1. Bush has the worst job creation in 40 years. He is the only one got negative.

Total Nonfarm Payrolls (thous.) Bureau of Labor Statistics Establishment Survey

period ....start......end......Jobs created ..%chng....President
61-64....53,681... 59,583....5,902..... 11.15%...JFK/Johnson
65-68....59,583... 69,438 ...9,855....... 16.54% ....Johnson
69-72....69,438 ...75,620....6,182 .........8.90%....Nixon
73-76....75,620.. .80,692....5,072 ........6.71%....Nixon/Ford
77-80....80,692 ...91,100 ...10,408 .......5.77% ....Reagan I
85-88....96,353 ..107,132 ..10,779 ......11.19%.... Reagan II
89-92..107,132 ..109,725 ...2,593 .......2.42%...Bush, GHW
93-96 .109,725 ..121,232 ..11,507 .....10.49% ....Clinton I
97-00..121,232...132,436...11,204 .......9.24% ....Clinton II
01-8/04 .132,436 .131475 .... -961 .....-0.72%.....Bush, GW

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/PAYEMS.txt

2. Decreased income.

I.R.S. Says Americans' Income Shrank for 2 Consecutive Years
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON

Adjusted for inflation, the income of all Americans fell 9.2 percent from 2000 to 2002, according to the new I.R.S. data.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/29/business/29tax.html?position=&ei=5006&en=26b81d34ef09dc4e&ex=1091678400&adxnnl=1&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1091106523-u3RTWXhX2RoUhGrVOfclPA

3. Increased poverty.

More Americans Uninsured, Living in Poverty
Census Data Shows Third Straight Annual Increase in Both Categories
By GENARO C. ARMAS, AP

WASHINGTON (Aug. 26) - The number of Americans living in poverty increased by 1.3 million last year, while the ranks of the uninsured swelled by 1.4 million, the Census Bureau reported Thursday..... It was the third straight annual increase for both categories. ...Approximately 35.8 million people lived below the poverty line in 2003,

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040826103709990008

Yet media (So said crdible media poll like CNN, Gallop, ABC...) always matains Bush's rate around 50%. Said Bush leads over Kerry 11%. And news in internet said in electorade vote, Bush will have a landslide victory. Do you believe it? Do American people would rather vote for a president who proved bad?

---------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

dutchie

Oct 6th, 2004, 1:19 AM

Seems to me the numbers speak for themselves.. :uh:

kathaksung

Oct 15th, 2004, 6:32 PM

Dirty tactic (Bush 5)

Lie, cheating, intimidation, revenge, propaganda.... that's dirty tactics Bush done to stay in presidency.

Of course, the biggest lie is the WMD Bush used to mislead US to the war of Iraq. From the book of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter terrorism adviser Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson we know from beginning Bush determined to have a war with Iraq. WMD was only an excuse. When Wilson revealed it, he was punished. Someone leaked the ID of his wife that she was a CIA agent.

Now WMD lie is broken off. Bush changes the tone, said it was for freedom, world becomes safer. Does world becomes safer? Iraq war may created more terrorists for the world. Do Iraq people feel safer? Since Bush invaded Iraq, tens of thousand of innocent Iraqi civilians died. Bush dares not to declare the casualty of civilians. The reality is US replaces Saddam to be the biggest threat to Iraqi people. The killing is going on.

According to Bush's propaganda, Hitler may become a hero. The tactic Hitler used is followed by Bush. Hitler started his pre-emptive war targeted at Communist Russian. If Bush's justification stands, Hitler would have more reason to say his war was a right one that his purpose was to eliminate evil Stalin and made world safer. To start a slaughter (war) based on personal belief, or exactly, for the interest of a little group. Bush is no other than Hitler. He is a war criminal.

Another lie was a report given to people this April that terrorist attack worldwide had declined 45% since 2001, dropping to its lowest level in 34 years. Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said it offered "clear evidence " that Bush administration was prevailing in the fight against global terrorism. Later it was proved wrong, because in fact, in 2003, terror attack had risen significantly. News said it was the first time State Department had to rewrite it significantly since they were ordered to issue report 15 years ago. Is it just a mistake? No, April was the month of insurgence of Al Fallujah, as well as the Shiite insurgence in south. Bush's lie -"Iraqis welcome US libration" was broken. To save his fame, they issued another lie to cover up the broken lie.

To smear his rival, Bush camp push out a "Swift boat veteran team". With which it turned a Vietnam war veteran into a lier, coward. The result is you may doubt something wrong with the reward system of US Army(or Navy). How could Army gave a coward medal one after another? Because they foresaw Kerry would be US president candidate? Or simply US Army is a blinder? Or these Vietnam heroes were actually all cowards? But whatever the media said, there is one thing I know clearly, that is, Bush at that time, escaped Vietnam war duty. With his family relationship, he went to National guard to avoid to go to a dangerous war field - Vietnam.
Who is coward?

Yet, they made a Vietnam war veteran with 5 medals a coward, a lier. And made a real coward, lier, a Vietnam war deserter a "decisive leader". They can even turn "job lost" into positive. (They said it's good in long term to US to offshore job to overseas.) And invent something new such like "jobless recovery" to cover up a bad economy. This is how brand name media such like ABC, CNN, USA Today, Gallup...., under the direct of inside group, to turn white into black. Reversing the truth. Change negative into positive. They maintain a notorious, incompetent, dishonest president a 50% approve rate, and leads over his challenger with reluctant reason. The poll number are from their own mouth and can never proved by independent organization. Do you believe it?

----------------------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Onikiri

Oct 16th, 2004, 1:37 AM

VegasRonin

Oct 16th, 2004, 5:47 PM

It should also be pointed out that this is the first time in history that 2 "skull and bones" club members have ever run against each other...what this all means is anybodies guess as far as I know?? It means that the choice has been taken from the American people.

Ron Rosenbaum, author of the book Explaining Hitler and a columnist for The New York Observer who has written extensively about the secret society, calls Bones a kind of extended family with the protections and loyalties and locked lips that such a family affords.

"You often see news reports that say Bush and Kerry were in Skull and Bones, but in fact they still are in Skull and Bones," says Rosenbaum, a classmate of Bush's at Yale who has long been curious about the club, even videotaping a nighttime rite in the secret society's courtyard a few years ago. "When you have two presidential candidates who come from that same extended family, I think it's a challenge ... to examine the influence that this family has had on them."

If Kerry wins, three of the last four presidents will have hailed from Skull and Bones, Rosenbaum points out. The presumptive Democratic nominee and the Republican incumbent share this old-guard tradition, as did the first President Bush.
WAKE UP! :mad:

kathaksung

Oct 25th, 2004, 5:53 PM

Dark future (Bush 4)

Bush blows trumpet that he cut tax for you. It's only a trick to wangle votes. When he disguised as a Santa Clause to give you a tax cut cheque, at same time he quitely put a debt bill into that sock too.

He had cut tax for three years. The federal dificit went up for three years at a record high. It will hit a historical 422 billion dollars this year in adition to 375 billion of last year. The national dificit will be 2.2 trillion in next decade. If the tax cut goes on, then it will double to 4.4 trillion.

To fill the hole of that dificit, government have to borrow from financial market which will cause the rising of interest rate. As a result, it will leads to the break out of two bubbles: housing market and stock market.

The federal benchmark interest rate stays below 2% for three years since 2001. It creates a big credit bubble.

Personal debt increased, as well as national debt. The interest rate now is going up. Federal reserve bank has raised the rate three times in recent months. The rate is still below 2%. There is still a long road to go to the reasonable rate level. Meanwhile, housing market bubble and stock market bubble will break out at any time.

That's what we will face: a long time stagnant economy. And with great possibility, a big economy downturn when the two big credit bubbles exploded.

Bush dramatically increased national dificit. And allowed two big economic bubbles created which endangered financial market. We will have a very dark future. Main stream media rarely tell people about this. They keep issue the poll to maintain Bush's approve rate at around 50% and say he is steadily lead over Kerry at 8 %. Do people really not care about their pocket? Do they really support a president who bring them a bad economy?

------------------

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligent covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

kathaksung

Nov 3rd, 2004, 6:19 PM

Impeach

There are many petitions suggest to impeach Bush. It won't succeed. On the contrary, he will be awarded for a second term.

Why the media beat the drum on a personal affair and almost impeached President Clinton from his post. While awarded President Bush with a high approve rate when he misled American people to an unnecessary war?

If you can view the whole thing from another angle. That terrorist group is manipulated by CIA and Mosad. And what Bush did was following a "road map" a powerful group designed earlier. You may know it better.

The bombing of US Cole and embassy in Africa were provokation for a Mid-east war. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz had lobbied Clinton for the war in Jan. 1998 but failed. Clinton ordered missil bombing in Sudan and Afghanistan but didn't start a war. He was punished by Lewinsky scandal and was almost impeached from his post.

Since bombing of Cole and US embassador in Afirica were not big enough to touch off a war, they had a big attack in US. Many information revealed that 911 was allowed to happen. With which Bush started war with Afghan. But that was not the main target of "road map". Bush then started war with Iraq even though there was no sufficient justification. He did a good job for that power group. How could him be impeached?

Bin Laden was not found because he is too important for intelligence. His existence gives an excuse to make "war on terrorism" an endless one. He won't be arrested or killed until they found another terror leader to substitute him.

The "Road map" is not finished. There are more "evil countries" in the list. The war on terror is a long one. So Bush will stay in his post, as well as Bin Laden.

kathaksung

Nov 15th, 2004, 4:01 PM

Bush was elected not by people but inside group. (11/4)

Bush probably is the worst president in US history. In his first term, civil liberty is seriously eroded; economy is in a mess; the international reputation of America drops to the bottom because the unjust war he activated. Any president commits one offense of the above would have lost hi second term, yet Bush still stays. Why?

Because he is proved an obedient proxy of inside group. And inside group control US politics. How?

Through media and intelligence.

1. Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act". They seldom report the opinions of people all over the world because nothing is positive about Bush. We can only get it from Internet.
Media report "off-shoring jobs to overseas is good in long term to US, and cheered a "jobless recovery". They rarely report the feelings of unemployed people. They never talk about a dark economic future to American people because that will hurt Bush's fame.

Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll. They miraculously maintained Bush's approve rate at about 50%, and led over his rival by sometimes even 12% despite the insurgence in Iraq, rising casualties of US army and Iraqi civilians, scandal of Abu Ghraybu, news of no WMD.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney. It could go to public finally because it has won the award of best film in Cannes Festival. The film became too popular to be censored.

Linda Ronstadt was evicted from the Aladdin in Las Vegas after angering the casino's management with pro-Michael Moore comments during her concert. Celebrities got a treatment like this, not mention the ordinary people.

Former president Clinton got a heart attack after he gave an advice to Demo candidate Kerry. He told Kerry not to focus on Vietnam history but on Iraq war which touched the taboo of inside group.

Constant terror attack warning from D.O.J. and FBI. Though at last they didn't activate any terror bombing they still issued a Bin Laden's tape. Four days before election date.

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost the election too. It's not a surprise if you still remember he was also the one who received the anthrax letter. He is a dislike of inside group.

Of course the biggest operation was to rig the election. When they told you Bush won Kerry by 51% vs 48%, you have to take it. You have no other way to verify it. You only know the vote you casted.

This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by fake poll.

Bigsky770

Nov 15th, 2004, 7:29 PM

. . .And that's going to be (all I'll say about that). . .

Media rarely report negative news relates to "Patriot Act"

. . .Wrong. I have heard on the news CNN, USAToday, & Fox BAD things about "The Patriot Act" and as well misgivings announced on the other networks (CBS, NBC & ABC).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/18/patriot.act.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86915%2C00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigation/story?id=90203&page=1

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-patriot_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86167%2C00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90684&page=1

That'll get yah started.

. . .Just because you do not necessarilly listen to what it is they have to say, (or) tell you that which WANT to hear to strengthen your case, doesn't mean they are not 'reporting' it. I HAVE CERTAIN reservations "about" parts and pieces of the "Patriot Act" that I take issue with, and I am happy to say that I have heard EVERYONE of these stated. As a "Free Civilization" these need to be brought out and addressed, and I rest assured with the knowledge that in the end, "The RIGHT [WILL] PREVAIL" in this.

Brand name media kept let out a steady figure of poll.

. . .Where did you get this? hell, I'm still thinking about the "Exit Polls" that were so screwed up! (whereas "Kerry" was given a 12-point lead!) I SAW the reports PRIOR to voting, and I voted for "Bush" anyway! [MY VOTE] does not depend upon "popularity contests" and NEVER WILL.

2. Intelligence control. Feds have their accessories everywhere from big cooperations to small companies to punish, intimidate, and harass any anti Bush activity.

. . ."Paranoia" may destroy yah! (sic). . .

Michael Moors' "Fahrenheit 911" was blocked to be distributed by its own investor - Disney.

. . .That is because of the issue that "Michael Moore" did not put forward that which he promised. He was supposed to approach this from the standpoint of more PURITY in "Journalism", and it ended-up as nothing more than political satire/done rather badly, I'm afraid. It was a "Bush-Bashing Extravaganza", and the majority of Americans had seen it "as such". Now we are threatened with a "Fahrenheit 911-and-a-half" when shall we ever be rid of this miserable loser? He wants to "educate" us. . .:D (heh. . .) Michael, PUULL-LEEZE!

Linda Ronstadt was evicted from the Aladdin in Las Vegas after angering the casino's management with pro-Michael Moore comments during her concert. Celebrities got a treatment like this, not mention the ordinary people.

. . .Do you EVEN HAVE A CLUE as to what she was supposed to be doing there? "Las Vegas" isn't ABOUT that. It's a place where you can go to "Let your hair down", "get funky" yah know. It's ABOUT "Entertainment!", dammit!
People GO THERE to "get away from it all", not to see a continuation of "Lesson in Politics, part II". I have NO PROBLEM with Linda Rondstadt having an opinion (or) even announcing it in public, but she was "on the clock", so to speak. Would you go to your bosses' office (while YOU are "on the clock") and proceed to lecture him on politics? [friendly advice. . .DON'T GO THERE!] No, Your "boss" has you there for YOUR PERFORMANCE, in whatever capacity you are employed. What I'm getting at here, Kathaksung, is I LIKE "Linda Rondstadt", and even "George Clooney", and "Bruce Willis" for that matter. Favorite song by Linda: "Love is a Rose" Favourite Movie with George Clooney: "Oh Brother Where art Thou?" Favourite Movies with Bruce Willis: "The Die-Hard" series/whether-or-not I happen to disagree/agree with their 'political viewpoints' isn't the point here; when I purchase a CD (or) DVD I am paying for their PERFORMANCE, NOT THEIR VIEWPOINTS. What is it you are paying for? When I buy that ticket/cd/dvd they're on MY CLOCK, and that's what I want/otherwise, I wouldn't BUY IT. Comprende'?

Former president Clinton got a heart attack after he gave an advice to Demo candidate Kerry. He told Kerry not to focus on Vietnam history but on Iraq war which touched the taboo of inside group.

. . . Beg your pardon, (ahem) THAT touched many raw-nerves with many veterens, both INSIDE and OUT. Not just a 'select' group, here. . .

Constant terror attack warning from D.O.J. and FBI. Though at last they didn't activate any terror bombing they still issued a Bin Laden's tape. Four days before election date.

. . .Pray tell, what would you have said IF they had NOT aired it? (did I just hear someone whisper) "censorship?"

Senate Minority leader Tom Daschle lost the election too. It's not a surprise if you still remember he was also the one who received the anthrax letter. He is a dislike of inside group.

. . .Yes, so-sad HE lost (boo-hoo!), though he wasn't the 'only one' to get those so-called 'Anthrax' letters. Many Republicans ALSO got them; Terrorism knows NO PARTY LOYALTIES HERE, to them, WE ARE ALL the ENEMY.Quote From Osama Bin-Laden: "All citizens of the United States are guilty against Islam crimes they have committed, they must either convert to Islam or be destroyed as Infidels", Unquote, Also"Those that have payed taxes to THEIR gov'ts and have supported them are Infidels". Want more of his rants? just 'google' it!

Of course the biggest operation was to rig the election. When they told you Bush won Kerry by 51% vs 48%, you have to take it. You have no other way to verify it. You only know the vote you casted.

. . .Don't know if this is any indication, but I'll give you a 'for instance' here. My wife and I had a couple of friends over yesterday, (it was good, we hadn't seen them inawhile). We never really 'delve' into political discussion, though the topic had arose, so we compared notes, post-election/yah know, "how-did-you-vote-sorta-thing". Gotta say I was amazed at their reply, (THESE ARE "DEMOCRATS" we are talking about!) and they voted for "Bush" EVEN IN SPITE of having seen "Fahrenheit911" also! [Incidently, they even agreed that our reservations about his sad attempt at unbiased journalism] In EVERY CATAGORY, THEY VOTED EXACTLY like my wife and I, AND for all the very-same reasons! They (in the end) just didn't trust "John Kerry's doublespeak" here, it stuck with them all the way up to and including "Election Day". Good lesson for "John", there, perhaps he can use that knowledge in 2008. . .

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

kathaksung

Nov 25th, 2004, 5:58 PM

. . .And that's going to be (all I'll say about that). . .

. . .Wrong. I have heard on the news CNN, USAToday, & Fox BAD things about "The Patriot Act" and as well misgivings announced on the other networks (CBS, NBC & ABC).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/05/18/patriot.act.ap/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86915%2C00.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/21/attack/main564189.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Investigation/story?id=90203&page=1

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4065424

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-07-13-patriot_x.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C86167%2C00.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90684&page=1

That'll get yah started.

. . .Just because you do not necessarilly listen to what it is they have to say, (or) tell you that which WANT to hear to strengthen your case, doesn't mean they are not 'reporting' it. I HAVE CERTAIN reservations "about" parts and pieces of the "Patriot Act" that I take issue with, and I am happy to say that I have heard EVERYONE of these stated. As a "Free Civilization" these need to be brought out and addressed, and I rest assured with the knowledge that in the end, "The RIGHT [WILL] PREVAIL" in this.

Joe (Bigsky770) :vbroll:

Thanks for URL information. But compare to other issues. Don't you think that's real scarce?

Censorship and Liberal media (6/3)

A news in internet in August 2002:

"The crowd was standing at the barricades and the police had called a state of
emergency. Pepper spray was used on group early on. Batons were used on some
people. Group included babies in strollers and older people, also people in
wheelchairs.
There are snipers on the roofs. Police have opened fire on protesters with rubberbullets, pepper spray and gas. The crowds of people are moving around and regrouping. "
http://portland.indymedia.org:8081/front.php3?article_id=17241&group=webcast

It seemed a scene taking place in totalitarian country. But it was in Portland, citizens protested Bush's war policy and were surpressed. If it happened in Moscow, Beijing, you could see big title and pictures as first hand news in media. But this time, there was no report from media. I learned it from internet. There is a strong censorship on anti-war news. Inside group needed war. Media coordinated. They created a feeling that most of people were pro-war.

If Michael Moore is not a famous film director, his "Fahrenheit 9/11" wouldn't be known by public. If his film haven't been awarded the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival, it may still have been blocked from distributing. Is Disney a media, or rather a tool of inside group? All this happened in US, famous for its "Bill of Right". The free speech has to struggle for its existence against invisible censorship. What kind of "freedom" Bush can bring to Iraqis? You imagine.

"Patriot Act" seriously erodes civil liberty. More than hundred towns, cities, even states passed resolution condemning it. As "liberal" media, it should be a big issue to be discussed, criticized. Have you often heard of it? Rarely. Abandon the title of "liberal", even if media dare not to comment at this topic, as "media", should they do some very basic thing to report it? Yet, they failed in their professional duty. New York joined the long list of cities to condemn Patriot Act recently. A sponsor said, "The Patriot Act is really unpatriotic, it undermines our civil rights and civil liberties," Because New York was the victim of 9/11 attack, and Patriot Act was a result of that attack, the resolution of New York is significant. Yet, the news is censored by most media. I learned it only from a message from internet.

Quote, "UnderReported.com

.....Queries on news.google.com yield no results for CNN. Two queries for the New York Times yield no relevant results, and I was unable to find an article by searching on the nytimes.com website itself. Did this amazing story really go unreported in the city's own New York Times

Pete_undercover
[Post# 463683 </cgi-bin/wwwthreads/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=national&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&vc=1&Number=463683>]

Though there are "Demo" paty and "Rep" party, "liberal" media and "conservative" media, It's only a cover up. Once it touches the interest of inside group, there is no Democracy and liberal. All principle and opinion are given up. Media and politicians, are only tools of inside group.

Defiant Noquisi

Nov 28th, 2004, 8:44 AM

They (in the end) just didn't trust "John Kerry's doublespeak" here, it stuck with them all the way up to and including "Election Day". Good lesson for "John", there, perhaps he can use that knowledge in 2008. . . Nice handling of this one Joe. However, Im a little confused with this last one. Not that Kerry was any kind of doorprize, (cause he wasnt) but wouldnt doublespeak be an equivalent to lying or deceit? If it is, how does one decide which is "better" or "worse" when casting a vote?

Just a thought.

kathaksung

Dec 5th, 2004, 5:01 PM

Bush was elected not by people but inside group(2) (11/14)

People who vote don't decide whom be elected. Those who count the vote do.

Fraud in 2004 election is worse than 2000. Nobody could do that except a large powerful organization which abuse its power.

THE BLOWUP IN FLORIDA

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed.

Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

More visual analysis of the results can be seen at

http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm

www.rubberbug.com/temp/Florida2004chart.htm.

http://www.nomorefakenews.com/

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm

In Ohio

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate. Pollsters ask, "Who did you vote for?" Unfortunately, they don't ask the crucial, question, "Was your vote counted?" The voters don't know.

Here's why. Although the exit polls show that most voters in Ohio punched cards for Kerry-Edwards, thousands of these votes were simply not recorded. This was predictable and it was predicted. See TomPaine.com, "An Election Spoiled Rotten,"

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/an_election_spoiled_rotten.php

http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/electoral_reform/residual_ballot.php

substand

Dec 5th, 2004, 5:37 PM

are we STILL talking about this 2000 thing in 2004, post elections? You shoulda started a new thread. But I will respond here...

In Baker County, for example, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, the vote was only 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush, the opposite of what is seen everywhere else in the country where registered Democrats largely voted for Kerry.

In Dixie County, with 4,988 registered voters, 77.5% of them Democrats and a mere 15% registered as Republicans, only 1,959 people voted for Kerry, but 4,433 voted for Bush. The pattern repeats over and over again - but only in the smaller counties where, it was probably assumed, the small voter numbers wouldn't be much noticed.

Franklin County, 77.3% registered Democrats, went 58.5% for Bush. Holmes County, 72.7% registered Democrats, went 77.25% for Bush. Yet in the larger counties, where such anomalies would be more obvious to the news media, high percentages of registered Democrats equaled high percentages of votes for Kerry.

This is not very hard to explain. Through the polls, almost everyone who said they were voting for Bush said they were voting FOR him, while almost everyone who said they were voting for Kerry said they were voting AGAINST Bush. With so little support FOR Kerry, it is not hard to imagine that people weren't motivated to go and vote for him... thus, it is quite possible that these people did not vote. And even if they did, with all of what, 3 counties in FL being democrat, it is not likely that they would have made a difference in the final outcome anyway, with the margin of victory Bush held in the state.

Most voters in Ohio thought they were voting for Kerry. CNN's exit poll showed Kerry beating Bush among Ohio women by 53 percent to 47 percent. Kerry also defeated Bush among Ohio's male voters 51 percent to 49 percent. Unless a third gender voted in Ohio, Kerry took the state.

So what's going on here? Answer: the exit polls are accurate.

The women polled sounds about accurate in the vote count. It was well known that women were voting for Bush more than normal (ie, normally it would be a wider margin of women voting for the Democrat). The polls about men are well within the margin of error. Being +-4%, the actual vote could have gone 53% to 47% for Bush among the men, and the women could have been closer, considering the margin of error. Since Bush won by such a small margin in Ohio, these polls are not at all alarming.

In the end, its obvious the polls were correct- they were within their margin of error.

[edit: fixed an obvious spelling mistake "can"->"can't" in the first paragraph and a quote problem... and one other thang]

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 6th, 2004, 9:45 PM

are we STILL talking about this 2000 thing in 2004, post elections? You shoulda started a new thread. But I will respond here... Miss "They didn't poll everyone and you can't trust a poll" Noquisi =P ...I dont understand the reference to my opinion of polls being posted in this thread subs.

substand

Dec 7th, 2004, 3:22 PM

I dont understand the reference to my opinion of polls being posted in this thread subs.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Sorry, saw your avatar right above the post and thought you had written it. References taken out.

Defiant Noquisi

Dec 7th, 2004, 8:08 PM

Ah, ok. I thought I was missing something.

kathaksung

Dec 15th, 2004, 3:54 PM

Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (4) (12/7)

Tasted the sweet of advantage of a pending competition, Inside group established another one in election 2004. It is in Ohio.

The media created a situation that the country was divided by red and blue. And the result of election depended on a few undecided states. It was a psychological gimmick. They manipulate the public to focus on a few states but neglect the others. Did the nation real vote red and blue as they said? Not necessarily. It only made the rigging work easier for Feds. It made covert job easier in fixed states because people believe it was colored by red and blue already. Feds could concentrate their resource in the key state.

The key state was Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. Feds created a situation that the output of the key state decided the result of US election.

This year people found serious election fraud in Florida and Ohio. Florida was the key state in 2000, but not the planned one this year. The manipulation would be too obvious if Feds set the same state in controversial focus for consecutive two elections.

It was because people were alarmed by election 2000 so they had a tight observation on Florida. They found unusual phenomenon. But the suspicion was eliminated quickly by Feds. Florida is not in their plan this year. It is Ohio.

Then we can see vote controversy in Ohio. Media reported vote challenges in Ohio continue. Jassie Jackson; third party candidates, Democrats.... request a re-count. All these build up a pressure on Bush. It is a warning to him, "if you do not obey, then anytime we can overturn the result of election."

What is the ransom D.O.J. wants this time? Likely the control of the whole intelligence force of USA. D.O.J. not only control FBI, DEA, they want to control CIA too. And with it the fat budget of military intelligence.

The bill of re-organization of intelligence has been blocked in House. Bush worked hard, even pushed his GOP colleagues to pass it. Once it is passed, Americans will face a terrible intelligence monster. And you can expect the freedom and civil right are threatened.

Feds build up a pending case in election. (Though Ohio is more covert one than Florida of 2000) At the purpose to squeeze most from candidate. Americans are naive to think they have a democratic system. Their mind, as well as the election, are manipulated by Inside Group through media and intelligence.

substand

Dec 16th, 2004, 1:13 PM

Ohio 2004 plays the same role of Florida 2000

Did you write this or should you be linking to someone who did? Does the author have any clue about presidential electoral politics in the US, or did he/she pull this completely out of the proverbial ass?

kathaksung

Dec 25th, 2004, 3:43 PM

Cover up rigging election (12/17)
Bush was elected not by people but inside group (5)

On 11/28 there was an article in San Jose Mercury News to justify the Florida 2004 election.

"New vote count confirms Bush's north Florida win"

"How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?

Last week, the Miami Herald went to see for itself whether Bush's steamroll through north Florida was legitimate. Picking three counties that fit the conspiracy-theory profile - staunchly Democratic by registration, whoppingly GOP by voting - two reporters counted more than 17,000 ballots over three days.

The conclusion: No conspiracy."

The whole story is like this. Teacher accused student cheating in final exam that he copied the answer from the book. A judge was assigned for the case. He came checking the exam paper. and found the answer was right. The conclusion: No cheating.

The judge only repeated what the teacher had done - Found the answer was all right. He didn't check the accusation that the answer was a copied one. He didn't answer the question. How did the student who had no knowledge of the content of test could have a perfect exam result.

Some media said because it was Bush's morale value which moved voters.

What made people register as a Demo or Rep? Their moral value. People generally vote to their morale value in election if there is nothing particularly happened. What made them switch vote to the candidate of the other party? When the party he registered to did some thing disappointed him. e.g. if the candidate did bad in economy which hurt voter's pocket, then they switched to the other one. That's not for moral value because otherwise he wouldn't register as a Demo or Rep.

But what good has Bush done in his first term? Economy is bad. Civil right eroded. The war is a opposed by most people. People lost so much in his administration. There is strong reason to have a regime change. .

Media justify Bush's victory by moral value. That's a gimmick. Moral value is why people registered to a party. If people voted on moral value, Bush would should lost heavily in Florida. . "How did the Republicans win so heavily in counties stocked with Democrats?"

The answer is simple. Intelligence switched the votes to their favor. This is how insider group manipulate American election. They steal it by intelligence covert job. (Those who controlled intelligence, they controlled election office) And make people believe the result is reasonable by media propaganda. Even if the result contradicts strongly to the reality.

substand

Dec 26th, 2004, 4:37 PM

Did you write this or should you be linking to someone who did? Does the author have any clue about presidential electoral politics in the US, or did he/she pull this completely out of the proverbial ass?

Must have been pulled out of the proverbial ass.

kathaksung

Jan 3rd, 2005, 5:41 PM

Psychological manipulation and propaganda (12/28)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (6)

Some people apologized to the world that US has Bush elected for the second term. They don't have to. The majority of Americans didn't elect Bush. It was inside group which selected Bush by a rigging election and media propaganda.

There was really nothing good to justify Bush's victory, the media at last throw out a "moral value". But under this justification, Bush should have been a big loser because he is a dishonest man. He misled US to an unjust war by a big lie - that Iraq was an imminent threat to us.

Media rarely report the conflict exit poll in US election but beat the drum to same event happened in Ukraine. Yushchenko's poison case played same role as "Swift boat team" - to tarnish the rival in election.

A destroyed face played the propaganda to its utmost.

1. Most poison were used to hurt victim's health, on the purpose to take their lives. A poison to destroy someone's face is rarely heard. Does Dioxin only influence the skin of victim's face? Or the skin of all body? Though I don't know what happened to Yushchenko's body, it seems the skin of his neck and hands are all right.

2. Yushchenko vigorously active in election. It seems the poison didn't hurt his health much.

3. Yushchenko and Western media blow the trumpet said that he was poisoned. It seems the poison was selected for propaganda much more than killing.

4. Motive is important in any case. Who benefit from this election if the victim having a destroyed face?

5. Is perpetrator an amateur who selected a wrong poison to let others know that Yushchenko was obviously poisoned? Or just want to have a propaganda?

Next time when you see the TV repeatedly broadcast the collapse of World Trade Center; or a destroyed face; see the orange terror alarm code; or see the US map printed in blue and red color, be aware that it's a psychological manipulation. Government has a purpose.

kathaksung

Jan 15th, 2005, 4:37 PM

Control media - intimidation(1/11)

CBS fires four staffers over Bush story. Dan Rather also will step down as anchorman of the "CBS Evening News". All these because they had been "myopic zeal" about Bush's story relied on forged documents.

They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time. The fact was Bush did escape the service in Vietnam. Some one did arrange him in National Guard to avoid Vietnam service. Bush's military record mysteriously missed. As CBS said, "It's a blow, but it's not fatal. ... Ninety-nine percent of the stories we do are accurate and solid."

They told the Truth. Only the documents they referred was a forged one which was supplied with an evil will. The mistake was made inadvertently.

Compare with Bush. He deliberately misled Americans into an unjust war. He deceived people by fake "WMD" and "imminent danger". He caused the loss of hundred of thousands lives of innocent people. Who is to be blamed?

A witness reported a theft. The accessory of the thief supplied a forge evidence to the witness, deliberately to discredit him. The witness was punished when he referred the forged evidence. The thief, though was a criminal, on contrary, got a prize. Bush was awarded a second term of presidency. A team of CBS lost their job.

Feds used to set up trap for people. Rumsfeld repeated trying to make it a legitimacy of his "Strategy office". They have a "Lie workshop" which produces misinformation and disinformation. CBS event can be viewed as an achievement of this "Strategy office".

Ive and Adams lost paradise after they ate the apple given by Satan. People know who was the evil. They painted Satan a snake. But it's not only the staffers of CBS lost their job. It's another step the American people lost the freedom of speech. It is an advance of Inside group to intimidate media workers for more self restriction. You can expect to have more "political correct" poll and news from media since.

kathaksung

Jan 25th, 2005, 3:01 PM

Make a blackmail more efficient (1/8)

Bush was elected not by people but inside group (7)

"Democrat wins Washington with 130 votes". Mercury News reported on Dec. 24. It said Democrat Christine Gregoire won the election by 130 votes out of 2.9million ballots cast in third round of recounting by hand. The previous count and recount declared that she had lost to her GOP rival Dino Rossi by 261 and 42 votes separately. The article came with a picture of smiling C. Gregoire. She really had a reason to smile to win the seat of governor of Washington at such a slim margin:0.004%.

The price of this victory may be big for Democrat : The seat of Presidency of US. I think it's a concession to the pressure of people whom demand investigation on obvious election fraud in Florida and Ohio.

Strange enough, the protest on rigging election are mostly from individual groups or observer. The high ranking of Democrats seem keep a blind eye on it. Kerry quickly admits his failure despite a controversial election. Have you ever heard any words from Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Edwards..... about the fraud? These people are experts. They know the principle of game. If there is no order from inside group, they won't make a move.

As a matter of fact, the result of election was decided long time ago. When they pushed Howard Dean out of the campaign in Democrat's Primary, the inside group had got what they want already. There is little difference between Kerry and Bush. They both voted for war and Patriot Act. Bush was elected because he was proved a loyalty of inside group. He was more eager to sell his soul.

The skill to squeeze more from an election now is more advanced. Though they are able to make a unilateral victory for a candidate, Feds created a situation that by only control several hundreds of votes they can decide a governor of a state. Or by only control the election result of a state, they can decide a president of US. With which they can more efficiently to blackmail the candidate.

kathaksung

Feb 3rd, 2005, 6:25 PM

Bush's social security reform (1/28)
A plan to benefit financial group

What Bush intends to do is to drive young people to invest their retire pension into financial market. Who will be winner and who will be loser?

Financial market, especially the stock market, is a speculating market. How can Bush expect people will win in that market? He has no assurance. But one thing he knew for sure is that the financial group will benefit a lot from his proposal.

When people went to Las Vegas. The winner is always Casino. Aladdin, Mirage.... all these grand Hotel were built up on the money lost by gamblers. But at least those gamblers are willing to go there and they more or less got some entertainment.

For those who put their money in financial market, they can expect to contribute more to Gold Sach, JP Morgan, Citi Bank ....

That's probably why Bush only proposes the reform at young people and to a limit portion. If his proposal is real good as he said, then why didn't he suggest to privatize all social security fund, and apply it to all ages? He dares not. He knew there is a risk. Once such a fainancial disaster takes place, the impact won't be felt by young immediately because there is still sometime to their retirement age. They became a Guinea pig of Bush's plan.

The main work Bush did in his first term was to contribute a high profit for military industry and oil group. It seems the mission for him in 2nd term is for the profit of financial group. That is why he is awarded with four more years.

Defiant Noquisi

Feb 4th, 2005, 5:15 AM

They had reason to believe the documents handed to them at that time.

That smells so much of the Iraq war sham.

kathaksung

Feb 15th, 2005, 2:11 PM

Social security fund (2/8)

Bush uses the same tactic to carry out his policy: intimidation. In his first term, to start a war, he scared Americans that the "WMD" in Iraq posed imminent threat to US. Now, he repeated that social security is headed toward bankruptcy. He proposed that young people to privatize one third of their s.s. fund (4% of income) into financial market.

Does he really care for the benefit of young generation? No. He hurt them. In his first term, he had a tax-cut plan which mainly benefit the rich people. At the same time, he created a historical deficit. In another word, he borrowed the money to pay tax-cut. That loan he borrowed, after all, must be paid back. The payer will be the young generation. Bush put a debt burden on them. That's not enough, he is seeking to steal their retirement fund.

Is social security fund in danger now? Not really. The Social Security Administration estimates the fund will last until 2042; many economists estimate the fund will last much longer. There are many other ways to balance the s.s. fund account then. Here is a chart compare the shortage of s.s. funds compare to tax-cut over 75 years.

......Shortfall or cost as a percent of ..In trillions of dollars
..... GDP over 75 years ....................over 75 year

Shortfall, Social Security ....0.4% ............ NA
Trust Fund (CBO est.)

Shortfall, Social Security ....0.7% .............$3.7 trillion
Trust Fund (Trustees estimate)

Cost of the 2001/2003 tax....2.0%.......... $11.6 trillion
cuts, if made permanent

Tax cuts for top 1 percent,... 0.6% ............$3.4 trillion
if made permanent

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

There was lesson from privatization. 401(k) was allowed to enter financial market in 1994. When the dot.com bubble broke out in 2001, many people suffered great loss in their retirement pension account and have to delay their retirement plan. Some people lost most of their pension when Enron went bankruptcy.

In Bush's plan, first of all, the young generation will lost 2 trillion. The administration fee of privatization estimated at 15% to 20% of total investment amount. Financial group win the first round even without a battle. And then, in a pool where big fish fighting with small fish and shrimp, who will be winner?

Most people left casino with full pocket? or empty pocket? Judge with your common sense.

stewey

Feb 15th, 2005, 4:03 PM

Gore lost, get over it. In Fahrenhype 911, they interview Gore's campaign manager, and he himself said that Bush won.

kathaksung

Feb 25th, 2005, 6:23 PM

Are you a member of swift boat team or from Rumsfeld's "strategy office" to spread propaganda?

---------------

291. CEO and company (2/14/05)

HP ousted its CEO - Carly Fiorina on 2/9. It proved my previous thought.

In early 1990s, I started to suspect it was the house I bought which caused persecution on me. One thing puzzled me was how could they even shut down a company to prevent me from buying the house. How could owner of the company bear the loss to benefit Feds?

Something occurred in 1993 solved this puzzle for me. In May that year, newspaper reported that former owner of Disneyland - Walter Disney was an informant of FBI. I thus knew that Feds ruled country through their informants, especially by the management of company.

About same time there was a campaign between two high ranking executives. They competed for the post of CEO of Disneyland. The struggle ended with one candidate died in a helicopter accident. So another puzzle came into my mind. Either candidate would have
been cooperative with Feds to be its informant, why Feds still choose the CEO by violence?

I finally had a conclusion. Feds now is not satisfied with informants. They need a CEO of their own. That someone represents for the interest of Feds rather than for the interest of company he works for. For example, Walther Disney might refuse to shut down Disneyland for the interest of FBI because that was his blood and sweat. But a CEO of Feds will do. (see "29. "I am you, American."")

In late 2001, HP CEO Fiorina announced acquisition of Compaq. Which was opposed by HP heir Hewllet. I thought it was a typical sample of how a CEO not work for the interest of the company she was employed. I wrote an article, pointed out Hewllet's opinion was for the interest of HP. Fiorina's was not. The recent development proved my theory about CEO. (see "57. FBI's interest" I wrote in 2002.)

Three years later Fiorina is ousted from HP. Her decision to emerge with Compaq played key role in her bad performance. I am an outsider of high tech. business. But even I knew it was a bad deal. How Fiorina in a position with much more information couldn't see the danger and took over a hot potato? What she did might have saved the Compaq from bankruptcy. She might have saved profit of some firms which held a large quantity of Compaq stock. She probably saved the stock market from another shocking downturn. Stock market was gasping in 2001 from the outbreak of dot.com bubble. It couldn't bear another news of bankruptcy of a big firm. What she did, was at the cost of HP's interest.

As what I have said if CEO made a damage, he has little to lose. Fiorina left with a fat pocket. She got 21.4 million of severance pay and a compensation of 8.15 million for 2004. It looks like she did something good and left with a reward. She might get another high ranking job.

stewey

Feb 27th, 2005, 4:48 PM

kathaksung

Mar 8th, 2005, 2:21 PM

Nope, I am a member of the Libertarian party. However, Gore lost fair and square in 2000. Get over it already.

So you are the one assigned to detect Libertarian Party?

-------------

292. From Disneyland, HP, to US. (2/19/05)

Disneyland had invested in Michael Moor's documentary film Farhenheit 911. But it refused to distribute the film after it was done. The decision of high ranking was political motivated. As Farhenheit 911 is a business successful film. It got the top prize in Cannes film Festival.

If you view US as a company and president as a CEO, you can find it is operated by inside group in same way they did to a business company.

What has Bush achieved in his first term? Patriot Act was passed and mid-east war activated. The suffering of Americans is apparent. Civil rights are seriously eroded. Lives and money are losing in war. US reputation in the world goes down. Bush hurt the interest of American people to benefit a little group and Israel. Former Prime Minister of Malaysia said that Israel rules world through its proxy, it let others fight and die for them. (The original word Marhatir used was Jews, I don't think it is proper here so replaced it with Israel) Bush is a proxy not work for the interest of US. He let Americans fight and die for the interest of Israel. He was rewarded for a second term.

What will Bush do in another four years? Likely more wars in mid-east to secure Israel. (Syria and Iran) And another important mission for him is to steal from the retirement savings from America people - their social security fund.

Bush's plan to privatize s.s. fund mainly will benefit financial group. And another purpose is to support the stock market from collapsing.

Because Feds held a large quantity of real estate properties, they keep interest rate at unreasonable low level since 2001 to maintain a prosperous housing market. The low interest rate produced two big bubbles in housing market and stock market. these two markets are also the cash boxes for Feds where they withdraw money for their spending.

When the economic situation won't allow interest rate staying in low level any more and turn up to go upward, the two bubbles are going to break up. It's hard to keep the house price to be higher when interest rate rises. So the only choice for them is to save the stock market which is controlled by big financial group.

What Bush going to do is to drive small fish into a slaughter market to lure the big fish from leaving. To keep a cash box of Feds to be active while the other one (housing market) will go low in recent future. As I have said, a CEO in US doesn't work for the interest of company he was employed. Bush works for the interest of inside group which selected him to be a president of US.

kathaksung

Mar 18th, 2005, 4:16 PM

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.

Former President Nixon was impeached and lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?

In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally. Re:

Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping
1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02

"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews."
"Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers."
"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said.
Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html

I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.

Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He was impeached before he could do it.

Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001

Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.

emperorx1984

Mar 22nd, 2005, 4:02 AM

Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. :devsmoke:

I 100% Agree to that

kathaksung

Mar 28th, 2005, 12:09 PM

297. Graham and Disney (3/17/05)

The news about Walter Disney in May, 1993 came with the publish of book "Walter Disney, Hollywood's dark prince". In which W. Disney was described negatively. That he was an abused boy; he drank heavily; he persecuted his employees; he was anti-semitic, anti-union, anti-communism. Most disturbing thing was that he was a FBI informant which W. Disney's family strongly denied.

Walter Disney is a beloved American icon. Every person has a nice memory of a childhood with Micky mouse and Snow White. Why he was so much humiliated?

The author of the book said his information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. It was an excuse. There are many celebrities who are FBI informants. Why they are protected from being exposed by the Freedom of Information Act but W. Disney?

Nobody knew this (informant) except FBI and Disney himself. W. Disney wouldn't have done it even if he is alive. So the other possibility is it was leaked by FBI. Nobody can let the news published except FBI because it controls everything in US. They could deny it in the name of security. To reveal the identity of informant, even the informant had passed away, is against principle of intelligence. Then what made FBI betray its own principle? I puzzled.

The puzzle was resolved 9 years later by the news of Nixon's tape, It started :

Quote, "Saturday, 2 March, 2002, 03:05 GMT
Graham regrets Jewish slur
The Reverend Billy Graham has apologized for a taped conversation with former President Nixon in which he said the Jewish "stranglehold" of the media was ruining the United States and must be broken."

(see "295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)")

Graham is a celebrity. Then I recalled W. Disney. He was a celebrity too. According to the news he was anti-semitic; anti-union; anti-communism. Which is the power that can humiliate him?

No wonder Sharon said, " We, the Jewish people, control America." It can force US celebrity apologizing to them. What about people passed away? They were humiliated.

It was not a coincidence that the negative news about Disney was released in 1993. At same period, a man became the CEO of Disneyland when his rival died in a helicopter accident. News said new CEO is a Jewish. Thirty years after Walter Disney's passing away, he was not only humiliated, his kingdom was also taken over by someone he disliked. It was a power show-off.

kathaksung

Apr 7th, 2005, 5:26 PM

302. Pope's death (Continue to 261-265) (4/7/05)

Another two of great prophecy of Anthony Carr came into true. The death of Pope and a big earthquake. (Though the earthquake didn't take place in Italy, it took place in Indonesia and caused a tsunami.)

In World Journal, there were five pictures. Anthony Carr made many prophecies. But those five with pictures obviously were particularly picked up by intelligence to impress people. I think these were the most important projects of Inside Group. (The collapse of Eiffel Tower; earthquake in Rome; the death of Pope, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Prince of Monaco - Albert.

I found four out of five were related to Iraq war. Senator Edward Kennedy, Pope John Paul and France were three strong opposers to the Iraq war. An earthquake in Rome would also affected Vatican. Inside Group intended to create a situation that Vatican were punished by God with the suffering of natural disaster and death of Pope.
John Paul expressed his anti-war opinion as early as in 2001.

Re: Ex-envoy: Pope was champion of peace
Eric Gorski Denver Post Staff Writer

Coloradan Jim Nicholson met with Pope John Paul II on Sept. 13, 2001, at Castel Gandolfo, the pontiff's summer palace outside Rome. During that summit, the pope decried the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks as an attack not just on the United States but on humanity, Nicholson recalled.
But John Paul II vociferously opposed a U.S. strike on Iraq, sending an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war in a failed attempt to sway President Bush.

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2797231,00.html

Since then, Roman Catholic had a three years long intensify trouble in US. Many sex scandals were revealed. Roman Catholic were humiliated. Priests were sentenced and fined. When I read such kind of news one after another, I realize it was a revenge and blackmail. Those sex scandal cases were mostly happened decades ago. Now all of a sudden, they were poured out like a big wave. But Pope didn't bent. He insisted his opinion.

Pope to Bush: Go into Iraq and you go without God
By CHB Staff and Wire Reports
Mar 5, 2003, 07:18

Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq.

Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
"It's illegal, it's unjust," Laghi told reporters after the session with Bush.

In a May visit to the Vatican, Bush told the pope he was "concerned" about the Catholic church's standing in America, where the church has been rocked by sex-abuse scandal.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&num=1883

You can see how Bush extorted Pope with sex scandal.

So when the newspaper reported the Anthony Carr's prophecy, I knew it was the project of inside group. They think they are the real God and punish people who do not obey to them.
There was trace that Pope was poisoned and suffered EM wave shooting in his final days. My condolence to John Paul. He is the victim of Inside group.

Re: 261. Prophecy (10/14/04)

Early this year, an article in World Journal caught my eye. The topic was: "Big prophecy for 2004". I am not a superstitious man. But five pictures with the article attracted me. They were: Eiffel Tower of Paris; Senator Edward Kennedy; Pope John Paul; Prince of Monaco Albert; ruin of ancient Rome.

It said, Canadian Anthony Carr, viewed as a modern Nostradamus, predicted that Eiffel Tower would collapse after an attack, Rome of Italy and California of US would have strong earthquake in 2004.

The following are the successful prediction he had made:
1. On 1/1/2001 and 8/14/01, Anthony twice said "There will be airplane crashed in New York. Hundreds of people will die." That was 9/11 attack.

2. Same day on 1/1/2001, he said George W. Bush would bring war to the world soon after he became president. We all saw it.

3. In February 2002, he said Princess of Margaret would die in 2002.

4. In August 2002, he said Mad Cow disease would attack Canada and rapidly swept across US. All these prophecy came true. And also he had predicted the death of Princess Diana.

If someone had made the above prophecy one hundred years ago, or 50 years ago, or even 20 years ago, I would admit it was a prophecy. Because there were too much variables in a long period. But check these achievements. It came true within a year, some even within a month. It's much more a proclamation of a project of intelligence then an astrology. Assassination of celebrities; terror attack; war. All the work capable done by government inside group.

I talked about mad cow, alleged it was a bio-attack from intelligence in December 2003. (see "191. Framing a case in December (12/26/03)") I talked about for many times that government knew 911 attack in advance. (see "68. Ashcroft's revenge (5/31/02)") All these were written before January 2004 when I knew there was such an Anthony Carr and his prophecy from newspaper.

In the books of of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, former counter terrorism adviser Richard Clark, Bob Woodward, Joseph Wilson we know from beginning when Bush entered White House, he determined to activate war. Outsiders observed phenomenon, insiders knew the detail. That's how Anthony Carr could make a prophecy. Or rather, to announce the plan of inside group in advance.

Now we go back to the great prophecy of 2004 by Anthony. It's still the assassination of celebrities, (Pope Paul, Edward Kennedy, Monaco Prince Albert) terror attack (Eiffel Tower), natural disaster (earthquake which could be induced, or created by modern technique).

Then why did they let out their plan by Anthony Carr? It's a psychological manipulation. Quite a lot of people believe in God. Prophecy will attribute all these events fatal. The prophecy will make that part of people believe what happens is natural.

You can also see Bush did the same thing. He always said what he did was God's will. As a matter of fact, media play the same role too. When brand name ABC, CNN, USA Today, Gallup..... constantly issued poll that Bush has an approve rate around 50% and leads over his rivalry despite Bush is a proved big lier, they are giving a prophecy too. This time it is for the rigged election. To make you believe the output of election is reasonable.

Anthony Carr doesn't need any reason to support his prediction. That's the advantage of a prophet. I predict sometime too on the purpose it won't happen. (such like the framed drug case even with specific date 6/19 , 9/2......) I always gave the reason why I thought in this way and with my analysis. I remind people from time to time "beware of pick pocket" so the thief won't steal for the time being.

I hope my revelation can prevent Anthony Carr's prophecy from happening.

kathaksung

Apr 16th, 2005, 5:28 PM

Winner and loser

Question, "Historical, the stock market offered 10% returns over the long haul (40 years)."

Who got that 10% return? Rich people. When they got 20%, 30% or above, Much more people got 1%, 2% or negative return.

When Buffett got a return much higher than others, someone must pay for the money he made. The payer will be the average people.

RE: Gates, Buffett, China 'run from dollar' Expert sees development as sharp warning to Americans Posted: February 3, 2005

Decisions by the world's two wealthiest men to bet on a further weakening of the U.S. dollar, coupled with China's lack of confidence in American currency should grab the attention of every working person, says Craig Smith, CEO of Swiss America Trading <

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is following the example of Berkshire Hathaway Chairman Warren Buffett, who made a pretax gain of $412 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 by buying foreign currencies.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42687

-----------

RE: MUTUAL FUNDS TO AVOID

These 10 Funds are the worst of the worst. See how much a $10K investment would be worth after five years:

· T. Rowe Price Sci & Tech: .......... $3,534 ·

Putnam Voyager B:......................... $5,971 ·

White Oak Growth Stock:.............. $5,593 ·

Janus Global Technology: .............$3,504 ·

Putnam Growth Opp.: ......................$4,359 ·

MainStay Cap. App. B:................... $5,817 ·

Scudder Growth Fund A:................ $5,638 ·

PIMCO PEA Innovation C:............. $2,667 ·

Morgan Stanley Info B: ...................$3,378 ·

Firsthand Tech. Val. Inv: .................$3,602

<http://pf.channel.aol.com/redir.adp?_type=click&_p=us pf investing funds spotlight&_m=a1 1 ent_promo_nested 33459 {pf lemon funds bb 215} 0 0&_s=1&_u=http://aolpf5.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B3EF618CE%2D7C1D%2D4AB8%2DA892%2D A3B3A2A28A84%7D&siteid=aolpf&dist=aolclick >

-----------
Government always tell you the average return of financial market. They will never tell you who got the chunk and who got the bit. Casino show you some one got the million dollars prize. They don't tell you most people go home with empty pocket.

My question is still there. If stock market is that good as you said, 10% return in long period, then why don't invest all S.S. fund into that market? Even children is able to know it.

Because only a few of people benefit a high profit. Most people are the loser. Did you see the work of above mutual fund? They are iceberg of failed investment firm. In five years they not only made no income, they also lost 50% to 70% of its fund. I can tell you the loser won't be Buffett, Gates, Lockfeller or Morgan, it's average people.

kathaksung

Apr 28th, 2005, 5:07 PM

305. Spell on Monaco royal family(4/22/05) (continue to 261-264, 302)

Another great prophecy of Anthony Carr in early 2004 was the death of the Prince of Monaco - Albert along with the death of Pope. If it was an intelligence project, the likely motive is to loot the treasure of Monaco Royal family or to control the economy of that country. Monaco, though being a small country, is a rich state with its gambling business, tourism industry and financial institution.

On 4/6, Prince Rainier died at the hospital treating him for heart, kidney and breathing problems. It was just four days after Pope John Paul's death.(4/2) They both had health problem a month ago. Pope had breathing problem in February and had a surgery to insert a tube in his windpipe. Prince Rainier was first admitted with a lung infection to a heart and chest clinic one month ago before his death. It could be a coincidence. It could also be that the action teams got the "OK to start" order at same time.

Someone argued with me that Pope died not of a conspiracy but of his age. (Re: 302) I would have believed so if I hadn't read Anthony Carr's prophecy. I don't believe astrology. Carr's prophecy came with strong motive of US Inside group. And they have ability to do it. Modern technique can create earthquake, tsunami; change climate and murder people covertly, make the death look like a natural one.

The passing away of Prince Rainier alarmed me that intelligence started to act their projects. On 4/10, I heard another news. "The marriage of Monaco royal family was imprecated?" (World Journal) It said that Ernst(translate from Chinese. I don't know his English name), 51, Prince of Hanover, husband of Princess Caroline, was sent into emergency room for pancreas infection in early morning on April 5th, just one day before Prince Rainier's death.

"He is under intensify observation. His condition is serious. He needs a long time cure. Bio and radiology examination is done. Now is doing scan." The insiders of hospital and royal family said that he is in coma.

Ernst's serious sickness once again touched off a saying that the dynasty of Monaco was cursed. It said the marriage of the royal family was imprecated and wouldn't last long and happy.

Prince Albert is 47 years old, still young. So Carr's predict was he would die in a car accident like his mother. After other obstacles were eliminated, Albert will be the next. Likely among Princess Caroline's close friends there are some candidates ready to be her next husband in her fourth marriage.

The modern pirate loot in the name of "democracy". For a big country such like Iraq, they started a war. For a small one such like Monaco, they steal through murder, marriage and heir. Of course, they do a lot of propaganda to convince people. From "WMD", "war against terrorism" to "prophecy" and "spell". Psychological preparation is always an important part of their plot. That's why when Pope John Paul didn't co-operate with them for the war, they punished him with death.

kathaksung

May 6th, 2005, 6:22 PM

308. Internet censorship and intimidation (5/2/05)

In a website "Republican Forum", I was blocked to post the message "295. Who controls D.O.J.?". When I clicked the logo of "post", the page said "your message was sent to board for approval." But in same web site at same time, my other messages were posted in seconds without any "approval". Obviously, the agent who monitor my computer decided instantly which one I could post for some web. #295 is a taboo for them.

There is another story about #295. I posted it to my thread "Whom do they work for?" in web "Above top secret" on 3/30. Next day, the thread was missing. There was a new thread "ATS members to be visited by Feds " No URL was given but a picture of CNN page was referred. It said, "CNN Technology

Government to visit members of online conspiracy forum, Above Top Secret.com

Thursday, March 31, 2005

Washington (Reuters) --

The Federal Government is cracking down on conspiracy nuts in an attempt to make 'America Safer' says a high ranking White House official.

A White House spokesman said "We have all the names of the members of this conspiracy site and we just want to talk to them at this time. In the name of National Security, we must crack down on these crack pots." The government claims that these sites must be shut down because they don't think like the rest of us....."

This is an intimidation from Feds. I think it was about my article of "295. Who controls D.O.J.?" Inside group not only controls mainstream media, they tried to control INTERNET too. Will America be safer if people are blocked to know who control D.O.J.? Do people must think the way Feds want you to think?

The message URL:
http://70.85.38.54/forum/thread130983/pg1

Defiant Noquisi

May 8th, 2005, 4:00 PM

Why are you even posting information such as your last post in this thread? Viewers will see the title of the thread and ignore it because that election is soooooooooooo old and they have for the most part bored of it.

Houston411

May 8th, 2005, 5:36 PM

god another one?

get over it!

stewey

May 8th, 2005, 6:25 PM

Houston411

May 8th, 2005, 7:02 PM

Like Ohio would have made a differnce last year anyways... ya cry babies!

kathaksung

May 18th, 2005, 4:44 PM

Katha, got a link to that reuters article?

I don't believe quoted articles without a link.

Gore lost in 2000, get over it. Florida had several recounts, each one indicated Bush won. Michael Moore lied in his movie (well, in many places).

Sorry, no link. It could be just an intimidation from Feds.

--------------

Stock market and social security

1. Winner's gain is from loser's.

A farmer planted a seed. He sold the fruit The famer created a wealth.
A worker produced a car. He sold the car. He creates a wealth.

Investor A bought one hundred shares at 1.00/share. The company got one hundred dollars to pay rent, wage and material. Then the stock market rose to peak. Investor A sold the share at 1.10/share to investor B. A got 110 dollars. He made a 10% profit. But was that 10 dollars created? No. it was B's loss. When B bought the stock from A, he became a potential loser. What he bought was only a piece of paper. He couldn't cash the stock with the company which issued it. What B can do is hoping some one else to take over the potential loss.

Situation 1. If the stock is Enron, then when it went bankruptcy, B's stock worth nothing. Here Company got 100 dollars. A got 10 dollars. B is the loser. He lost 110 dollars. Winners' money is from loser's. It's evidenct.

Situation 2. If the stock is HP, then in trough, the share price may fall to 0.90/share. B sold it to C. B lost 20 dollars. C paid 90 dollars for 100 shares. C sold the stock in peak 2 at 1.20/share to D. Now D becomes a potential loser. If nobody has the will to buy his paper, then the stock worth zero. Now let's see, company got 100 dollars. A sold stock at 1.10/share. he made 10 dollars. B bought at 1.10/share, sold at 0.90/share. B lost 20 dollars. C bought at 0.90/share and sold at 1.20/share. C won 30 dollars. 10(A) + 30(C) + 100 (company) = 20(B loss) + 120 (D's potential loss)

The eqation: Winner's gain(profit) + Capital gain (Company issue the stock) = Losers' loss (loss) + Potential loss (Amount paid by the latest stock holder)

You can see there is no wealth created. How much winner got is how much loser and potential loser lost. And it doesn't include administration fee. (it's about 2 trillion in 10 years period, Re: San Jose Mercury News, 12/17/04) So when Bush say you may get better income in stock market, there must be some people bear the loss for the winner's gain. Whom do you think will be the loser and winner?

(I omit the dividend here. it's similar to interest paid by bank.)

2. Stock is no other than a piece of paper

The value of stock market is supported by continue coming of investment fund. One thing you should know the people who hold the stock is no other then hold a piece of paper. That's a bubble. When no money came, then the bubble will break up.

When you deposit 100 dollars in the bank, you are guaranteed to get that deposit back, plus interest.

When you buy one hundred dollars of shares of a company, you are told you probably get some dividend sometime if business is good. The dividend is not guaranteed. And you can not cash the stock with the company. Because they have spent it to pay rent, wage and equipment already. If you liquidate the company, most time you may get a negative asset. e.g. if it's Microsoft, what they left for you is a program of Windows. UA may have some airplanes. But they always come with a huge debt. What kind of asset do Kodak and McDonald have for the stock they issued? What you hold finally could be a piece of paper. What you hope is someone else would buy that paper from you to take over your potential loss. When people put all their retirement fund in stock market, they are sitting on a big bubble. All they hold is a bunch of paper. One day when people wake up and refuse to behave like a fool, then there will be a collapse of stock market.

What Bush does is to persuade people put their retirement fund into the market to take over the hot potatoes.

kathaksung

May 28th, 2005, 4:32 PM

3. The stock price depends on the amount of investment fund.

If monthly trade stock is 100 shares, ($1.00 each) the investment fund in that month is $110, then the share price will be 1.10 each, it's a 10% rising market. If there is only $90 fund go into the market, then the price will be $0.90 each. A falling of 10%.

More fund is needed to support a growing up market.
For decades, the index of US stock market went upwards. It created a fake phenominon that if you invest in long term, (e.g. 40 years) you got a good return. That's the justification someone like Bush used.

But if you know the above principle(a rising market depends on increasing investment fund) you must know that it was built up artificially. The US stock market growing up at public's pension fund. At first, Different pension fund push up the stock market. Then financial group created mutual fund in 1970s(?) which put your savings into the stock market. When it was not enough they invented "IRA" in 1980s which push another amount of retirement fund into the stock market. Further more, in 1990s, government allowed 401(k) to access the stock market. Wave after wave, Americans' retirement money were pushed into that gambling market. It became a big bubble.

But money was harvested by company and winners already. What public held are only a bunch of papers. When people want to cash their 40 years long savings, (they think they have a bunch of treasures, but that's only a paper value) Who has the ability to take over that big bubble? It needs a lot of new investment fund to support it.

That's why when government exhausted your money by "pension fund investment", "IRA", "401(k)" the last exit is your social security

kathaksung

Jun 6th, 2005, 4:41 PM

4. The reverse point

As I have said, a growing up stock market must be supported by increasing investment fund. A $100 market grew up 10% in first year with $110 investment.Next year, to support a $110 market growing another 10% up, you need $121 new investment fund. And $133 for the third year..... To blow a ballon bigger, you need more air.

That's what happened in past 40 years. It's a process of how babyboomers cast their retirement fund into the stock market. It's a process how babyboomers exchanged their treasure(retirement fund) with papers (stock shares). When I said potential losers hold a bunch of papers, I mean the stock paper may lose value any time. (Unlike the certificate of CD which banks guarantee to cash or Grand deed of a house that you have a house, no one has obligation to cash your stock certificate, the only interest(dividend) was often cancelled in the name of re-investment by company)

Now it goes to a reverse point. The first generation of babyboomers reach their retirement age, they will not put money in pension fund any more, instead they will cash the stock in their portfolio for their retirement spending. If the market was originally at 10% growing up step, ($100 stock with $110 new investment fund) now it will be a staggering market or a recess market. The new investment fund becomes 105,(due to less retirement fund) the stock for sale becomes $105 (more old people cash their portfolio), then the stock market stagerring with no growing up. Or a recess, $100 new investment fund with $110 selling stock. Market will fall at 10% rate. (depends on retirement rate)

The World War 2 ended in 1945. The first generation of babyboomers were born in 1946. If the legal retirement age was 63, 1946 + 63 = 2009, then starts from 2009, same problem face to Social Security will face to stock market. Less working people contribute to pension fund, more old people to cash portfolio. A long term growing up stock market will become a long term recess market. The fairy tale will break up.

That's why Bush set the date of his privitization of S.S. in 2008. To save the stock market from collapsing. And deliver the bubble at the cost of young people's retirement fund.

kathaksung

Jun 18th, 2005, 4:23 PM

5. Bush's privatization plan will endanger S.S. further (5/22/05)

(1) “In the year 2018, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,” Bush said.

So in 2018, it will be a break even year.

If the S.S. payroll tax is $100 in 2008, the actual benefits paid to old people are $75, then there will be $25 surplus fund go to save in current account of S.S. This trend will go on until 2018.

But when Bush's plan is carried out, about one third of S.S.tax will go to the privatization account instead of S.S.current account. The calculation is: 35/42 x 1/3 = 0.27. Here I suppose the working years of people are 42 years.(also the period they pay tax. If their work start from 20 years old to 62 when they retired.) the rate of people who enjoy privatization are 35. years. (20 years old to 55 years old which Bush said enjoying privatization)

So $27 would go to privatization instead of S.S.current account. There is only $73 left to pay retired people while they were promised $75. The $2 shortage will have to take from the S.S. saving portfolio. The break even year will be in 2008 instead of 2018.(I don't know the exact figure. It can be worse then what I said.)

Bush should say, "In the year 2008 when my privatization plan goes, for the first time ever, Social Security will pay out more in benefits than the government collects in payroll taxes,”

Bush's plan accelerates the collapse of Social Security and directly endanger the old people who depends on S.S. benefit.

(2) Administration fee. Estimated 2 trillion in ten years period. It will either come from S.S. tax or from an additional tax from all tax payers. One thing for sure is it won't come from the pocket of Bush and his group. Another thing for sure is it will go to the pocket of financial group.

Quote, "Economists opposed to Bush's plan say the 10-year, potential $2 trillion cost of shifting to individual investment accounts is reckless and would require such a huge increase in government borrowing that it could destabilize the nation's economy. " ("Social Security change pitched" Mercury News 12/17/04)

Quote, "Social Security spends 1 percent of its money on administration. But administrative costs for private insurance range between 12 and 14 percent, according to the American Council of Life Insurance. In Chile, which instituted a system of mandatory private savings accounts in the early 1980s, administrative costs exceed 20 percent. This is your money, going straight into the pockets of Wall Street. "

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/504620720?z00m=20239

Before you gamble in Casino, you lose first with a fee about 15% to 20%.

kathaksung

Jun 28th, 2005, 4:28 PM

6. Average investor in stock market (6/2/05)

Everyday, in debate of Social Security privatization, I always encounter with the argument, "Historical, the stock market offered 10% returns over the long haul (40 years)."
Or "average S&P goes up 10.5% each year. In latest two years went up 50%."
It seems there is a strong reason to invest in stock market. 10% return each year, what a brilliant figure. Yet it's a gimmick.

The flaw for this theory is that high return from stock market doesn't mean high return to average investors. But Bush never talked about this. And seldom media talked about this too. One day I finally found a data about the return of average investors. And found why media and government avoid this topic, the most important topic. Read this:

Quote, "Over the past 20 years, the average investor in mutual funds that hold stocks earned almost nothing once inflation was taken into account, even though stocks enjoyed terrific gains.

These are among the results of the 12th annual study of investor behavior by Dalbar, a Boston financial-research firm.

The study found stock-fund investors had returns averaging just 3.7 percent a year from 1985 through 2004, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index returned 13.2 percent a year. Annual inflation averaged 3 percent, chewing up most of the investors' gains." ("Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern" S.J. Mercury News, 5/8/2005)

There did is high grow up of S & P index, there was also a low return for average investors that almost was nothing if considering inflation.

Average people don't care about the high index of S&P. They care about thier return. Where did the money go? It went to the firms which control the market.
To my equation, (suppose the stock is S&P index, oringinal price at $100, in 10 years period)

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

One thing I should remind you that this is the result of mutual fund. Though there was little gain, the average investors haven't lost its capital because the fund was managed by expert. What if there is a real "privatization", average investor does it individually?

Here is a story again seldom to be reported.

Re: This is a problem that is beginning to be recognized. Since 1964 Nebraska offered state employees the chance to manage their 401(k)-type plan. Extensive employee education and training seminars were given, and everyone expected outstanding investment returns. But when the state audited the program in 2000, the results were incredibly discouraging: employees were making bad investment after bad investment. So in 2003, Nebraska eliminated employee choice from its 401(k) plan.

From: NewCartesian

http://forums.washingtonpost.com/wpforums/messages?msg=2800.351

Hardly a gain (with expert) or a loss (invest by yourself even being trained), that's average investors' encounter in stock market.

The most important thing is this happened in a grow-up market. That more and more pension fund were guided into the stock market. Yet, average investors had such a poor result. What if the trend reversed? (When the fund lured to support stock market is exhausted like what I said in "4. The reverse point"?)

Of course, Bush will never tell you this. Otherwise, how can his group get fatter without your fund joining in?

kathaksung

Jul 6th, 2005, 6:52 PM

7. The point is they need fund to save stock market (6/20/05)

In my illustration equation in message 6: (based on fact that the return of average investor was 3.7%, and average return of S&P was 13.2% each year)

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

to maintain a high return rate in stock market, special interest group needs more and more fund. In that equation, it's the amount 232 paid by potential losers. Next year, to maintain a 13.2% grow up rate, they need 262 new fund from potential losers. So far it works well becasue they successfully guided the pension fund, then IRA, then 401(k) into the market. But once those who invested in stock market with their pension fund want to cash their portfolio who has that big money to take over the stock papers? They turn on to your social security.

2018 is the year when paid S.S. tax will be less than the benefit paid to retirees. That's 13 years away. 2042 is the insolvent year for S.S. That's 37 years away. Why Bush is so eager on this issue? Because the stock market will have problem in 2009. That's 4 years away. Bush's privatization plan is not to save Social Security, (on the contrary, it endangers S.S.. See message 5. Bush's privatization plan will endanger S.S. further (5/22/05)) It is to save the stock market. The sacrifice is young people's retirement fund.

Back to my equation, when potential loser paid 232 for a stock paper, the money has gone to the winners' profit gain and company's capital gain already. When potential loser wants to cash his stock paper, who has the money to take it over?

That's why Bush and his accessaries bang the drum to propaganda on "high return in stock market" (it's a gimmick, see message 6. Average investor in stock market) to lure people to invest their money into the stock market to take over the hot potato.

Bush's plan is opposed by majority people. But he tries to play with tricks. whatever the new plan he proposed, one thing is for sure: 1. He needs money(fund). 2. The money is from Social Security fund. 3. And that fund will be put into the stock market to save it from collapsing.

kathaksung

Jul 18th, 2005, 11:11 AM

S.S. is Social security not Social risk

BOOMERJEFF said,
"Your equation leaves out the human creativity/innovation/invention/management element.

For example, Cell phone Co may have invested $1 million on R&D to develop the ability to take pictures. They may invest $2 million in a factory to make the new phones that take pics.

.....

So, the $3 milion invested in the picture phones could generate much more profit than $3 million invested in phone-only phones, or $3 million invested in improved pots and pans, or $3 million invested in improved lawn mowers. Thus, the market value - not your theoretical book value - of the picture cell phone stock will rise many times as much as the market value of stock in the phone-only cell company, or stock in the pots & pans company or stock in the lawn mower co.

===========

When the debate starts, I always encounter with arguments like above one. It used to be:
1. They use unique sample to cover all.
2. Businees belong to dividend category but they mix it with stock trading.

My Answer

1. A new technique will make big money, that's true. It used to be invested by V.C. (venture capital). When one such technique succeeded, there may be 9 others failed. V.C. may invested in 10 companys with one million each. One company succeeded and 9 others failed. The average return is still flat.

Or in stock market, 10 people invested, one made high return like you said, the others suffer a lost you don't mention at. The average return you avoid to talk is still low.

As a matter of fact, it's like the propaganda of gamble business. They say every week there is a millionare prize winner. That the critics neglected the lucky element(in your word, "creativity/innovation/invention/management element.)

Here we talk about average return. Not a lottery. And that average return of stock market for ordinary people is almost nothing consider to inflation. I have that fact in message "6. Average investor in stock market" in this forum.

2. The profit still came from potential loser.

In your sample. If the stock price went up 5 times to the original one and you sold all the stock, then to my equation: 12 million (profit gain by original investor)+ 3 million ( Capital gain of phone company)= 15 million (potential loss of new investors who bought the stock)

Remember the profit gain in stock market is always from the buyer. Because however a company successful the money paid to stock trading is always from the stock buyer (potential loser) not the company.

Then you may ask where is the value created by "human creativity/innovation/invention/management element" goes?

It reflects in dividend distribution. And it used to be a flatened one because such success is always be in consideration when the stock was issued. In another word, the profit was gained by inventors and VC capitalist. (VC capitalist must average the profit with other failed cases) Have you ever heard a company paying dividend equal to its stock price, or even 50% of it? So far as I know, the average dividend is close to the rate of interest bank paid to its customers.

Of course, I always talk about average not lottery or unique accidence. Social Security is a system to guarantee most people have a minimum income when they retired. Not to put them in a risk life when they get old.

kathaksung

Jul 26th, 2005, 4:51 PM

8. The game is who will be the potential loser (7/19/05)

First of all. People should recognize the difference between average return of stock market and average return of stock investors?

The Dalbar research gave you the result: In latest 20 years, 1985 to 2004, (2005 not finished yet).

Average investor's yearly return: 3.7%. (ordinary people)
Average S&P 500 index yearly return: 13.2% (stock price gain)

Get clear the idea of "average investor" and what happened to the difference between 3.7% and 13.2%.

Nobody deny the high return of stock market, only it belongs to special interest group not ordinary people.

I emphysize the average investor's return: 3.7%. Because S.S. is about the interest for ordinary people - the average tax payer, not for the special interest group. And my equation tells where the money went.

37 (average investors gain in 10 years) + 95 (special interest group gain in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

This is how Bush and his S.S. war room show to people:
132 (total profit made in 10 years) + 100 (capital gain of S&P company) = 232 (price paid by potential loser after 10 years)

They mix average investor with special interest group.

And this is how ordinary people got in stock market in latest 20 years, almost nothing (in mutual fund) or a loss (401k in Nebraska). A rare data leaking from government censorship net.

Bush and his group only blow the trumpet on that 13.2 but leave the "3.7 and loss" alone.

One thing very important is this took place in a rising stock market. Investor should have a rich profit, yet the result is poor. Where the profit came from? Stock market won't create wealth. It came from potential loser. From 232 paid by new buyer.

In the chart of S&P 500 index, we can see there are two obvious expanding period. The index rose from about 200 to 500 in 15 years. (1980 to 1994) This is the time when pension fund and IRA introduced into the market. And index rose from about 500 to 1200 in 10 years (1995 to 2004). It reflects that how the investment fund baloons the price of stock market.

I made a rough metaphor to make it easy to understand: The original invetor had a stock worth $200 for 30 years, then government introduced a new buyer, Pension and IRA. Pension and IRA paid $500 in 15 years and had the stock price being $500 in 1994. To make market a prosperous one, government found another big buyer, 401(k). 401(k) is a rich man, in 10 years, he raised the market by $700 to $1200. 401(k) now has no extra money to raise the market. (401k paid $1200) G(government) promised it can double in 10 years. But who has that much money to double the price to $2400? G now is in a hurry, the only one he can find is S.S.. S.S. has that ability to boost the stock market, but the problem is 10 years later, when S.S. intends to sell the stock, who has that much money $4800 to take over the hot potato? After all there will be an end. That's how a potential flood developing into a tsunami.

Bush doesn't care. What he wants is at current he and his group can make money. He borrows to pay the bill. (He cut tax by issuing national bond, you people pay it later) He spends at your debt. When crisis break out, he is not a Presidnet any more. Or even he is not alive then. Young people will bear the loss.

Brainiac08

Jul 27th, 2005, 1:27 PM

If someone else is needed to fix bush's mistakes, by all means, campaign for them, vote for them, and put them in office. Stop bitching about how bush was selected or rigged the election with the help of his brother, or whatever. That was 4 years ago, so MOVE ON. I didn't vote for bush the first time, I wont vote for him this time, but fucking MOVE ON. Its getting old. Bush is president whether you like it or not or whether he's done a good job or not.

If he needs to be replaced, say so. Mention why. Don't say because he didn't win in the first place. Thats stupid and irrelevant and I'm at my wits end because, though I be retarded myself, I CANNOT STAND THE EXCESSIVE MORONICITY AND MONGOLOID POSTURING OF MAD LIBS WHO CANNOT GET OVER THE FACT THAT BUSH IS CURRENTLY THE U.S. PRESIDENT. I say it again, move the fuck on.

Bush does need to be replaced, but it's not like I could vote or anything. I can't vote until the next election. I'm only 15 and I'm only speaking of what I know. We were better off with Clinton in office. Who cares if he cheated on his wife or whatever happened? That crap happens everyday. Back in the 70's or something like that, we started to go from a surplus to debt. And when the 90's came, clinton got us out of that and gave us a huge surplus. But now that George W. Bush is in office, he's gotten us into trillions (or millions) in debt. I'm not saying that we would've been better off with Kerry, I'm just saying that he's gotten us into a lot of trouble. But Bush has done some good things as well. Not everything that he's done is bad. Bush won fair and square in 2000, I'm just disappointed that he won this election as well.

repentantsinner

Jul 27th, 2005, 1:48 PM

ever see farenheit 911? Bush did NOT win fairand sqaure in 2000,...............i live in florida..

fatman6502002

Aug 1st, 2005, 2:27 PM

Brainiac said:

<<We were better off with Clinton in office. Who cares if he cheated on his wife or whatever happened? That crap happens everyday.>>

President Clinton was not impeached because he carried on an extramarital affair. He was impeached due to the fact that he committed Perjury twice(on video tape) and obstruction of justice at least once. Those are felonies and it does not seem to bother you that the President of the US was committing felonies. Unbelievable, but this shows the adolecent level of your morality.

<<That crap happens everyday>>

I guess that makes it ok. Murder, robery, sexual harrassment, assault, rape and other crimes happen everyday, does that make it ok too. Grow up.

<<And when the 90's came, clinton got us out of that and gave us a huge surplus>>

There was no surplus in the 1990's. The so called surplus was just an estimate from the Office of Budget and Management(controlled by Clinton) of what the situation would be 10 years in the future and then uncritically hyped by the New York Times, LA Times WaPo, CNN, CBS and all of the other MSM outlets, otherwise known as the communication arm of the Democratic Party. To claim that the 1990's saw the creation of a budget surplus shows a complete ignorance of reality.

<<But now that George W. Bush is in office, he's gotten us into trillions (or millions) in debt>>

Apparently you have missed the recent years of economic growth. I guess you have missed the reports that the budget deficit is shrinking(by 100 billion dollars this year) due to increased economic activity. Those "tax cuts for the rich" that everybody who pays taxes got have translated into increased economic activity thus more jobs(unemployment is now 5%, a lower rate than the average unemployment rate during the Clinton years) thus a larger tax base to pay federal taxes. This is called supply side economics. President Bush understands just like President Reagan understood and President Kennedy understood that the lowering of marginal tax rates leads to more tax revenues. The reason this idea is anethma to so many economists is the fact that they are socialists and are weeded to the economic theories of the 1930's in that the formulas they use to estimate government revenue are static, they do not take into consideration the increased tax paying base caused by an increase in economic activity caused by a lowering of individual tax rates.

kathaksung,

We all are aware that you are a socialist/communist and therefore hate capitalism even though the evidence over the last hundred years clearly shows that countries that embrace capitalism are the most productive countries the world has ever seen offering a quality of life better than any other. The problem is your thought process is ideological not analytical and therefore you simply ignore evidence that does not support your sick ideology. Communism and socialism belong in the ash bin of history, why dont you put them there.

Fatman

DontBeAfraid

Aug 1st, 2005, 6:58 PM

fatman good jobs have been replaced by slave jobs.....

CLinton lied about a hummer. Bush's lies have gotton at least ten's of THOUSANDS of people killed. the fact that this doesnt bother you is

Unbelievable, but this shows the adolecent level of your morality.

stewey

Aug 2nd, 2005, 10:51 AM

ever see farenheit 911? Bush did NOT win fairand sqaure in 2000,...............i live in florida..

Fahrenheit 9/11 has quite a few lies in it.
For example, every recount of the 2000 election showed Bush won. On FahrenHYPE 9/11 they interviewed Gore's campaign manager, and he even says they lost fair and square. Get over it.

It saddens me people actually believe what Michael Moore says.

fatman6502002

Aug 2nd, 2005, 12:46 PM

DontBeAfraid,

<<fatman good jobs have been replaced by slave jobs.....>>

A typical leftist Bush-hating comment that is of course totally untruthful. If good jobs were being replace with slave jobs then the personal income for people would not be rising. You are totally out in left field with your pathetic talking point statement. The fact is entrepenuers are creating good jobs all over the country, although at a higher rate in the Red States because they have mor freindly business atmospheres. I just read a report today that said that manufacturing job creation has been surging in the last several months. You really are not in possession of true facts, but rather, for your information you depend upon politically motivated statements by others who share your ideology and do nothing more than re-enforce your preconcieved ideological beliefs. Start thinking and doing actual research in order to figure out the real truth and stop relying upon politically motivated talking points.

As for your idiotic statement that President Bush lied it really does not deserve a dignified response because the truth is that President Bush has not lied at all.

President Clinton's lies about a "hummer" happened in front of a grand jury which stemmed from him lying to a court of law in a civil sexual harrassment case. No matter what his lies were about it is still a felony to commit perjury whether it is about sex or murder there is no difference and to defend any President who commits perjury shows your real political motives in making the innaccurate statements that you make. In short your statements prove the weakness of your arguments.

Fatman

DontBeAfraid

Aug 2nd, 2005, 6:15 PM

fatman so you are telling me that in the last several months all the jobs that were lost during the first bush term have been replaced? Its all nice and easy to say that I dont do any research and only parrot talking points while NOT citing any real sources yourself.....

I live in a red state and I look around and see no growth.

Luckily the war on terror is over, so no more people will have to die for that bush lie.... I wonder though; is he still authorized to send people to their deaths in this "struggle against extremism"? Maybe he should send a nice fellow christian such as yourself?

fatman6502002

Aug 3rd, 2005, 4:51 PM

dontbeafraid,

<<while NOT citing any real sources yourself.....>>

I am not going to do your work for you. Do your own research, if you are interested in finding the real truth you will through real non-ideological research.

<>

Then you are not looking very hard. The fact is that the unemployment rate is down to 5%, the economy has been growing for the last few years at a rate of 3.4%, in Clintons term the economy averaged only 2.5% growth, also the average unemployment rate during Clintons term was 5.6%. Yes the economy is now better and it has created 3 million or so new jobs in the last few years; the budget deficit will shrink by $100 billion this year. Apparently you keep yourself willfully ignorant of all this good economic news. I wonder why?

<<Luckily the war on terror is over>>

Where did you get this idea. The war on terror will not be over for many years or decades.

<<so no more people will have to die for that bush lie>>

Many more innocent people, here in the US and all over the world are going to die before the war on terror is over. Now you are calling the war on terror a Bush lie, how pathetic that you cannot even see or acknowledge the threat that terrorists are to you and every other free person in the world. As a typical non-thinking liberal you just stick your head in the sand and pretend that there is no terror threat; you spout wild and ignorant conspiracy theories; all this just to pretend to yourself that you and your country are not facing any threat. Open your eyes and stop living in your make believe liberal nirvanna. If you want to live a care free life move to Canada or France, you would be doing the US a real favor.

<>

Yes he is by Congressional Resolution as will the next President and the one after that.

<<Maybe he should send a nice fellow christian such as yourself?>>

I have already been in combat in defense of my country and in defense of your God given rights enshrined by our Constitution. It is you who should now take your turn and go pay the price for your rights, they are not free and throughout the US's history far better men and women than you have made the ultimate sacrafice so idiots like you can say ignorant and stupid things while sitting comfortably without fear on your couch watching MTV.

Fatman

Protostar

Aug 3rd, 2005, 5:52 PM

Thanks fatman for setting him straight. And thanks not only for your insight but for your service to our counrty.

DontBeAfraid

Aug 3rd, 2005, 6:40 PM

You assume I havent taken my turn? let me repeat myself

Its all nice and easy to say that I dont do any research and only parrot talking points while NOT citing any real sources yourself.....

typical conservative idiot. If I dont like YOUR ways I should leave america.... ya thats what this country is all about isnt it.

I dont believe in your god and thats not where rights come from.
I have quite a few posts here, before you go pretending you know ANYTHING about me why dont you read a few of them. btw what was your MOS?

edit: soon bankrupsty rates will be going down dramatically but not because of a better economy. They will be going down the same way that bush fixes all stats, rigging the system. He recently signed a into law a bill that simply makes it a LOT harder file bankruptsy..... while bush will gloat over his "stats" when this takes effect what will he say over the rise in suicides this creates?

fatman6502002

Aug 4th, 2005, 12:14 PM

DontBeAfraid,

<<typical conservative idiot. If I dont like YOUR ways I should leave america.... ya thats what this country is all about isnt it.>>

You totally mischaracterize or misunderstand my meaning. If people do not like it here or if they are not going to be loyal to this country then they should leave. The fact is with your anti-American attitude you give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies, that is the very definition of treason and for that reason you should leave and find a home in a country that is more in line with your views. The fact is that by saying things like, Bush lied to get us into war or there is no terrorist threat or any of the other ignorant leftist bromides, you and the others saying those things are doing the terrorists bidding. I believe it was Lenin who said people like you are "useful idiots".

<>

You have no idea who or what I worship, in fact I have not been to church in 25 years, I happen to believe that God is in ones heart, but apparently not in yours. Have you read the Declaration of Independence lately, I doubt it, but it says quite clearly: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Did you notice that it says "endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights". The reason it says that is so that it is understood that certain rights are granted by GOD to you simply by being born so that those rights may never be taken away by any government or person. Unfortunately for you, since you do not believe in a creator, your unalienable rights are ripe for the taking, not only for that reason but also because you do not seem to believe that your unalienable rights and those of others are worth fighting for against those who seek to take them away.

<>

So what, obviously your ability to think clearly is not directly proportional to the number of posts you have here.

before you go pretending you know ANYTHING about me why dont you read a few of them.>>

I have read a few of them and they tell me all I need or care to know about you. In my opinion, garnered from your writings, you are a self-absorbed whiney little welp who has probably never even concieved of the idea that there are some things more important and bigger than yourself, for instance, Duty, Honor and Country.

<<btw what was your MOS>>

I was in the US Navy in the 1980's, what I did specifically is none of your business. For the last 8 years I have been a Navy Contractor working on combat systems and intelligence systems. I now live in Michigan.

<<He recently signed a into law a bill that simply makes it a LOT harder file bankruptsy>>

Good. Bankruptcy in the last several decades has become just a simple way of getting out of paying your bills. There is no such thing as a free lunch, people should pay their bills and not be given an easy out like declaring bankruptcy.

<<while bush will gloat over his "stats" when this takes effect what will he say over the rise in suicides this creates?>>

Amazing, you even blame President Bush for a rise in suicides that has not even occured, what a crystal ball you have. It is disturbing the way you percieve what a President is; from your writings it seems you think the President is some sort of national daddy who is responsible for everything that happens. I have to tell you people have free will and if they choose to commit suicide it is not the fault of the President, it is rather a sign that the killer of oneself is possessive of a weak and undisciplined character. We all go through tough times in our lives and those that choose the easy way out are simply weak. The fact is that the President's number one job is to protect America and it's interests around the world and hateful evil people such as yourself make that job all that much harder for him since you are constantly doing our enemies bidding.

You should become a LOYAL citizen of this country and stop trying to undermine the Presidents efforts(whomever he or she is), now and in the future, to fight and win the war on terror. The US can only be defeated by it's own citizens, that is the lesson that you should have learned from the history of the Vietnam War, a war in which we never lost a single engagement with the enemy on the battlefield, but was lost on our streets because of treacherous traitors who weakened the will of our nation to win, kind of like what you and many others are attempting to do now. The same thing can easily happen in this war and remember if it does and the islamists take over you will probably be one of the first they kill since they dispise infidels who do not believe in a God more than any other kind of infidel. For your sake and others like you I hope and pray we win this war despite yours and others best efforts to the contrary.

The fact is you have been granted a huge victory in "lifes lottery" by being an American. I can tell you from my experiences travelling in Asia, Africa and the Middle East that there is no real poverty here in America compared to poverty in other parts of the world. The average "poor person" in America owns a car, lives in a house with several TV's, VCR's and a computer and never has to worry about going hungry. People in real poverty like in Indonesia, Kenya, Nigeria and Yemen have to fight for their very survival everyday, in all of those places you can see hundreds of people at all hours of the day and night scavenging in garbage dumps looking for food to eat and shoes or clothes to wear. Go to your local garbage dump and see for yourself how many people are scavenging there for food and clothes in order to survive, I doubt you will see any. In the US the poor live better than the middle class in most other countries. Yes there is a small number(percentage wise) of homeless people but in almost all cases it is their own personal behavior that put them on the streets, alcholism, drug addiction etc...etc... and some are there due to mental illness none of which are the fault of whomever the President is. Unless you have been to other countries where there is real poverty and you see it for yourself you will never truely appreciate how lucky you are to live in America.

Fatman

Spartan

Aug 4th, 2005, 1:45 PM

should this even be argued with. darwinism will take in effect sometime.

DontBeAfraid

Aug 4th, 2005, 6:31 PM

lol.... the average poor person? The average poor person sleeps on the streets outside the mission or in the park where I live.

Like I said and pointed out the stats you tout are engineered. after a certain amount of time being unemployed you are no longer classified as unemployed, thanks to the bush administration. Now he will tout that bankruptsy is going down but thats engineered also.

We lost vietnam because we had no real goals and no real way of measuring any..... iraq.

I believe you were a cook in the navy, im very impressed, cooking is hard. So what did you think of Hells Kitchen?

I have seen poverty in other countries and it looks exactly like it does here only its a lot more visible. Luckily for americans in poverty there are bleeding heart liberals willing to help; not just low-IQ/high-pride/buzz-word-swallowing conservatives to try and hide them and pretend they dont exist.

Since research is obviously beyond your capabilities(I should have just assumed as such based on your political views) I will tell you that I was in the military and that I remember they were very fund of repeating those buzz words too. Duty: We as americans have a duty to do the right thing, to not let our country be hijacked by crimnal terrorists. Honor: we must honor the trust that our current men and women have bestoyed upon us not to get them killed frivilously, not to send them into unjust wars and turn them into unwilling criminals.(dont read that the wrong way you fucktard) Country: I do love this country and I wont let you and your cronies steal it from us true americans!

The declaration was very carefully worded as to be open to interpretation about whether or not a god exists. This was done on purpose so as not to exlude anyone. A creator doesnt have to be a god, it can simply be circumstances that brought about a creation. A catalyst. I know you are a republican so Im not going to hold the fact that you didnt know that against you, there is a lot you dont know.

Emerald_Dragon

Aug 4th, 2005, 7:52 PM

>The fact is that by saying things like,
>Bush lied to get us into war or there is no terrorist threat
>or any of the other ignorant leftist bromides,

you didn't get a gander at the Downing Street memos, did you? they pretty much tell us that he did.
who are you calling ignorant, again? :)

>Unfortunately for you, since you do not believe in a creator,

tellya what, in this day and age, I can play "god". i can choose the sex, hair color, and eye color of my future child. and as soon as science can find out what combinations of DNA amino acids that contribute to intelligence, i'll have them give you an injection for free!

didya know that we can genetically manipulate plant life? animal life? human life? ever wonder what we would be considered if we were to travel to Mars, do some experiments, teach a few things on how to treat each other to the lifeforms we engineer, and then leave?

oops, sorry, not politics. end of thought.

>...should have learned from the history of the Vietnam War,
>a war in which we never lost a single engagement with the enemy on the battlefield,

err, it was mostly jungle.

The British only had to lose Yorktown to lose the war. I don't think guerrilla attacks by an inferior opponent counts as a battlefield engagement. I've read enough about the Vietnam war to know it was about war profiteering. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was bogus. Why would a bunch of PT boats, remnants of WW2, attack a technologically advanced foe? lol! the VC were local militias and the North Vietnamese army was never a match for any equivalent-sized unit. they were lucky to ever shoot down 6 B-52s in a day.

>You should become a LOYAL citizen of this country and stop trying to undermine the Presidents efforts

didn't Teddy Roosevelt say something about being very American to criticize the government? Or was that Mark Twain?

Fatman, welcome to the forums. i think you'll learn alot here. You may have had 20+ years in the military, but well, we can help you recover from what they've fed you all these years (laughs at self).
You may feel that we are being quite unAmerican for contesting your views, but its our right. You fought for us to be able to speak freely and not be dragged away for it. Now try and listen as we shed some other perspectives on what you believe.

Emerald_Dragon

Aug 4th, 2005, 7:58 PM

err, just catching up and ....

>To claim that the 1990's saw the creation of a budget surplus shows a complete ignorance of reality.

...wasn't that due to Clinton shutting down like, half the U.S. bases around the world? if you don't have to pay fixed and variable costs of maintaining a military installation outside of U.S. soil, of course you'll have a budget surplus.

fatman6502002

Aug 5th, 2005, 1:40 PM

Emerald_Dragon,

<<you didn't get a gander at the Downing Street memos, did you? they pretty much tell us that he did>>

I did read the DSM and it says nothing like what you are characterizing it as saying. In fact the DSM supports the fact that the Bush and Blair administrations, far from "cooking up intell" truely believed that WMD's were in Iraq since, according to the DSM, they discussed what steps would be taken if Saddam used them. I also believe that PM Blair recently disavowed the DSM and that there is some evidence that it was cooked up by the media much like the Dan Rather CBS fake memo's fiasco.

<<who are you calling ignorant, again?>>

Since you are obviously ignoring certain salient facts that tend to disprove your preconcieved notions and continuing biased beliefs, I guess I will have to include you in those that I termed ignorant. The only question about you and the others is whether you are naturally ignorant or if you keep yourself willfully ignorant, there is a difference and I will leave it up to you to do some soul searching and come to a truthful answer.

<<tellya what, in this day and age, I can play "god">>

Only in your mind. I dont care if you can pick the sex or eye color of your child, that does not make you the Creator from whom our natural rights emminate.

<<as soon as science can find out what combinations of DNA amino acids that contribute to intelligence, i'll have them give you an injection for free>>

Thank you very much. Just make sure you get a double dose since your writings prove beyond all doubt that you need it far more than me.

<<didya know that we can genetically manipulate plant life? animal life? human life?>>

Yadda yadda, thats old news. Did you know that it is liberals who think like you that are preventing genetically engineered food from being grown that would help alleviate much of the famine in the world by being resistance to drought, disease and insects?

<<didn't Teddy Roosevelt say something about being very American to criticize the government?>>

I have no problem with criticizing the government. I do have a problem when that criticizism crosses the line and becomes treasonous. Listening to you left wingers of today it sounds as if you are all hoping for the US defeat in the war on terror simply so President Bush wont get any credit for a victory. The fact is by repeating the lies you keep repeating you are doing exactly what bin-laden and the terrorists want you to do, this is their strategy, i.e. to wear down the US's willingness to fight the terrorists untill we have achieved total victory and eventually surrender. The fact is that the lefts hatred for President Bush seems to far outweigh their self-proclaimed love of country.

I thought it was a bad decision when Bill Clinton attacked Kosovo(which by the way was done unilaterally without UN approval or Congressional approval) for the simple reason that there were no vital American interests being advanced by such action. As we have seen, saving muslims in Kosovo has bought us no good will from muslims at all. The point is though that once the decision was made and our men and women were in harms way I never uttered a public or private word against that operation, in fact I supported it unequivically because my motive was to see the US win even though a President I hated intensly would get the credit. You seem to think that because you have the right to criticize the government that it is always right to do so, it is not, we all need to practice self-censorship at times.

<<The British only had to lose Yorktown to lose the war>>

Ridiculous. Obviously your understanding of the Revolutionary War specifically and military strategy in general is somewhat suspect and limited to say the least.

<>

Why dont you get shot at by "guerrilla's" and see if you then consider it a battlefield engagement. I am sure if you had ever been in combat of any level you would have a different opinion. As soon as the bullets start flying around you, you are on a battlefield and in an engagement. Obviously you are a rank amature when it comes to understanding combat or any other aspects of military life.

<<I've read enough about the Vietnam war to know it was about war profiteering>>

This is an ignorant and pedantic statement and shows a childish level of understanding of what the Vietnam War was about. Was their profiteering, of course but not any more than what happened in any other war, profiteering is a by-product of any war. To state that the war was about profiteering is to prove your total ignorance of the context in which it was fought. Did you notice what happened after the US left Southeast Asia? The genocide in Cambodia and the killing of several hundred thousand Vietnamese, the almost total eradication of the Hmong in Vietnam. These were the things we were fighting to prevent by stopping the spread of communism, since where ever communism advances genocide is soon to follow, I only have to mention the 20,000,000 Russians and Ukranians killed by Stalin's induced famines, and of course the 30,000,000 million Chinese killed by Mao during his Great Leap Backward, to say nothing of the 1,200,000 killed by Pol Pot in Cambodia.

<<The Gulf of Tonkin incident was bogus>>

This is old news, what is your point? President Johnson was a crook, we all know that.

<<Why would a bunch of PT boats, remnants of WW2, attack a technologically advanced foe>>

If that had ever happened I would suspect that someone with your military knowledge and acumen was in charge of that strategy.

<<You may feel that we are being quite unAmerican for contesting your views, but its our right>>

I do not think you are traitors for disagreeing with me. I think you are traitors because your actions are helping our enemies defeat the US, and that is the very definition of treason. Whether you actually hope to bring about a US defeat or whether you are simply a "usefull idiot" being led around by International ANSWER, it makes no difference; by repeating the lies of our enemies you are helping our enemies in their attempts defeat the US out of simple hatred for President Bush or the neo-cons, and that makes you and the other fifth columinsts traitors.

<<You fought for us to be able to speak freely and not be dragged away for it>>

Correct, but I did not fight to allow you and others to be able to help our enemies defeat us. All of our rights have reasonable limits, the right to free speach is no different. You need to start excersizing some personal responsibility when deciding when and what you say.

<<Now try and listen as we shed some other perspectives on what you believe>>

I doubt I will learn anything from any of you spoiled, self-absorbed whiney little welps who have no idea how lucky you are to live in the US, I have heard it all before and by repeating the typical liberal/socialist lies you are not going to shed any more light on your perspectives, I already know what they are.

Fatman

DontBeAfraid

Aug 5th, 2005, 6:10 PM

You seem to think that because you have the right to criticize the government that it is always right to do so, it is not, we all need to practice self-censorship at timeswow..... fathitler.
You are a joke dude. How is it possible to win a war against an enemy that isnt solid? There will always be a new group of terrorists.... unless we start numbering and tracking EVERYONE who is alive and born we cannot do it. You like to be scared of ghosts so go ahead and be scared of ghosts.... Ill work against the guy who keeps telling you "the ghosts are gonna get ya"..... You can thank me later.

kathaksung

Aug 8th, 2005, 1:35 PM

kathaksung,

We all are aware that you are a socialist/communist and therefore hate capitalism even though the evidence over the last hundred years clearly shows that countries that embrace capitalism are the most productive countries the world has ever seen offering a quality of life better than any other. The problem is your thought process is ideological not analytical and therefore you simply ignore evidence that does not support your sick ideology. Communism and socialism belong in the ash bin of history, why dont you put them there.

Fatman

Fatman, label others is easy but if you want to convince people, pick up a point to argue or discuss.

I think you are one of accessaries sent out by Feds to defame and discredit dissenters. This is a pay back to your "socialist/communist" labelling.

-------------

9. How to blow a balloon bigger (7/29/05)

If the paper value of the whole stock in maket is 20 t (trillion), then there may be only 1 t stock is active in trading. The rest stock is inactive (sleeping stock). Because some owners hold it to control the company; some owners hold it as long term investment. (mostly the people hold it as retirement investment)

Only a little fund can change the whole value. When there is 1.1 trillion investment fund entering the market and caused a 10% increase on 1 t stock, the rest sleeping stock(19 t) felt their asset increased by 10% too. That's how a baloon is multiplied by 19 times.

So there are two ways to increase stock market value.
1. To increase the investment fund in the stock market. This is what government has done to push the pension fund, 401(k) fund into the stock market. And Bush is doing now to put S.S. fund to the market.

2. To reduce the stock for sell also can raise the stock price.

When the money supply is 1 t. But the supply of stock for selling increased to 2 t, then there will be a 50% drop of price.(1t fund/2t is 0.5) Original $1.00 share can only get $0.50. If the stock for selling reduced to 0.5 t. Then the price will double. $1.00 share can sell for $2.00. A 100% increase. (1t fund/0.5t is 2) Reduce the quantity of stock for selling is a more effective way to boost the price.

This is why Bush's plan allow the privatization fund heritable. Old people would have sold the pension stock because it's foolish not to spend it before their death. Now they will think, "if I have no necessity to sell it, whatever happen to me, my son will have it." The inactive stock will go on sleeping. There will be a significant quantity of stock avoid to be sold in the market.

While a small amount of investment fund (say, 1t) support a fantacy of a big treasure ballon (say, 20t), interest group hope more people sleep on the paper stock to go on with their dream. So it will make them easy to blow the balloon bigger and delay the crisis from exploding.

Defiant Noquisi

Aug 10th, 2005, 5:51 PM

Why is it that even after hundreds of years people dont realize that it was made possible to criticize and question the government and its leaders?

Why still, when people make use of this right does someone else accuse those who are excersising their rights as citizens as being treasonous, or liberal or even left wing? Ive seen many instances, especially lately where even christian conservatives havent spared themselves to the same rhetorical commentary towards this administration.

Are they treasonous too? Or is that type of commentary "ok" because conservatives are allowed to do so?

Emerald_Dragon

Aug 12th, 2005, 4:56 PM

>>you didn't get a gander at the Downing Street memos, did you?
>>they pretty much tell us that he did

>I did read the DSM and it says nothing like what you are characterizing it as saying.

I guess reading for comprehension isn't one of your strong traits.
You read statements like
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

"
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
"

and

"
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
"

and still believe your role model didn't have any pre-conceived notions of his own? Spouting diplomacy months after already fixing policy around a thin argument? basing his (faulty) intelligence on items the Office of Special Plans picked out of CIA reviews? CIA reviews which they stated, were not reliable (ie Nigerian Uranium) yet the OSP pushed them anyway? Howbout the time W's hoods punished those who said otherwise? (Wilson/Plame)

these DSM documents would have probably stayed classified for 50+ years before people could know the truth, had it not been leaked out prematurely.

>>who are you calling ignorant, again?

>Since you are obviously ignoring certain salient facts that tend
>to disprove your preconcieved notions and continuing biased beliefs,

*lol* you're joking? you can't be serious? you can't throw rocks in a glass house.

howbout telling me that the DSM was a to-do list of things to prepare for, and we'll leave it at that. they speak for themselves.

i can't help it if you can't understand what it means, in light of what W's crew were saying vs. what they were planning. after all, it was not for public consumption because it would have made liars out of them.

>>tellya what, in this day and age, I can play "god"
>Only in your mind.
>I dont care if you can pick the sex or eye color of your child,
>that does not make you the Creator from whom our natural rights emminate.

you don't read alot of books, do ya? We all started from something. did i already mention that we share like, 90% of the DNA of a chimpanzee? or was that a monkey, i forget. do you even know what the Human Genome Project was about? ever read any of Sitchin's archaeology books? The source materials for the Bible? The Adam and the Noah/Utnapishtam/AtraHasis connections in Sumerian tablets?

>Did you know that it is liberals who think like you that are preventing
>genetically engineered food from being grown that would help alleviate much of
>the famine in the world by being resistance to drought, disease and insects?

you mean the Monsanto guys trying to sell seeds that can't be re-sown because they don't bear seeds? the "one shot" seeds that you have to buy over and over again if you want a decent harvest?
Don't know anything about it. Not my area of interest.

>Listening to you left wingers of today it sounds as if you are all hoping for the
>US defeat in the war on terror simply so President Bush wont get any credit for
>a victory.

if your leader lies to you so that he can line the pockets of his supporters with cash, in exchange for the blood our loyal, honorable soldiers, wouldn't you be a little concerned? i believe our armed forces should be protecting our borders, not expanding them.

the name of the game is oil for blood, for the rich.

>The fact is by repeating the lies you keep repeating...

please point them out and lets discuss.

>>The British only had to lose Yorktown to lose the war

>Ridiculous.
>Obviously your understanding of the Revolutionary War specifically
>and military strategy in general is somewhat suspect and limited to say the least.

you crack me up. you do realize that Yorktown was the last major battle of the revolution and that the Brits had decided during and after, that it was futile to persist. Up until that point, they were confident that they would restore law and order to the rebellious colonies.

>These were the things we were fighting to prevent by stopping the spread of communism,
>since where ever communism advances genocide is soon to follow

ever wonder if it was because of U.S. intervention, disturbing the balance of power, that brought on the genocide? it would be a sound military move in my book. usurp the local dictator so that his rivals can kill each other to see who leads? its working in Iraq.

anywayz, we didn't win that war, people woke up about 5 years into it and decided there were better things to put their tax money into, than fighting an endless war that couldn't be won. i mean, even if after Communist Vietnam was conquered, there was still Russia, then China. the 'War on Communism' just wasn't winnable.

Do you think we'll win this 'War on Terrorism'? I wonder how naive one has to be, in order to think its an attainable goal.

>>The Gulf of Tonkin incident was bogus>>

>This is old news, what is your point? President Johnson was a crook, we all know that.

thought that was Nixon.
but i'm sure LBJ sure got rich from Vietnam. we all know this incident was used to fuel and justify an escalation of Vietnam. i guess you're agreeing in your own way, that that war, was about money. not about holding back any red tides.
howbout them baby-killin Commies today?!

>I think you are traitors because your actions are helping our enemies defeat the US,
>and that is the very definition of treason.

so you're saying i should not point out any elephants in the room else i'm not a patriotic American? didn't Gore once state that W was selling out his country? ever wonder if the enemy is us?
what does 'hubris' mean?

don't you get it? we don't have any enemies except the ones we create. everyone in the world wanted to be us, until now. and if not for our bill of rights, we wouldn't be the great country we once were. i think it was repealed by the Patriot act, but the jury's still out on that one.

> I doubt I will learn anything from any of you spoiled, self-absorbed ...
> I already know what they are.

my, my, evolving with every day i see.

when the republican party returns to what I believed in them for, i'd give them more credence. they no longer believe in small government or lower taxes. they still believe in leaving businesses alone, they've de-regulated to allow crooks to take advantage of the system. they've bloated bureaucracy and indebted the people that trusted them. but they did manage to lower taxes...for the ultra-rich. and the democrats are no better. they just didn't have the oil money to buy the elections this go around.

wake up buddy. you're being lied to. go do something about it. tell someone.

kathaksung

Aug 18th, 2005, 1:23 PM

Why is it that even after hundreds of years people dont realize that it was made possible to criticize and question the government and its leaders?

?

I wish this kind of people who labels others all around were only out of a narrow mind. But most likely they may be paid to do this kind of harassing job. This is a police state.

------------

10. "Sleep with the stock paper", better forever(8/9/05)

When I have learned the rare data about average investor's return (3.7%), I was surprised that how such a data could be leaked from a tight censorship net of Inside Group.They want people sleeping in the dream that stock market is a gold mine with high profit gain.

A lot of people thought because company having a good business, so stock could be sold at a higher price. That the profit of stock trading was from the wealth comapny created. It's wrong. The wealth company created were distributed by dividend. Even some CEO re-invest or buy back the stock, the money they spent is still a steal from the dividend that shareholders deserved. The reality is sellers profit (or loss) came from the money paid by buyers not from company.

If a company had a profit margin at 1.00/share, and stock price was $10.00, when it makes 1.20/share next year, should the stock price be raised to $12.00? Not neccessarily. When buyers is tight with money. It could be still $10.00 or even a loss, $9.00. It depends on the supply and demand - the stock for sale and new fund willing to invest.

The Nasdag collapsing in 2000 is such sample. When Inside Group thought it was time to harvest, they poured out the stock they held. The investment fund couldn't maintain the usual price, a collapse took place. Did high tech. business had trouble then. No, they still made same profit as usual. But when there was not enough fund going to the market to buy increased amount of stock for sale, the stock price dropped to the bottom too. Nasdaq index lost 2/3 from 5000 to 1700. Those who slept with stock paper with the dream of high profit gain lost their most. The loser is always average investor.

I re-read that "Break the buy-high, sell-low pattern". I found the point of article is: "And that's where some of the good news comes in. Investors slowed the rate of redemptions last year to a pace that would lengthen average stock-fund ownership to 4.2 years. (the 20 years average is 2.9 years) " It advised that if people could hold the stock longer, the return would be better. So in the end it wrote, "As a long-time practitioner of dollar cost averaging, I can note one other benefit: You don't have to make a lot of decisions and you don't second-guess yourself. So you sleep better."

The purpose of the article is clear. With the release of data, it wants you hold the stock not for trading. The longer the better. In last message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" I've told of the best way to boost stock price is to reduce the quantity of stock for selling. It will make them easy to blow the balloon bigger and delay the crisis from exploding. That's why Inside group want you "don't make a lot of decisions and sleep" on that paper. Better forever.

kathaksung

Aug 28th, 2005, 5:46 PM

11. Squeeze every bit of your retirement fund to support a stock market balloon.

Read my message "9. How to blow a balloon bigger" you know There are two ways to keep stock price from falling. The two articles from Mercury News show how this government and the media they controlled are working hard to push every bit of money to the stock market to keep the balloon from exploding.

1. One way is try to find every bit of money available in 401(k).

Re: "Automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans is endorsed

Workers must choose not to contribute

By Jack Sirard, Sarcramento Bee

..... Studies show that up to 20 percent of employees who are eligible to join theri
comany's 401(k) plan fail to do so.

..... Automatic enrollment, which is a growing trend nationally, changes a worker's decision from having to choose to join a 401(k) to having to choose not to join. "
(Mercury News, 7/24/05)

Thus the 20% workers who haven't made up their mind are automatically being pushed into an investment pension fund.

2. The other way to keep the stock price from falling is to reduce the stock for selling.
Re: "Almost half of job-switchers cash out 401(k)s

By Kaja Whitehouse, Dow Jones

Almost half, or 45%, of all workers who left their employer last year opted to cash out their 401(k) savings, according to a new study. .....

Employers would often force distributions for accounts worth less than $5,000 because they found them too costly to maintain. .....

Under the new rules, employers are required to either maintain small balances - defined as anything between $1,000 and $5,000 - or automatically roll the money into an IRA when workers depart. This way, workers with small balances will only take their money in cash if they take the initiative to do so. "
(Mercury News, 7/26/05)

This is how they push workers to join 401(k) investment plan, and try their best to prevent workers from cashing their 401(k) portfolios, even if it's a small amount.

kathaksung

Sep 8th, 2005, 11:56 AM

12. Paper value (9/2/05)

Why did I say people who bought the stock are sleeping on a paper? Because if it is liqudated, most likely you will get little money back. And CEO of these big firms don't work for the interest of shareholders but for the interest of Inside Group.

Five years ago, when managers of pension fund held billions of Enron's stock, they never knew they were holding only a bunch of pieces of papers which worth nothing. Did Enron lost its value in one night or just in a short period? No. A lot of firms are run in same way. What about GM? It's bond was ranked as junk recently. What does that mean? It means GM is in same level like Enron had been. The debt it owes is much bigger than its asset. The long term bond GM issued is about 300 billions. Compare to Iraq war, its cost is only 68 billion a year. Yet, GM is still an foundamental stock of Dow Jones index. How many other comanies are in the same level?

Since stock market is such a market full of balloon. Those expert who know it deeply avoid to get involve in it. Here is an article published recently.

"Greenspan invests cautiously

By Jeannines Aversa, AP,

Greenspan keeps all of his holdings in money-market accounts and Treasury securities, which are considered the world's safest investment, a financial disclosure form shows."

(Mercury News, 7/29/2005)

Further more. on 8/27/05, Mercury News reported:

"It can 'readily disappear' if economy stumbles

Rising house and stock prices have made many people feel more wealthy and have helped to support consumer spending.

Greenspan, however, said people shouldn't count on that paper wealth, which can evaporate if economic conditions deterriorate rapidly."

I have repeatedly said the stock is no other than a paper in this thread. Seven days ago, Greespan's comment proved my opinion.

kathaksung

Sep 18th, 2005, 5:20 PM

Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J.

Roberts ducked important questions Demo asked him in hearing. So at the end he is mostly a man of unknown to the people. This is a typical figure of D.O.J.: hide everything with a cover. Does everything in covert.

Is he a speculist? After he refuses to show his stand, he can later turn out to be red, or if necessary, to be blue. Or just a flip-flop. This is a typical figure of secret agent. They really have no interest in any side. They only favour what their master favours. So they really have no opinion.

He will be selected as the judge of Supreme Court. Because that's the choice of Inside Group. Bush is only a puppet to deliver the words. Demo Senators only played a little bit what opposition Party should do. They knew Roberts will take over the seat. All this is a drama.

But when you select a general, how can you don't know his opinion about war? (his excuse is he only can answer in specific battle) How can you select a CEO for the company who refuse to express his idea about economy?

When US politics develops to this point that an mostly unknown person can take such an important job, is this drama too ridiculous? Bush administration even sealed Roberts record from public.

Roberts is more likely an secret agent who will work for the Feds, (D.O.J.) and the real master behind - Israel.

Defiant Noquisi

Sep 18th, 2005, 7:24 PM

Kathaksung, Ive asked a few times in this thread as well as today in another thread and here again where you get your information from. Are these posts of your own creation or are you copying anothers work? If you have answered me before Im sorry but I did not see it.

kathaksung

Sep 28th, 2005, 1:41 PM

These are my own opinion based on facts. (I used to put URL for the information I got.) You can get most of my messages at:

http://hometown.aol.com/kathaksung/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/sunkat563/myhomepage/profile.html
http://hometown.aol.com/katsung563/myhomepage/profile.html

If there is harassment (blank page, slow entering, server busy....) try

http://forums.delphiforums.com/police915/messages/?msg=1.1

--------------

D.O.J. hurriedly sent Roberts to the seat of Chief Justice is for the framed case of September 24, I think. My case is the most important one for D.O.J. since I reveal the true face (crime) of them. To frame a case, they even sacrifice both directors of FBI and DEA in a secret deal in 2001.

On 5/10/2002, I wrote "65. Birthday Party on May 3 (5/10)", revealed there was an attempt framed case on me and my family on 5/3. Several days later, my tenant and a neighborhood suddenly left.(both were from China. see #85, 86) It was until three months later when newspaper reported Ashcroft had been rebuked by judge in May for cheating the court, I then knew I was under the surveillance by FISA warrant. When judge found they were cheated by Ashcroft and FBI, they cancelled the warrant. Two Chinese secret police, my tenant and a neighborhood, had to leave.

The surveillance recovered in November 2002 when D.O.J. claimed Patriot Act gave them such power. But how could they frame an innocent man without evidence? They still need evidence to carry out an arrest.

Since then, D.O.J. tried their best to "break" the wall of "share information from foreign intelligence" with "domestic criminal law enforcement". The recent "Pentagon's information about Atta" is such an effort.

This issue must have been passed into Supreme Court. I think, Chief Justice William Rehnquist had defended the fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Thus he became the obstacle of D.O.J.. He had a cancer.

If Rehnquist's health condition was very bad, he would have resigned earlier. But he hadn't. That means he himself felt he was still OK for the job. His death was sudden. I think it was a controlled murder. I have said, "2. Control the death on will. They can make target getting sick by slow poison, once the death is necessary for Feds, what they have to do is just increase the dose, the target died to intelligence' demand without causing a suspicion." (186. Slow poison (12/6/03))

When I found there was another big framed case set up on 9/24, I revealed it on 9/2. (see "339. The September plot (9/2/05)") Next day, Chief Rehnquist died. Roberts is hurried to be nominated and said his confirmation is almost certain and will be in post in October. Because the framed case will break off on 9/24. D.O.J. needs a man of their own to guarantee the case can be set up by "sharing foreign intelligence information with domestic criminal law enforcement"

William Rehnquist's death and Roberts' nomination may signal the death of 4th Amendment that American people will lose the protection from "unreasonable search and arrest". US Justice will be ruled by an evil group.

(The 4th Amendment has been made to protect people from the "plant" of corruptive law enforcement force. That the warrant must based on evidence not the "plant". The "sharing information" low the standard to "suspicion" (foreign intelligence source) and made search and arrest possible based on "plant". see "335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)")

kathaksung

Oct 6th, 2005, 6:07 PM

13. Fallacy (9/12/05)

Fallacy 1. "Politicians stole all the extra SS tax money and spent them in the general fund for their own purpose."

Answer: The surplus of S.S. tax are now in the form of "I.O.U." which is no difference to the national bond.

To the logic of fallacy, when people deposit their money in bank, he will rant: "The money is all gone. The bank spent it by lending it to the others. But what's the business with him how does bank spend the deposit? What people care is the bank will pay them back the deposit with interest.

In sameway, what's business with him when the Congress spend it in general fund? Only when they will pay it back with interest. Remember if they don't borrow from S.S.Trust fund, they still will borrow by issueing Treasury note.

Fallacy 2. "I like privatization because I can handle it by myself. I want have my own choice."

Answer: The original purpose to set up Social Security is to guarantee people will have a stable income when they retired. Privatization won't guarantee this. It put Social Security in a risk.

People pay insurance company. The payment is guaranteed to be used in retirement payment. Bush lured them to a casino, said that people may win more. The reality is people then will exchange their money with a paper its value may evaporate when economy turns downward.
It's not for a stable society but lead the society to an dangerous gamble.

Yes, there are many choice of gamble: Black Jack, slot machine.... but more you gamble more you will lose.

Fallacy 3. "Social Security will collapse".

Answer: It's an intimidation. A tactic Bush used to use all the time. He had cried, "sky is falling" 28 years ago, the sky didn't fall.
Re: 'For Bush, a Long Embrace of Social Security Plan
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: February 27, 2005

in the summer of 1978, in the heat of his unsuccessful race for a House seat from West Texas, G.W.Bush said Social Security "will be bust in 10 years unless there are some changes,"

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/27/politics/27social.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=0a958f02348dd46b&hp&ex=1109480400&partner=homepage

He scared us into an unnecessary war. He is now scaring us to give him the power to handle our retirement fund. But insolvency is 37 years away. (2042) If US could solve the same problem in 1978, so can they do in 2042. Bush has better to deal with the historical national deficit which he created. If he can't handle the war spending and disaster spending well, US economy will collapse much earlier than S.S. he intimidated.

Defiant Noquisi

Oct 9th, 2005, 9:02 PM

These are my own opinion based on facts. (I used to put URL for the information I got.) You can get most of my messages at: Okay, thanks for that info.

kathaksung

Oct 16th, 2005, 1:37 PM

335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05)

These days, Feds activate a wave in Internet to propaganda on "eliminate the wall erected to prevent the sharing information from foreign with domestic criminal law enforcement." Said the wall caused the success of 911 attack. It's an attack at the Constitution - the 4th amendment. times Feds set up traps in my case. One was to change the roof of my house. The other one was to change the garage door. I alleged Feds had planted drugs in my attic and in my garage. They planned to carry out a search and arrest by guise as the roofing or the garage door contractor.

Why couldn't they direct search and arrest? Fourth amendment forbid them to do so. They couldn't apply a search warrant on suspicion. They must have evidence. But I am innocent man, they have no evidence. What they can do is plant. But for that plant they still need a reason to get a search warrant.

Because it's easy for them to get the foreign collaboration to get a "useful" information. Then to get a FISA warrant which is easy to get. An unreasonable search and arrest could be done if the "information sharing" is allowed.

If the wall was broken, every citizen will lose the protection of the 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest. Everyone can be the victim of Feds' planting.

Here I repeat the message I posted before. D.O.J. is desperately to attack that protect wall.

Re post: Ashcroft had accused, and now it's his accessories are accusing Jamie Gorelick erected the "wall" between the FBI and the CIA that kept them from sharing intelligence and possibly from doing more to prevent the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. That because FBI feared to touch that wall, they hadn't applied a permission to search suspect Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, so they lost chance to stop the 911 attack in advance.

This is a blackmail.

There are two ways for FBI to apply a search warranty from Judge. One is by FISA court.(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) In which a warranty is in a very low standard and is easy to get. The other way is by criminal law court which is in high standard because Americans are protected by 4th amendment from unreasonable search and arrest.

When Ashcroft and FBI said there is a wall to block sharing information between foreign information and criminal investigation, he is demanding a big police power expanding which makes the 4th amendment mean nothing. He then can search and arrest American citizen at his will, only based on suspicion(FISA standard is low) while we should be protected by criminal law from being unreasonable search and arrest. (must based on evidence)

D.O.J. use Moussaoui's case as a reason, said because the FBI feared to touch the wall of criminal law so they didn't investigate Moussaoui's computer. It's hypocrite and is a misleading. We don't have to be a professional like A.G. or FBI to know that Moussaoui is a foreigner and fits for FISA. Why FBI hadn't apply FISA(obviously an easy one) but considered the domestic criminal law? And why they even didn't apply? It is incompetence, a mistake, or a deliberate negligence? Many information revealed that the government knew 911 attack in advance, it was allowed to happen. Because they benefit from it.

FBI didn't apply a warrant from FISA, they say because they are afraid to touch that wall. A man caught driving without a license. He said because he was afraid he won't pass the road test so he hadn't apply one. Could a judge justify that reason? As a matter of fact, the FISA standard is very low, if FBI had applied one, they for sure would get it. But they hadn't.

What D.O.J. wants is to give FBI more police power to search and arrest people. They want to low the standard of criminal law. That's a blackmail in the name of "war on terrorism".

BTW, there is a deep meaning of "erect the wall of sharing information" . In fact, intelligence share the information already. The reality is they can't use that information to apply a search warrant because it's illegal. The wall prevent they use FISA standard on domestic criminal case.

Theoretically, FBI can't spy a citizen unless they have evidence the man has committed crime. When this "sharing information wall" is broken, now they can search a citizen covertly only on suspicion. Because the FISA standard is low.

This is the real purpose of D.O.J.. And it claimed the"Patriot Act" gave it such privilege.
The fact is, under the "Patriot Act", Bush and D.O.J. expand their fascist police power. American people are losing the protect from "unreasonable search and arrest" of the 4th amendment.

Government and media never tell people about this. They steal the civil liberty in the name of security. You are losing your constitutional right.

kathaksung

Oct 26th, 2005, 4:58 PM

346. Police detain and DNA plant (10/2/05)

Although 9/24 case was postponed, new framed case developed immediately. There were two articles in Mercury News at same time.

"False arrest verdict reversed" (9/24/05)

"The federal jury in San Jose had found that officer William Foster, 37, had no probable cause to arrest Laura B. McIntyre. She was arrested after touching Foster's badge to get his identification.

US district Judge James Ware, reconsidering laws at issue in the case at the city's request, reversed his earlier decisions, disregarded the jury's verdict and issued a Wednesday(9/21) ruling in favor of Foster."

(McIntyre, who had just graduated with honors, was attending a party on 2/8/01. When police told guests to leave to a complaint, she put two fingers on Foster's badge to see the numbers. She was arrested for committing a battery.)

"Bill would force DNA collection" (9/25/05)

"Washington - Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data.

The measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data is stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes."

The purpose of two articles is very clear. To justify unreasonable search and arrest and then to frame the victim by DNA planting. DNA(a hair, skin, semen) like drugs, can be planted easily. The provision opens the gate for corrupted Feds. They can find an excuse to detain people. Then frame him in a crime case. No evidence needed. What they need to do is to declare the detainee's DNA is identical to one found in criminal scene. I believe Feds now are busy to plant my DNA in old unsolved case.

347. Abandon the Constitution (10/7/05)

The 4th Amendment was set up to protect people from "planting" of corruptive law enforcement. Feds can not arrest people simply because they can find drugs in his property. It is unreasonable search and arrest. They must have evidence the man charged had practically involved in drug case. So the 4th Amendment protect us from "planting".

I allege Feds planted drugs in my attic and garage. Twice they try to frame cases by disguising roof contractor or garage door contractor. (see "144. Roof contractor from Idaho", "300. Garage door".)

This time they use DNA plant. They say now the DNA forced test of suspects is allowed. It opens the gate of "police planting". It's easy to detain people in a dispute with police. Then to prosecute them by DNA evidence. DNA, like drugs, can be planted easily. Innocent people, while commit no crime, can be conveniently framed in a case.

Now what's the meaning for 4th Amendment?

kathaksung

Nov 16th, 2005, 5:13 PM

348. "Witness" team (10/7/05)

After Feds got the bill of "forced DNA test", the rest thing was to arrange a police detain. For which they even made a judge disregarded a jury's verdict, reversed his own decision to issue a new ruling to encourage unreasonable search and arrest.(see #436)

On 9/28, I took a walk around the block. I saw an unusual lively street. A resident and a yard worker talked at the entrance of the lane. Cross street, there was a van of heater company with three people. When I turned into the side street, I saw two young men with a broken car, and a technician of AAA emergency car. There were five people walking on the path in the small park next block. There was even a lady with Arabic dress. This was the first time I saw an Arab in my community. Wah, I thought, Feds activated so large resource to carry out an arrest. When I got back to my home, a car arrived at cross street house just opposite the lane. Five people got off the car, hugging, walking around, made a noise. These people, would play the role of "reliable witness" if a police arrest carried out.

On 10/4 about 10 pm at night, I saw a towing car parked cross street. I went out to have a look. Then I saw a row of 4 cars slowly drove through. The last one was a police car. I think it was an "arrest work team" on their night shift with three potential witnesses and a police.

In recent decade, when Feds occupied most houses in my area, it becomes a desert area. Rarely I saw a child here. When I had a walk seldom I saw a resident. Sometimes I could see one or two people walking in the park. So a sudden surge of more than a dozen people was very unusual for me. And for a quiet community (most residents are agents and their support group), a police car was a rarity too.

I believe there will be a search and arrest ready for me. It's not accidental but a well planned one. Feds even prepared a lot of "reliable witnesses" for it. Though I'll try to avoid any conflict with police, what people heard will be another story.

349. Warning (10/7/05)

People read my thread know the tactic Feds used to distract the frame case. A "terror attack" and a natural disaster to rouse the panic that will divert public's attention from a criminal case committed by Feds.

1. Symptoms of a "terror attack". On 10/6 Bush said 10 terror plots were foiled. He labels Iraq being the central battleground in the war on terror. The language he used was the strongest to date which may indicate he strongly believe there will be "terror attack" to happen to strengthen his political position.

In same day, Mayor of New York, Bloomberg, said the FBI had informed him about "a specific threat" that 19 suicide bombers planned to hit the subway system.

These are typical pre-advanced propaganda. A bombing will happen, but Feds has no responsibility. Because they have given you a warning in advance.

2. A bio-attack. This time it is avian-flu. The propaganda include with: "Mysterious 16 deaths in Canada.", and WHO said the pandemic will probably kill more than 50 million people in the world.

Two days ago Bush said to deal with such pandemic he may use troops to quarantine. For a president who was so incompetent to react to a pre-warned hurricanes, how could he be so active in a disease in which not a case is found in US?

I worry there will be a slaughter in the name of pandemic after they frame a case on me.

kathaksung

Nov 26th, 2005, 3:50 PM

350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05)

When I wrote that the recent tactic Feds using is to arrest in the name of drug charge by unreasonable search, there was a swift re-action.

"Boy George held on drug charges" (Mercury News, 10/9/05)

Police said Boy George called 911 to report a burglary on Friday(10/8) in New York."When police showed up, they found no evidence of a burglary but did find a small amount of cocaine near a computer in his apartment." Boy George was arrested on drug charge.

The case was a framed one, I think. It was a model demonstration to instruct how Feds to act on my case aggressively. In local TV news that night,(10/9) there were pictures that residents of San Jose complained how their houses were intruded by strangers. Next day on 10/10 in the evening, there was a knock at the door. It was a young man. I didn't answer it. He took a walk in my front yard then left.

In previous two attempted frame cases, Feds tried to disguise as contractors of roofing or garage door. I had a look at these two places but couldn't find anything suspicious. It's impossible to search the garage because too much stuff was piled up there. I once puzzled that how the disguised contractor could declare they finding the drug in concealed place where no others could see. Boy George's case solved my problem. George had no motive to tell a lie to call police to his home that led to his arrest. Once police were at his home, the rest words were all theirs. It's too convenient to say there was no evidence of burglary and they found drugs near George's computer.

What they need is to find an excuse that they are legally there. So the search and arrest would be reasonable. Roofing, garage door repair and burglary were all tactics to create an invitation. To make unreasonable search and arrest legal. Once they were there, the rest story was written by themselves.

To make sure they can finish the case as fast as they can, Feds also planned individual search and arrest. For which they prepared many potential "reliable witnesses". To guarantee the success of the plan, they even murdered (I allege) Rehnquist and send a man of their own to be the Chief Justice.

kathaksung

Dec 6th, 2005, 2:50 PM

357. Another attack from D.O.J. (11/12/05)

There was an article in San Jose Mercury News on 11/9/05.

"Court debates privacy in searches by police
By stephen Henderson, Knight Ridder

Washington - The love lost between Scott and Janet Randolph worked to the advantage of police in summer 2001, when authorities investigating a domestic dispute between the two asked to search the couple's Georgia home.

Scott Randolph said no. His wife said yes, and police went ahead on her consent. Tuesday, the Supreme Court weighed whether the subsequent search - in which Janet Randolph led them to drugs that resulted in her husband's arrest - was unconstitutional.

The case is the latest in a long line of opportunities for the court to refine the scope of permissible searches under the fourth Amendment. But the question involved - how much privacy can anyone expect in a home they share with someone else - inspired a surprisingly animated debate among the justices. ......

The Georgia Supreme Court sided with Randolph, throwing out the drug evidence that was recovered during the search.

Randolph's position seemed to draw support from several justices, especially Sandra Day O'Connor, who emphasized that the court does not decide search cases by acknowledging shared property rights, but by determining what is socially acceptable. ....

Randolph's position also ran into harsh criticism from several justices, though. Chief Justice John G. Roberts suggested that when you decide to live with someone, you give up some rights to privacy."

I will say this is another effort of D.O.J. to encourage agent to commit an unreasonable search. In August when there was a wave to attack the wall of information sharing between foreign intelligence and domestic criminal case,(the real purpose is to bypass the fourth amendment and to low the standard of search and arrest for law enforcement agent) I had a feeling D.O.J. was going to attack the constitutional right for civilian. I wrote six articles about it. (see #335. 4th Amendment (8/17/05), 344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J.(9/18/05), 346. Police detain and DNA plant (10/2/05), 347. Abandon the Constitution (10/7/05), 348. "Witness" team (10/7/05), 350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05))

This case proved my worry was not uncalled for. If it passed in D.O.J.'s way, then it will not only damage the morality of a marriage, (will people since then to pre-sign a contract to prevent a possible hurt from their spouse before their marriage?) and will also destroy the last castle of their privacy - their own home.

This news also proves my accusation on the new Chief Justice - Roberts is true. I said in #344 that he is a secret agent of D.O.J.. His comment on this case proves he doesn't work to protect the civil right of the American people. He works for the interest of D.O.J..

Knifey

Dec 8th, 2005, 6:12 PM

It makes me laugh and shake my head at the same time, how liberals are still complaining about this.

Tell me, if Bush is so dumb and inferior, and Gore so vastly superior and HONEST (father of the internet, hahaha)why wasnt it a landslide for Gore? And why not for Kerry? Hmm?

Al Gore? Are you kidding me? Bush is very far from perfect, but Gore? Thats almost as scary a thought as the biggest socialist in Washington, Hillary, getting elected President. Lemme guess, I suppose 9/11 would not have happened with ol Al in the White House...Weak and sad...kinda like the "blood for oil" argument.

kathaksung

Dec 15th, 2005, 4:54 PM

362. George Bush's Jury work (12/2/05)

About three months ago, I was going to shopping by tram. In tram station I found the ticket machine went out of order. Since I was under 24 hours surveillance I didn't want to take any chance. I decided not to board on tram without a ticket so I left. Just then a man in working uniform came to the station. He said he worked for the Public transportation. He checked the machine to my complaint then suggested me to board on the coming tram, said he could be witness that it was not my fault.

I later think it might be a trap. A staff arrived at the most opportune movement. He could be the one who disabled the ticket machine. He came forward when I hadn't fallen into the trap.

When the persecution intensifies recently, I abandoned the tram. I rarely go out. Especially I found they prepared the witness team. (see "348. "Witness" team (10/7/05)")

Then I saw a series of articles to instruct the arrest team how to conduct an (unreasonable) search and arrest, emphasizing the trick to search a home. (See "
346. Police detain and DNA plant (10/2/05)", " 350. Boy George and drug charge (10/12/05)" and "357. Another attack from D.O.J. (11/12/05)". Be noticed that these were all published after the 9/24 plot went soared.

The latest one took place yesterday. TV reported that Bush got a summon for Jury duty. Once again the Headquarter instructs the local team how to operate. This trick is not new for me. Same drama acted three years ago. (see "69. Juror summon (6/16/02)" and "71. Police violence") On the purpose to force me out.

To make the instruction a reportable news, Feds used to manipulate the celebrities. Boy George, President George were used like a toy.

All these aggressive work indicates one thing: American will face a big economic downturn next year. Don't be deceived by rosy picture painted by media. Don't be duped into the recent rising stock market. It's artificial. I predict there will be a big inflation, probably starting as early as January. The continuation of interest upwards is inevitable. Feds try to finish my case so they can get rid of the real estates still in their hands, before a market collapsing take place.

emperorx1984

Dec 15th, 2005, 10:43 PM

kathaksung

Dec 26th, 2005, 4:09 PM

"good old boy George" from Texas lookin' for his next pig to fuck. . . :2thumbs:

if President Bush is such a horrible leader who has mislead the USA and is fucking America in the ass, then uhhhhhh what's that say about the majority of voters out there who re-elected him AND GAVE HIM HIS POWER??????????If your gonna bash Bush then please consider the source. . . .THE VOTERS. . . . .maybe there's more sheep fuckers in America than I thought. . . . . :headbang:

Go to read the messages in this thread posted in last December and January this year about election. Bush was selected President by Inside Group not elected by people. They select their puppet by rigged election and then justify it by fake poll.

---------

71. Police violence

The first time I got Juror summon was ten years ago. I went to court. The staff lady there rejected me when she found my conversation was poor. Next time I had experience FBI using it as a tool of intimidation. This time, after read newspaper article on 6/11, it turned out to be another plot. That's why I hastily post message "69. Juror summon" on 6/16. Because 6/17 was the day for Juror service. I can't drive so only way to go out is by bus. I worry they might do something on bus. That's why I talked about my situation of no car and no drive license in that message.

At night, I heard a news report from KTSF26 Chinese station that Supreme court ruled police can subtly pressure passengers on buses, trains and other public transit systems to agree to be searched, saying officers need not tell the riders they have a right to refuse. I immediately felt it's a cover up for a police violence in plan. If I followed advice of 6/11to go to the court on 6/17, there could be a police violence taking place in bus. Of course there would be professional witness favorable to police if it's a designed one. Seven years ago, when I started to go out by bus, I found they even prepared a bus special for me. When I waiting in bus stop, a special bus came to pick me up.( I call it charted bus) Then it ran slowly until the regular bus caught and passed. The regular bus picked up all passengers in advance. So my charted bus was used to be an empty one all the way I rode. The tactic was to separate me from any contact as possible as they could. Just like they bought all hot merchandise when I had business. (see 21. Alleged murder of Mrs. Churchill) I live in rural San Jose, where bus passengers were scarce. Bus interval was used to be 40 minutes which made overlap almost impossible so I could observe this method.

Next day (6/18), the newspaper reported a group of Supreme court rules. Police search in bus was one among them. Which meant these were already done cases. They just announced the rules altogether on that day. Federal law enforcement agency, with access to Supreme Court, knew everything (probably they even request the particular date for announcing) If there has been an police violence in bus on 6/17, the announcement on same day proved innocent people that it's common routine that police search in bus. The tactic is just same of Stanford murder which try to gave a background of random racial murder. (see " 63. A well planed frame case") To prove accident was not a particularly planed one. Though with my year's long experience of bus, I never encounter a police search.

kathaksung

Jan 9th, 2006, 1:08 PM

368. Pirates the Constitution right (1/2/06)

Bush defended his domestic eavesdropping program was "targeted known Al-Qaida members or associates and involved intercepts of only a few numbers in the US." This is a quibble.

1. If it was about Al Qaida, why bypassed FISA? FISA warrant is easy to get.
And there is reason to believe Al Qaida was under surveillance already. What is the work for CIA? How do they spend the huge budget on intelligence? Consider Al Qaida is illegal in every country and was in escape in caves. (what government said)

2. Who gave Bush the right to ride over the Constitution? Secret eavesdropping means unreasonable search and seizure which is against 4th Amendment. When the administration authorize themselves the right to search and arrest, then what's the difference from a totalitarian? Bush will be the similar figure like Saddam.

3. Bush is a villain who used to extort people by "terrorist". He had intimidated US into an unjust war by "WMD", "imminent danger". He now blackmails Americans by "saving their lives". Step by step, he rips off the civil right from American people and turns US into a totalitarian country.

4. Beware of another "terror attack" activated by Bush's group to justify his illegal action.

369. D.O.J. wants unlimited power (1/2/06)

Though Bush tries to put the argument in the name of "we are in the war, saving American's lives", his real purpose is to legalize unreasonable search. The real commander behind him is the Department of Justice.

1) US citizens are protected by the Constitution. If government wants to put you under surveillance, they must apply for a warrant from the court with evidence.

2) FISA(Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) is in low standard. Government can apply a warrant based on suspicion not evidence. But there is a wall to prevent it to be used in domestic criminal case. Because there is big difference between suspicion and evidence. And we have seen how D.O.J. hates this wall and activated waves of attack on it.

3) What happens now is government even abandon the court system and issue warrant by themselves. That's how Bush authorizes the domestic eavesdropping. If that goes through, then it's a totalitarian. The government can do whatever they want to do. There is no check and balance to this power. America loses it's principle of foundation.

You will understand a series events happened recently if you read the above analysis. Why a FISA judge resigned to protest. Why Bush defended his spying policy again and again. Why D.O.J. hastily start to probe the leak on spying program.

A typical sample is Padilla's case. Padilla was held without charge for three years. Now government dropped former "dirty bomb" allegation and tried to deliver him to domestic criminal court with other charges. A typical "arrest without evidence" then to transfer him to a domestic court which needs evidence to arrest. D.O.J. tried to establish a case to break the wall which is set to protect American people.

370. The corrupt D.O.J. attacks (1/2/06)

The purpose of 4th Amendment is to protect people from evil activities (set up, plant) of corrupt law enforcement agent.

If corrupt official plant fake evidence at your home. (gun, drugs) And asked for a search warrant. Judge would asked him for evidence. The corrupt official couldn't say:" Because I suspect it." That's how domestic criminal law requires. It depends on Evidence not suspicion.
The official also couldn't say, "I knew it because I had a search already." That's unreasonable search. (warrantless search) It's illegal.

FISA standard is low. Law enforcement official can request a warrant on suspicion not evidence. But there is a wall to forbid it be used in domestic criminal law. Otherwise 4th amendment will mean nothing.

Corrupt officials plant fake evidence at your home. Then apply a warrant from FISA. Say they suspect you are a terrorist. They get a warrant then found the "evidence"(gun, drug) at your home. That's how the 4th Amendment bypassed. A foreign intelligence method is used in domestic criminal law. Though D.O.J. said Patriot Act gave them such privilege, there is at least a FISA court watch their behavior.

Now they even don't need a FISA approval. They authorize themselves the right to search and arrest. To give the order to search in name of save lives of citizens. Is it for "security" or rather, abusing power? When it goes, the Constitution means nothing. It allows unlimited power of police search and arrest. (to be continued)

kathaksung

Jan 16th, 2006, 4:37 PM

372. Justice Department to probe Leak on Spying Program

There are two kinds of leaking.

1. The leak was done by Feds itself to revenge at their dislikes. Such like "Watergate"case. President Nixon intended to reform D.O.J.. Then there was a deep throat to leak a scandal. Nixon had to resign the job. D.O.J. never did an investigation because it was done by itself. An FBI agent.

Or the Plame's case. D.O.J. never did an active investigation on it. Because the person likely is a member of Bush's administration.

Re: Nixon's case: (the references are two articles I have posted before. I re-post for your convenience.)

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.

Former President Nixon was almost impeached. He lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?

In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally.

Re:
Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping
1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02

"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews."
"Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers."
"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said.

Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html

I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.
Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He faced an impeach and had to resign before he could do it.

Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001

Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.

2. If the leak was done to reveal the scandal of Feds or Bush administration. Then they did an active job to revenge at the purpose to silence it. Justice Department to probe Leak on Spying Program belongs to this one. It's an intimidation on lawmakers to pass the Patriot Act because it will terminated in five weeks.

Re:
89. Polygraph law makers (9/25/02)

In early June, a news said the conversations between Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta were intercepted by NSA. It said in two separate conversations on Sept. 10, 2001 contained the phrases "Tomorrow is zero hour" and "The match is about to begin.". Since these two phrases are vague one and consider NSA intercepts 2 million conversations in each hour, the pick up of these two phrases was not a coincidence. It proves that Atta was under surveillance by government earlier before 911.

Then FBI said it was a secret intelligence information which shouldn't be let out public. They are investigating who has leaked it. They target on law makers and even request a polygraph.

But who will investigate the secret information leaking committed by intelligence itself?

When the news said Atta made contact to Iraq diplomat in Czech and talked about bombing plot, it revealed that Atta and Iraq diplomat were under surveillance and it revealed the Czech intelligence was cooperated with USA.

There was another similar news release. By February 2001, NSA had broken the bin Laden's communications encryption system. What we know from the information government released is that OBL talked to his mother two days before 911 attack, "In two days, you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while." It let people know that Bin laden's communication was under surveillance as long as 6 months before 911. And his communication code was broken.

Nobody could release such information but intelligence. Though the original purpose of news about Atta and Iraq diplomat was to target on Iraq to frame it linking with 911 terrorist, so administration could have excuse to start a war with Iraq. And the news of Bin Laden's intercepted conversation was used as a legal base for Bush to start war in Afghan. These leaking are as important as the Atta's "Tomorrow is zero huor" one. Why FBI had a blind eye on these leaking? Because they were released by intelligence?

The secret information leaking FBI accused of took place in early June, at a time when lawmakers and 911 victims were going to investigate failure of intelligence of 911 attack with an independent commission. It could be a trap set up by intelligence. They use this method to retaliate, or extort law makers to avoid investigation on their own flaw or crime. Or try to reach a compromise.

If we don't know these "secrecy", we will believe what government said that they had known nothing before 911 attack. "Secret" is only a stonewall they used to cover up their corruption.

kathaksung

Jan 26th, 2006, 3:53 PM

373. Extortion by scandal (1/12/06)

From Water gate, Chandra Levy to Abramoff, scandal is a tool to extort politicians by D.O.J.. A series of scandal broke off recently. I allege it was targeted at Supreme Court Judge nomination.

Bush had nominated three candidates for the vacancy of Supreme Court. Among them: Roberts and Alito are typical agents of D.O.J. Harriet Miers is a 'yes lady' who is similar to Clarence Thomas. All of them will judge to the order from D.O.J. not to the principle of the Constitution.

Roberts was nominated in early September and was confirmed in 9/28. He took oath on 9/29. During the hearing, on 9/24, a big title was on news: "Probe into Frist stock sale expands". Frist was the Senate Majority leader. Then the scandal spread to the House Majority leader, Tom DeLay. He was indicted on 9/28 by a conspiracy charge.

In October, the news of DeLay's case, Frist case and CIA leaking case (Rove and Libby) were mixed with the nomination of Harriet Miers. Harriet Miers gave up at last. It ends with the indiction of Cheney's aid: Libby.

There was a silence period in the end of the year for scandal and Supreme Court nomination. Then both came back in January. Alito goes into hearing on 1/10/06. Six days before his hearing, Abramoff scandal became top news on 1/4. On 1/8, news reported that Rep. DeLay abandons bid to keep GOP leadership.

Bush's nominee obviously are the representatives of D.O.J. not the Republicans. So there is opposition from the GOP. That's why the scandal targeted at the Republican politicians. Of course there are D.O.J.'s agents in Demos. But if they vote against their party opinion, their real face will be exposed. So the extortion this time aimed at GOP. To create a false appearance of a struggle between two parties not by a dictatorship. The fake mask of "democracy" has to be maintained.

374. A covert totalitarian (1/12/06)

The point is to control the Supreme Court. When Alito replaces O'connor, D.O.J. will control the majority votes of the Supreme Court. Thus they can justify the secret spying by the approval of Supreme Court.

Roberts was proved not work for the civil right but for the interest of D.O.J.. (see #357. Another attack from D.O.J. (11/12/05))

Alito is the same. Re: "Analysis shows Alito favours authorities"
" In one case, Judge Alito said police did not violate the rights of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter, who were strip-searched during a raid of a drug dealer's home."

"A Knight Ridder analysis of more than 300 written opinions by Alito, for example, reveals that he has almost never found a government search unconstitutional and that he has argued to relax warrant requirements and to broaden the kinds of searches that warrants permit."

You can expect under such a Supreme Court, what kind of judgement Americans will have. The administration will take over the power of legislation to authorize themselves the right to spy on its citizens. They will bypass the court system to search and seize without warrant.

US is proud with its democratic system: three independent powers check and balance. But now there is only one power left: the administration. The core is D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls law makers by scandal and election. It also sends the representatives of its own to control the Supreme Court. When they can do whatever they want to do, they think they are the "God". A name always referred by Pat Robertson and Jorge Bush to justify the power abusing.

kathaksung

Feb 6th, 2006, 2:01 PM

377. Bin Laden acts on behalf of Bush (1/22/06)

Bin Laden's new tape is obviously a disinformation made from Bush's "Psychological manipulating office". On the purpose to smear anti war movement.

Read the following words from bin Landen. It's almost what Bush administration and its spokesman McClellan wanted to discredit their critics: "Un patriot, help enemy..."

Re: "The voice on the tape said he was directing his message to the American people after polls showed that "an overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq but (Bush) opposed that desire."

He said insurgents were winning the conflict in Iraq and warned that security measures in the West and the United States could not prevent attacks there."

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060119102809990008&;ncid=NWS00010000000001

This is exactly what Bush group needed.

Consider Bin Laden always responded to Bush's needs: when Bush wanted to start war in Mid-east, there was 911. Be aware 911 was activated eight months after Bush was selected to be the president. And this time, when Bush is revealed to spy on its citizens without court approval, and may face an impeach, Bin Laden comes out again to help. "I, the terrorist is here. Bush is right to start war against me. If you oppose this war and Patriot Act, you are helping me and Al Qaida."

See how he reacts just on time as if he has got an order from Bush.

Be careful there will be another terror attack, manipulated by US intelligence in the name of Al Qaida. Just like 911, Bali bombing..... This time is to save their puppet Bush and Patriot Act (which will expire in two weeks.)

kathaksung

Feb 16th, 2006, 2:51 PM

379. A crime in the name of a noble cause (1/27/06)

Bush stole breads from the grocery store. When the store owner accused him of stealing, he defends that he is to save the lives of hungry people. What he hasn't told you is that he could have done it legally: he could buy the bread instead of stealing.

Bush administration repeatedly argued that he did it under a noble cause: to save the lives of American people. He avoids to tell you that this noble cause can be done in recent system: he could have applied for a court warrant.

A theft is a theft. It won't be legalized under a noble cause. Bush blows trumpet these days to persuade people that he has the right to spy on them. How can a thief so confident for the crime he committed?

1. His master D.O.J. assured him he will be supported by Supreme Court. After Alito being sent to the Supreme Court, D.O.J. totally control it. Alito's nomination will shift the court to the right. For the real Democrats, they should fight for their idea with filibuster. D.O.J. apparently will have their agent jumping out to perpetrate, despite that will tear off their agents' fake mask. For Republicans, Alito is also a threat to their opinion. Alito favors a powerful administration. That's against GOP's opinion of a small government. Many Republicans also don't think the President is above the law. Now review message "373. Extortion by scandal". How correct I point out the Abramoff scandal is targeting at GOP politicians to force them escorting Alito to the seat of the Supreme Court judge.

2. Intelligence support. On time, there will be a "terrorist attack" to justify Bush's spying program. The CIA's Pakistan air raid, Bin Laden's and his vice's tape is a prelude of this plot.

3. Media support. Today, Mercury News reported: "53% approved of eavesdropping without warrants "to reduce the threat of terrorism.(New York Times/CBS News poll of 1,229 adults Friday through Wednesday)". I have said that media is controlled by the Inside group. They used to manipulate public's mind by faking poll to justify a rigged election or other plot.

Is US still a home of braves and the land of free as media always say? Or brave Americans become cowards who give up their freedom to the intimidation of terrorists (or more likely, the Bush administration in the fake mask of terrorist)?

kathaksung

Feb 26th, 2006, 2:33 PM

380. What an "eavesdropping" really mean.(1/27/06)

Do you think the agents only limit to eavesdrop your phone? Do you expect terrorist will say, "You bomb the Golden gate bridge tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock" in communication? It maybe words such like, "Tomorrow will be zero hour. The real match will begin." But was it more likely about a football match or a boxing show? How do you save lives by listen to these vague words? If you think with brain, you know the matter is not that simple limited only to a secret "eavesdropping".

A warrant of "eavesdropping" means much more. With it agents can start a search on "suspects". A search on your home, your financial records, tracing, interview your friends.... This is something government and media never tell you.

To my experience it means much more. The harassing in Internet. The car trouble. Feds create car trouble so they can install instrument in the car to eavesdrop or tracking when you send it for repair. Feds block the drainage to create a flooding to see if you have valuable things to hide, property problem..... Finally, to prove they are correct, Feds plant, frame, murder to eliminate evidence.

A lot of people may have encountered such problem without aware of truth because Feds are professional criminals. But our founding father know the danger of power abusing from internal. They made the Constitution to protect us from the corrupt official. That's why a court search warrant is so strict which demands evidence.

D.O.J. uses a beautiful decoration to violate the law. If it succeeds, the foundational Constitution bypassed. Civil rights will be seriously damaged. Terrorists may kill a few people but can't rob the freedom from Americans. Bush is worse, he took away the civil rights from all citizens. He is more dangerous than the terrorist.

kathaksung

Mar 9th, 2006, 3:23 PM

371. The revenge of D.O.J. (1/7/06)

Bush is only a puppet. When his illegal activity was revealed, his master jumped out to protect. Instead of investigating Bush's unconstitutional action, Justice Department starts to probe the leak of spying program.

It seems they assume nobody knows that US government is eavesdropping on its citizens. As a matter of fact, it's a common sense that FBI and other intelligence are spying on us in a broad range. We know there are Carnivore, Echelon..... There are so many information about secret eavesdropping. Have you ever seen the investigation from D.O.J.? The money spent on secret spying is huge. Are these enormous organization only deal with a few Al Qaide? It's a joke to think that Al Qaida won't alert that they may under surveillance if they communicate with an electronic system. Even innocent Muslim and non Muslim Americans would think their communication be intercepted by big brother.

What the leak of spying program will hurt? It only proves the long existing suspicion of secret spying is true. That Bush did something illegal.(unconstitutional).

The following is an information known by public. The time is Jan. 1st 2001. Such kind of knowledge was common sense. Similar information were popular in internet then. But it didn't point to Bush and D.O.J.. So nothing happened. Now D.O.J. jump their feet on the leak of "secret spying". Is that funny?

Re: SPYING ON US
BY JIM WILSON
Illustration by Paul DiMare
Published on: January 1, 2001

The secret is out. Two powerful intelligence gathering tools that the United States created to eavesdrop on Soviet leaders and to track KGB spies are now being used to monitor Americans. One system, known as Echelon, intercepts and analyzes telephone calls, faxes and e-mail sent to and from the United States. The other system, Tempest, can secretly read the displays on personal computers, cash registers and automatic teller machines, from as far as a half mile away. Although the inner workings of both systems remain classified, fueling exaggerated claims about their capabilities on Internet sites, credible detail has at last begun to emerge. It comes chiefly from foreign governments that began investigating American surveillance activities after discovering that the Echelon system had been used to spy on their defense contractors. From those documents it is possible to obtain the first accurate view of the threats high-tech spying poses to our right to privacy. We think you will agree it also creates a real and present threat to our freedom.

http://popularmechanics.com/science/military/2001/1/spying_on_us/

kathaksung

Mar 19th, 2006, 7:07 PM

Quote, "Men, whites, Catholics boost Bush in latest AP poll
12/9/2005

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush's improved standing with whites, men, Catholics and other core supporters has been a key factor in pushing his job approval rating up to 42%. That's the highest level since summer."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-09-bushpoll_x.htm

Does the population of whites, men increased by 5%? Or 5% of people turn to be Catholics? If these are core supporters, how can they be counted flip flop 5%? When "information operation" office manipulates the poll number, they pick up a reason by hand. No matter how absurd it is.

Poll is a tool used to control public's mind. It represents the intention of the Inside group not people's.

Pope John paul had had a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq." This was said two years ago. So how can catholics a core supporter to Bush?

Quote, "U.S. Church Alliance Denounces Iraq War

By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion Writer Sat Feb 18,
PORTO ALEGRE, Brazil - A coalition of American churches sharply denounced the U.S.-led war in Iraq on Saturday, accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."

The statement, issued at the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade, also warned the United States was pushing the world toward environmental catastrophe with a "culture of consumption" and its refusal to back international accords seeking to battle global warming.

The two-page statement from the WCC group came at the midpoint of a 10-day meeting of more than 4,000 religious leaders, scholars and activists discussing trends and goals for major Christian denominations for the coming decades.

The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/viewtopic.php?topic=63299&forum=7

Where do these "Bush supporters" come from? Neither from Catholics nor from Christians. What else left? Only come from the magician's hat of media's poll. The actual figure may be well below 20%.

kathaksung

Mar 29th, 2006, 1:11 PM

Here is a poll done by AOL on 3/10. It may prove what I said in last message was true. Bush's true approve rate is well below 20%.

How do you rate President Bush on domestic affairs?
Poor 87%
Good 7%
Fair 6%
Total Votes: 46,178

How do rate him on overall foreign policy and terrorism?
Poor 84%
Good 9%
Fair 7%
Total Votes: 46,399 (3/10/06)

Though such kind of poll is always referred as un-scientific, I trust it much more than those of media's. Although still it can be manipulated (If Feds penetrated AOL) but consider Bush is a puppet of D.O.J., Feds has no reason to discredit him at this time.

kathaksung

Apr 9th, 2006, 2:45 PM

After Hurricane Katrina wiped out most of New Orleans, President Bush
said on television , "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." But a recent tape revealed that FEMA had warned him about the levee before the disaster.''We are fully prepared.'' Bush said.

Clinton lied to cover up a personal affair. It hurts nothing. Yet he was impeached.

Bush lied to an unjust war. A lot of people died. He was rewarded a second term.

Now he was revealed lying about his pre-acknowlege about the dangerous situation of New Orleans leeve. Should he be responsible for the one thousand loss of lives? Yet it seems nothing will happen to him.

You may get lessons from these events that how US is ruled by an Inside group. They manipulated the media and intelligence to control public mind and politicians. They can oust a president by a trifle but keep a killer on the bench because they need more war in Mid-east.

infinant plague

Apr 10th, 2006, 9:03 AM

kathaksung

Apr 18th, 2006, 6:32 PM

Vermont, the home of the braves and the land of free.

The people there still have the courage which many Americans have lost.

Quote, "All towns in Vermont vote to impeach Bush!

A single Vermont community's call for the impeachment of President Bush turned into a chorus Tuesday night, with town meetings across southern Vermont echoing the demand that Congress act to remove the president

http://www.thenation.com

kathaksung

Apr 28th, 2006, 1:17 PM

Save the reputation of poll (4/23/06)

Bush's approve rate may have never been higher than 30% after he activated the Iraq war. So even 33% is an exageration. Then why do we see a recent down fall of Bush's rate?

It is to save your belief on media. More and more people start to realize media and poll are mind control tools of government. They realize Bush's selection was the result of a rigged voting system and the media propaganda and poll cheating.

So they let Bush's rate down. A fact they hard to cover up anymore. It doesn't hurt. Bush has been in his second term. He couldn't go for a third term. Bush himself said he didn't care about it. A bird is in hand. Who cares the other birds in the woods.

But that will save your confidence on media and poll. See, we gave a fair judgement on that bad boy. Trust us next time when we gave new poll.

But keep in mind how a war criminal could be selected as a president twice and how the media has helped his selection. Don't be blinded by cover up propaganda. The recent down fall of Bush's rate is to save the reputation of poll so they can go on to cheat.

Beware of another "terror attack". Bush got his seat by "terror attack". To save his reputation, he may use it again.

kathaksung

May 9th, 2006, 12:51 PM

CIA chief drops into the trap of FBI. It's a step Israel to take over CIA. DOJ has the FBI already. Now it will control the whole US intelligence.

Quote, "CIA boss Goss is cooked
Tied to contractor's poker parties -hints of bribes & women
BY RICHARD SISK and JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman.

Kyle (Dusty) Foggo, the No. 3 official at the CIA, could soon be indicted in a widening FBI investigation of the parties thrown by defense contractor Brent Wilkes, named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the bribery conviction of former Rep. Randall (Duke) Cunningham, law enforcement sources said.

A CIA spokeswoman said Foggo went to the lavish weekly hospitality-suite parties at the Watergate and Westin Grand hotels but "just for poker."

Intelligence and law enforcement sources said solid evidence had yet to emerge that Goss also went to the parties, but Goss and Foggo share a fondness for poker and expensive cigars, and the FBI investigation was continuing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/415304p-350961c.html

295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)

Former President Kennedy was assassinated. Former President Clinton was impeached. All these revealed that even in top position, US politicians are under the control of intelligence. They were under the surveillance. They were extorted, blackmailed by intelligence. If they disobeyed, then they were punished by scandal, or even been assassinated.

Former President Nixon was almost impeached. He lost his post in oval office in early 70's. The formal reason was he lied to cover up a tape which might reveal his awareness of illegal campaign activity. But lie and dirty campaign activity were common among high ranking politicians. It was only an excuse. Then what was the real purpose?

In March 2002, a news helped me resolved several puzzles. It was a tape of Nixon's conversation with former treasury secretary Connally. Re:

Quote, "Nixon Defended Envoy's Groping
1972 Tapes Also Reveal Talk of a Justice Dept. 'Full of Jews'

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A02

"Oh! Oh, God!" Nixon said with a sigh. "It erodes our confidence, our strength. They're untrustworthy. . . . Look at the Justice Department, it's full of Jews."
"Any place of power," Connally agreed. "SEC used to be -- all of them, those lawyers."
"Listen, the lawyers in government are damn Jews," Nixon said.
Both men agreed that Nixon should try to reduce the Jewish influence in a second term. Nixon told Connally on May 15 that he wanted no more than 2 percent of the government's political appointees to be Jewish, in proportion to the population. He later said 10 percent would be acceptable, "but certainly not 30 or 40 percent."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20361-2002Feb28.html

I then knew who control Justice department and why Nixon lost his job.

Nixon realized that there was a disproportion of government political appointees to the population. He thought it was not for the interest of US and tried to change that situation. He faced an impeach and had to resign before he could do it.

Now I know why Sharon said, "Every time we do something you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel. We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it." - Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to Shimon Peres, October 8th, 2001

Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include Presidents.

substand

May 10th, 2006, 8:26 AM

I simply cannot take it anymore.

kathaksung

May 18th, 2006, 6:05 PM

406. Take over CIA (5/15/06)

Eight months ago, DOJ has activated a battle to take over the Supreme Court. They successfully sent two of their agents, John Roberts and Samuel Aliot, to the seats of Supreme Court Justice.

Now they are targeting CIA. FBI searched CIA No. 3 leader Foggo's home and office on 5/12. CIA Chief Porter Goss resigned in advance. The leader of CIA dropped in the trap set up by FBI.

Quote, "CIA boss Goss is cooked
Tied to contractor's poker parties -hints of bribes & women
BY RICHARD SISK and JAMES GORDON MEEK
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly resigned yesterday amid allegations that he and a top aide may have attended Watergate poker parties where bribes and prostitutes were provided to a corrupt congressman.

Intelligence and law enforcement sources said solid evidence had yet to emerge that Goss also went to the parties, but Goss and Foggo share a fondness for poker and expensive cigars, and the FBI investigation was continuing.

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/415304p-350961c.html

Scandal is always a weapon FBI used to blackmail, to hit its target. They set up traps with its informants or undercover agents. (see "373. Extortion by scandal (1/12/06) 374. A covert totalitarian (1/12/06)")

Former President Nixon resigned from Watergate scandal. The "deep throat", concealed 30 years, now is revealed a FBI agent. Clinton and former Congressman Gary Condit were both hit hard by scandal of personal affair. The interns involved in the case, Lewinsky and Chandra Levy, were both from Jewish family. We know Israel tried to influence on US politicians through their aids. The recent Supreme Court nominations was fulfilled by the attack on GOP leader Frist (in Senate) and Tom Delay (in Congress) and on other GOP lawmakers by Abramoff scandal. Abramoff, I think, is an undercover agent who used to corrupt the law makers so these politicians could be extorted.

Why do I think so? Because Abramoff acted like a financial distributor. He not only offered financial aid to political campaign, he also offered financial aid to 911 hijackers. 3 or 4 hijackers (include Atta) visited casino ship SunCruze before the attack. Abramoff ran that casino company. And those 911 hijackers, at least some of them, were undercover former FBI agents and FBI informants. (see "403. Beware a global "terror" attack (4/30/06)")

In US, when a scandal happened, there used to be a purpose. So when Porter Goss resigns to a scandal, we know this time the purpose of DOJ is to take over CIA.

kathaksung

May 29th, 2006, 4:25 PM

407. Take over DOD (5/20/06)

People think the Iraq war was promoted by a group whose name is "Neocon". Among them are: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle and other hawks. But I think it's not a group but two. Cheney and Rumsfeld are GOP conservatives who work for the interest of military industry. They control DOD. The others belong to a Zionist group who are loyal to their motherland - Israel. They control DOJ. Although one group eyes on the oil in Iraq and the other one values the security of Israel, Iraq war would fit their demand both. In common interest, they walked together. We saw Bush was authorized the war power in October 2002 by both Parties. The bill was passed through under the pressure of a DC sniper shooting spree which I think was done by DOJ.

Though the Iraq is occupied, the power struggle between the two groups never stops. The latest one is the battle for the CIA. The other one is the battle for the DOD which lasts for more than two years.

In early May 2004, a bunch of torture pictures were revealed to the world. That was Abu Ghurayb abusing. US army was humiliated. Rumsfeld was under attack. But he refused to resign. As I have said, there was always a purpose behind a scandal. This one was an attempt to take over DOD.

Sometime later, in a quiet transference, former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz went for another job in World Bank. He likely would have been Secretary of Denfense if Rumsfeld had resigned. GOP Conservative realized he was a threat to Rumsfeld after Abu Ghurayb scandal and made a transference.

The Abu Ghurayb torture pictures should be another work of the Feds. They infiltrated into the prison guard system and organized this revelation. Or they have been there already as intelligence officers. The event which led me to think the Abu Ghurayb scandal was a DOJ"s plot was another event: Nick Berg's beheading tape.

Berg's beheading tape was released on May 11, less then a week after the picture releasing of Abu Ghurayb. In timing, it could be the work done by the same special team who produced the torture scandal. Many comments in Internet pointed out that the beheading tape was done inside the Abu Ghurayb. (by the room background, orange prisoner jacket, chair. When the doubt became strong, Bush suggested to tear down the Abu Ghurayb. A move I thought to demolish the evidence.)

Each case has its motive. The motive of beheading case is obvious too: Muslim are savages. It resembles the principle of Northwood Operation: "Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation."
From the view point of propaganda, who benefits from it?

I also think Nick Berg was an informant of Feds. There was information that Nick Berg knew Moussaoui. His computer password even was used by Moussaoui. What is the chance in mathematical occasion? Less than the chance to be hit by a thunder.

I alleged OKC bombing was done by the Feds in their first attempt to get the police power of Patriot Act. I alleged 911 was a government inside job. I think Moussaoui was a government prepared witness to prove 911 was done by Al Qaida not by the Feds.

Now we saw:
Abramoff was the major role in a political scandal. He related to 911 hijackers. (see #406)
Moussaoui was in OKC. He knew Nick Berg. He was the only "witness" of 911 attack.
Nick Berg was in OKC. He knew Moussaoui. He was in a beheading tape to vilify Muslim.

The spy world is big. Feds infiltrates every corner in the country.
The spy world is also small. The big cases are that much. Where agents and informants met.

kathaksung

Jun 9th, 2006, 1:44 PM

405. The turning point. (5/10/06)

In message #327." London bombing", I have pointed out in recent plots, Feds (DOJ, FBI, DEA) always planned terror attack to divert public attentions from the framed cases. All six warnings (April 2004, Mueller; June 2004, Mueller and Ashcroft; July 2004, Tom Ridge; August 2004, Tom Ridge; October 2004, FBI; January 2005, FBI) were about domestic terror.(except one was about HongKong.) First two were from the heads of DOJ and FBI. After I doubted how could DOJ take over the work of DHS to issue terror warnings, Tom Ridge temporarily gave two warnings. Then they let FBI do it in the name of plan and individual case.

Things change dramatically after February 2005. People might neglect one interesting phenomenon that they haven't been harassed by terror warning since then. The frequent orange code alarm disappeared for some time.

But I strongly feel the difference. I found the violence abroad replaced pre-terror warning. Now the events connected to the framed case were bombings in London. The air planes accidents in different countries. And the security alert was set by Interpol not FBI anymore. (see # 383. The cross murder deal (2/7/06))

FBI dominates domestic intelligence. How could it manipulate foreign events which belongs to CIA's domain? Does the DOJ expand its power? Yes, it does.

I noticed the turning point was in February 2005 when Bush nominated John Negroponte to be the Director of National Intelligence. After he is settled in, Negroponte aggressively took over many powers from the CIA.

Quote, "February 18, 2005
Axis Power, the United States, Chooses Israeli National to Head Secret Police, Forces Prepare For Further Global Conquest
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Russian Subscribers

In the latest frightening internal move by the United States against the world, we have come to learn that President Bush has appointed the Israeli national John Negroponte to be the head of all 15 of the their intelligence organizations, and which includes the CIA.

Not known to many Americans is the fact that all Jewish citizens in the United States are also citizens of Israel. To such a strange circumstance this has brought to America we can even read in this newspaper article from the Los Angeles Times about how this effects even the United States, "Galvis was attempting a feat perhaps unprecedented in American politics: holding two elected offices simultaneously in two countries. He is, after all, a citizen of both places, with a pair of passports to prove it. <http://www.globalpolicy.org/nations/citizen/multiple.htm>
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index683.htm

I have said, "Israel controls D.O.J.. D.O.J. controls FBI. And FBI keep Americans under surveillance, include the Presidents." (see "295. Who controls D.O.J.? (3/7/05)") Now it is not only the FBI. It's the whole intelligence. The recent "Goss scandal" can be viewed as a step to take over CIA.

The pre warning of "terror attack" is replaced by violence abroad. (both will justify a coming terror attack in US as Al Qaida's work not a crime of insider's.) That's the result of a power expanding of DOJ. Although American people can be relaxed for a little while not being annoyed by terror alarm, the end will be the same: another terror attack will apply on US once the Feds successfully frames a case on me. (or to justify another war in Mid-east for the security of Israel)

kathaksung

Jun 18th, 2006, 7:03 PM

Qkuote, "Voting machines removed in Grafton
By CAROL ROBIDOUX
Union Leader Staff
Thursday, Mar. 16, 2006

Grafton – No matter how you do the math, 193 "yeas" plus 198 "nays" don't add up to 369 votes.
That faulty equation — results of a warrant article vote from Tuesday's election ballot — was the first clue for Grafton town officials that something was wrong.

As a result, two voting machines used to collect ballots in the annual town and school district meetings are now in the custody of the Attorney General's Office, removed from the town yesterday, said Grafton Selectman Jennie Joyce.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Voting+machines+removed+in+G rafton&articleId=37f3b7dd-a9de-4bd8-99d4-f3a60b903754

What if the add up was correct but some "Nay"s were transfered to "yeas"?

Nobody could know the mistake because voter only knew the vote of his own.

That's how Bush could be selected President.

kathaksung

Jun 29th, 2006, 5:54 PM

A conflict poll

When NSA's phone data collecting was revealed, there were conflict polls. ABC said 63% people approve the spying. One day later, Newsweek said 57% people oppose it. A 20% difference at least. Which one do you believe?

Re: ABC

May 12, 2006 — Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464

Most Americans Oppose NSA Phone Data Program in Newsweek Poll

May 13 (Bloomberg) -- The Newsweek poll found that 57 percent of Americans think President George W. Bush's administration has gone too far in expanding presidential power. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said it hasn't gone too far.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...QxLRw&refer=us

Bloomberg reported 41% of American support NSA Surveillance. In two days, there were 22% difference to the 63% done by ABC. Is that too easy to manipulate a poll number?

Is America the home of coward and the land of covert totalitarian? Most people like themselves to be monitored?

The reality is when the government wants to justify their fascist policy, they throw out a poll number to justify it. Then they found the lie is too big to be believed, (ABC's) so they hurridly push out another one to make it more acceptable. (Newsweek's)

But I think the real number of people who have the mind of slaves (include those who monitor others) may not be bigger than 20%.

Anyway, it reveals media and poll are only mind control tools of the government. How easy it is to be manipulated.

kathaksung

Jul 9th, 2006, 4:30 PM

How Bush made himself above the law.

Bush is above the law. He won't veto a bill of new law. What he did was to issue a statement to exempt himself from that law.

Quote, " Bush ignores laws he signs, angering Congress
Specter to chair Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the practice

Bush ignores laws he signs, angering Congress
Specter to chair Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the practice

The Associated Press

Updated: 2:49 a.m. CT June 27, 2006

WASHINGTON - A bill becomes the rule of the land when Congress passes it and the president signs it into law, right?

Not necessarily, according to the White House. A law is not binding when a president issues a separate statement saying he reserves the right to revise, interpret or disregard it on national security and constitutional grounds.

Instead, he has issued hundreds of signing statements invoking his right to interpret or ignore laws on everything from whistleblower protections to how Congress oversees the Patriot Act.

"It means that the administration does not feel bound to enforce many new laws which Congress has passed," said David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues. "This raises profound rule of law concerns. Do we have a functioning code of federal laws?"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13566353/

kathaksung

Jul 19th, 2006, 3:18 PM

Poll figure is a tool manipulated by the Inside Group. They make it around 30% for Bush right now to tease you while the real approve rate may be well below 20%. So what if it's 29%? Bush still sits in his chair. It doesn't affect him a bit at all. Any time they can pull him back to 50% or higher with another "terror bombing".

But they make you gathered at the door to peep inside. Happy or sad with the change of a number. Like teasing a child with a candy, or teasing a dog with a bone.

Don't behaved like a fool. Leave it alone.

Cartesiantheater

Jul 19th, 2006, 3:33 PM

Go to read the messages in this thread posted in last December and January this year about election. Bush was selected President by Inside Group not elected by people. They select their puppet by rigged election and then justify it by fake poll.

May I ask you how the hell Bill Clinton got elected? Wait, you're probably not just an upset democrat, so I'll ask a different question:

Who is "They?" This, this "Inside Group" you speak of?

(please just answer the question- I don't really feel like going over your huge posts from last year and earlier this year)

:bondage: :abduct: :alien:

kathaksung

Jul 29th, 2006, 6:27 PM

May I ask you how the hell Bill Clinton got elected? Wait, you're probably not just an upset democrat, so I'll ask a different question:

Who is "They?" This, this "Inside Group" you speak of?

(please just answer the question- I don't really feel like going over your huge posts from last year and earlier this year)

:bondage: :abduct: :alien:

Clinton was elected in same way. He helped the Inside group taking over the FBI. But when he was disobydent, he was punished by "Lewinsky scandal".

"They" are Feds: DOJ and its belongings: FBI and DEA. The real master behind them is likely Israels.

Re: "In the struggle to control FBI, Feds also activated that weapon. In early 1993, the director of FBI was William Sessions. Obviously he was not a favor of DOJ.

Quote, "409. ...... Sessions Home After Breaking Elbow, Insists He Won't Quit; (7/19/93, L.A.TIMES)
FBI Director William S. Sessions, who refused to resign despite Justice Department findings that he abused his office, was fired on July 19, 1993 by Pres Bill Clinton, (7/20/93 L.A.Times)

Sessions was attacked by DOJ with trifles. He refused to resign. Then he was attacked by EM wave ray. He fell and broke his elbow. He wouldn't compromise. Day off he was fired by President Clinton who was obedient to the DOJ. Clinton later had fallen too in an accident when he had conflict with FBI. In all these cases, I allege the EM wave ray has been used."

kathaksung

Aug 9th, 2006, 3:15 PM

Sen Specter readies bill to help Bush expanding his fascist power to monitor people without court approval.

No check and balance for Bush if the bill past.

The secret wiretapping program is a violation to the Constitution, circumvents the law on secret-intelligence wiretaps and is clearly a unilateral power grab by the president.

Quote, "Stop the presidential power grab

Sen. Arlen Specter has crafted a bill that would rubber-stamp the program. Worse, it would essentially embed into federal law the notion that the president has the power under the Constitution to conduct electronic surveillance on anyone he wants, indefinitely and without judicial oversight, making a mockery of the right to privacy. The bill could come before the Senate Judiciary Committee as early as Thursday and must be defeated.

.... If the Specter bill becomes law, court orders will no longer be required for electronic surveillance of ordinary Americans. Because wiretaps would be secret, their targets would never find out they were monitored, even if they were deemed to be innocent. It would be up to the American people to trust the government's claims that it is only monitoring terrorists. In short, it would be an invitation to wholesale abuses of power and to the return of the politically motivated domestic spying that was commonplace int 1960s and 1970s. " (Mercury News 8/2/2006)

kathaksung

Aug 19th, 2006, 4:35 PM

Free speech in US: People can speak up their mind only when they are drunken. And have to appologise for its political incorrectness when they wake up.

Is it a crime to call a jew a jew? Here is an interesting story. Will Bush totalitarianize US?

Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Bush
Sun Apr 9, 2006 9:47AM
207.200.116.134

Lunachev recounted his stellar career, beginning as a leader of the Communist Youth, his earning of high-level doctorate degrees, and his academic career, during which he was lauded and commended on a regular basis. Apparently, Lunachev was poised for further advancement; he was even being considered for a top political position in the Kremlin as a Marxist theoretician and was well rewarded economically by the elite intelligencia. Until...until he said something very, very vital—and very, very sensitive—to the wrong person.

It seems that a high-ranking Commissar had come from Moscow to the Institute to interview Lunachev for the Kremlin post.

The Commissar, who was very pleased with Lunachev's deportment and his responses to standard questions, finally stated: "Professor Lunachev, is there any area of research or study that you have conducted that is unique or unusual?"

"Yes," Lunachev replied. "I have recently been studying the field of race and biology. I have discovered that the great Karl Marx was a Jew and so was Comrade Lenin." "Comrade Stalin was an avid reader of the Jewish Talmud, and Comrade Khruschev's real surname was Perlmutter. He, too, was a Jew."

"I believe these facts of racial history need to be reported to the Soviet people and to the world," said Lunachev, "so everyone will recognize that the government of the USSR is not, as some have alleged, anti-Semitic."

"Thank you for your time." retorted the now sober-faced and ashen Commissar. "You are dismissed."

His Unpardonable Crime
That very evening, Boris Lunachev was accosted on his way home by Soviet secret police. He was taken promptly to a waiting aircraft and flown to Rome, Italy, where he was told by Soviet Embassy officials he would forever be persona non grata (unwelcome) in his native Russia. He had become an outcast.

What was Lunachev's horrible crime, his unacceptable transgression against his Communist overseers?

"My unpardonable crime," Lunachev said to me, "was to call a Jew a Jew."

Professor Lunachev, however, considered himself fortunate, indeed. "In 1917 in Soviet Russia," he explained, "one of the first laws passed by Lenin and the Bolsheviks was a law making anti-Semitism a crime punishable by death. In Rome, the KGB bluntly told me that to call a Jew a Jew, and especially to make public the name of a crypto-Jew, one who was hiding under an assumed Russian name, was clearly an act of anti-Semitism."

And so it was that Lunachev, by no means an anti-Semite in the real meaning of the term, a man who simply wanted to give Communism's founders and pioneers their due by recognizing their racial ancestry, became a feared and marked outlaw, a dangerous subversive to be banished and persecuted.

Below: Many Communist gulag prisoners died of malnutrition. Their meager daily diet consisted of a filthy, rat feces-infested bowl of gruel and occasionally a tiny bit of black bread.

Lenin and his cohorts were satanic Jews who put 66 million to death in the indescribable Red Terror. Yet, it was a capital crime ("anti-semitism") to reveal their Jewish ethnic identity. Pictured above are four Soviet gulag camp commandants, all Jews. They are giving a Masonic hand sign (see Texe's new book, Codex Magica).

http://www.supportbordercontrols.com/page5.html

http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=208779;article=664;title=Las%2 0Vegas%20Tribune%20Message%20Board

kathaksung

Aug 29th, 2006, 5:46 PM

Bush's "Lie workshop" is working.

Quote, "Taking a swing at conventional wisdom, Princeton professors Gene Grossman and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg argued that wages for the least-skilled blue collar jobs had been rising since 1997 as outsourcing boosted productivity."
http://forums.miami.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=kr-miaminews&msg=18411.1&ctx=1

Typical pundit work for the Bush administration.

1. The job outsourcing only benefit the rich people of big company. They only pay tenth of salary to the foreign employee then they would have to pay to domestic employee.

2. There is no reason to say the job done by the domestic employee is worse than the job done overseas. Do you think US engineers are dumber than the foreigner's? Will their job pull down productivity? No, the point is the company can pay less money by out sourcing the job.

3. Though this is a very simple matter that if you give the job away, it's a loss of domestic working force and the beneficiary is the foreign receiver. this government still try to defend their "for rich people only" policy by finding some fallacy created by corruptive pundit. They thought people are tame sheep easily to be cheated.

Keep in mind those who actively spread such kind of misinformation.

schizoid_lost_boy

Aug 30th, 2006, 8:47 AM

Al Gore won, *not Bush-2* !! Bush-2 hasn't won any elections. Bush-2 is an illegal president as a result of fraud in both [2000 + 2004 elections]

schizoid_lost_boy

This is why Bush won and Gore lost in 2000! www.viciouspit.com :fencing:

Arcion

Sep 2nd, 2006, 2:51 PM

There all idiots...Me for President.... :2thumbs:

Raptor Witness

Sep 2nd, 2006, 11:34 PM

kathaksung

Sep 13th, 2006, 7:29 PM

The recent psychological operation for November election.

First it's "United 93", then it's Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center", now it's the "Path to 911", plus NYC's new released 5 years old 911 tape to let you hear victim's call for help, and 5 years old Bin Laden tape ...... All these visual and audio impact, aimed at your mind. When you repeatedly saw the collapsing of WTC and heard the voice of "help".

Now you realize what is a psyop? This govenment is a psychological expert. Bit by bit they want to remind you that Bush is correct. The prupose is for the coming mid-term election.

One thing else is to realize the true face of the media. It is only a tool of the inside group. They never ask a question about the flaw of 911 attack. Which a lot of people think is done by government insider.

kathaksung

Sep 19th, 2006, 5:09 PM

Human keep hound to protect their family against the wolf. Hound found as wolf get less and less, that they were neglected by human. So the hound trained some wolf they captured. Let these agent wolf to attack human, kill the human. Human is frightened, they give hound whatever they wanted, equipment, power ..... Now hound become master. When they need something, they let the agent wolf have an attack on human, then said, this is a long war, to protect your lives, I need warrantless surveillance, more budget..... the recent one is a torture prison. The hound repeated its demand, "This enemy has struck us, and they want to strike us again, and we'll give our folks the tools necessary to protect the country," if you don't then the hound "can not protect ourselves".

That's why we saw after 5 years, occasionally a wolf or two were captured. But hundreds of thousands of innocent people died. Killed by agent wolf of hound. There is an endless war to control people.

kathaksung

Sep 29th, 2006, 2:38 PM

Chavez is brave enough to speak up against a super power, a war criminal. At this point, he is admirable.

You can't view him from the level of some coward who shy to express their kissing ass feeling but hurry to discredit in the name of "patriot", let alone those hypocrites who dress in "gentlemen and ladies" suit in the name of "educated" but with a bloody hand of massacre in Iraq.

To find an evil is easy. Check the hands of Chavez and Bush, which is tainted with blood.
....
(Quote, "Delegates and leaders from around the world streamed back into the chamber to hear Mr Chávez, and when he stepped down the vigorous applause lasted so long that it had to be curtailed by the chair. - Guardine U.K. )

kathaksung

Oct 9th, 2006, 2:09 PM

October surprise (10/5/06)

Foely sex scandal; the cover up trouble of Hastert; Rice was pre-warned of 911 attack .... All happened years ago but surge in this October. It's a blackmail. Demos have no ability to do so. The master mind is the Inside Group. They control media and intelligence. When CIA come out to prove they have warned Condoleezza Rice about the coming terror attack two months before 911, we saw the result of the Port Goss' resignation 4 months ago. GOP lost the control of CIA. It now becomes a weapon against themselves.

What do they want this time? A law to expand their police power? (warrantless surveillance), control of DOD? (replace Rumsfelt), or bigger, war on Iran.

They need the approval of Capital Hill on all of these. Republicans control the House and Senate. So the people having trouble this time are all GOP.

Though media says Demo will win in Mid-term election, it is a propaganda. To put more pressure on GOP, to squeeze more concession from them.

So probably there will be an October surprise. Another terror attack in US, (likely a dirty bomb attack) to justify another war. Like what 911 has done. Thus, GOP will still remain in control. Anyhow, the inside group prefers a war-loving Party.

kathaksung

Oct 19th, 2006, 4:06 PM

North Korea had a nuclear bomb test two days ago. There is no reason Bush administration was not aware of it in advance. They need it. A North Korea nuclear test plus a dirty bomb attack in US will give Bush a full justification to nuke another "axis of evil" - Iran.

Feds prepare for it for a long time. At first they arrested Padilla on "dirty bomb" plot. Then we saw it in "Boston dirty bomb" case last year. It was not that they had no will to do it. It was because they had no chance. All the "dirty bomb cases" were revealed and went soured.

kathaksung

Oct 29th, 2006, 1:07 PM

Bush and Lieberman, American zionists

He starts war in Mid-east, for the security of Israel. And he wants more (Iran and Syria) Bush doesn't care for the interest of US. He let American fight and die for his master. Says it's for Freedom. He is not a Republican. He is an American Zionist like Joe Lieberman. (Who is not a Demo, too). Both party now start to realize it. The reddest state rises to slam Bush.

Re: Salt Lake City, Utah mayor slams 'dishonest, war-mongering' Bush

David Edwards
Published: Thursday August 31, 2006

During a rally held in Salt Lake City yesterday, thousands cheered Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson as he blasted George Bush as a "dishonest, war-mongering, human-rights-violating president."

Utah is considered to be the "reddest" state, showing that there is growing debate about the Iraq war even in friendly Bush territory.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Salt_Lake_City_mayor_leads_0831.html

Re: "Bush breaks rank to boost independent's bid
18 August 2006

WASHINGTON — President George Bush gave a boost to Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman's re-election bid as an independent this week by taking the rare step of refusing to endorse the Republican candidate running for Lieberman's US senate seat.

It is highly unusual for a sitting president not to endorse a senate candidate from his own party and suggests the depth of the political machinations over Lieberman's seat after his defeat in last week's Democratic primary by Ned Lamont, a well-financed challenger running on an antiwar platform.

http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A252493

kathaksung

Nov 9th, 2006, 2:09 PM

Quote, "Lieberman leads Lamont 70 percent to 9 percent among likely Republican voters, with 18 percent for Schlesinger, and 58-36 among likely independent voters. Likely Democratic voters back Lamont, 55 percent to 36 percent." (AccessNorthGA)

1. Lieberman is more a Republican than a Demo.
This proves there is no big difference between Demo and GOP. Election is only a game, democracy is a hoax. All the politicians work for one master: the Inside Group.

2. Though media said most Americans are anti- Iraq war, once it fell on their favorite candidate, the opinion won't work. Lieberman voted for Iraq war. He collaborates with Bush pretty good. It proves media works for the Inside group. Poll is only a mind control tool. When they decide to keep Lieberman on the seat, the media push out a poll to convince public that Lieberman's victory is inevitable.

The question is: Do people vote to their opinion, or vote to the poll? How can anti-war people vote for a pro-war candidate?

3. US politicians are controlled by Israel. The mid-east war is for the security of Israel. So those pro-war politicians will stay because there are more war (Iran and Syria) waiting for them to approve. Through Lieberman's case you can see:: Israel rule the world by proxy. They let Americans fight and die for them.

This is how the Inside group rules the US: They pick up politicians by rigged election. (control intelligence) And justify the election by poll. (control media.)

kathaksung

Nov 19th, 2006, 3:14 PM

447. Dirty bomb and Iran war (11/10/06)

I believe Bush administration has planned a dirty bomb attack on US and with which as justification he'll bomb Iran's nuclear plant.

1. 9/21. Quote, "Karl Rove Promises October Surprise
Ronald Kessler Thursday, Sept. 21, 2006

WASHINGTON -- In the past week, Karl Rove has been promising Republican insiders an "October surprise" to help win the November congressional elections.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/9/20/141615.shtml

2. 10/9. North Korea had a nuclear test.
10/9.(?) Debka reports that three US naval strike groups will be in the Persian Gulf opposite Iran.

3. 10/12. A warning of dirty bomb attack was posted in internet which claimed seven NFL football stadiums will be hit with radiological "dirty bombs".

4. 10/21. Three US naval task forces grouped on the sea opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf

Quote, "The American Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group joins US build-up opposite Iran

October 23, 2006 Debka

Tuesday, Oct. 17, the Iwo Jima Expeditionary Strike Group steamed into the Persian Gulf to join the US naval, air and marine concentration piling up opposite Iran's shores.

The Iwo Jima group is now cruising 60 km from Kuwait off Iran's coast. As DEBKAfile and DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported exclusively two weeks ago, three US naval task forces will be in place opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea by October 21. The other two are the USS Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group and the USS Enterprise Strike Group.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061023&articleId=3575

5. 10/26. TV news reported that China arrested two North Koreans whom tried to sell ** gram of Uranian.

6. 11/4. Taiwan's pro-independence president Chen is accused of embezzlement and faces a pressure of resignation.

Quote, "Taiwan's president implicated
His wife, aides are charged in corruption case

Public prosecutors indicted Chen's wife and two former aides Friday on charges of embezzling money from a secret diplomatic fund under Chen's control. Chen himself cannot be indicted while in office." (By Joseph Kahn New Your Times 11/4/06)

N.Korea's nuclear test and the arrest of two N. Koreans who tried to sell small amount of Uranian, plus planned dirty bomb attack in US would give Bush an excuse to attack Iran's nuclear site. It was done in collaboration with China. In early November, China got its payment. One of its most hated - the president of Taiwan: Chen Shui-Bian - was in big trouble. He faces an impeachment in legislature.

One thing ridiculous is: The nuclear test was in North Korea. Kim threatened a war with the US. Should US have its naval strike force gathered at the Sea of Japan instead of the Persian Gulf? I put a missing ring here: A dirty bomb attack is planned to take place in US. That's something Bush expected to see in his crystal ball. That was why he moved US fleet into Mid-east in advance.

Rove failed his promise of an October surprise. I think due to my revelation. I myself is one target of their's. For more than a month, I tried to stay at home to avoid a bombing. To cover up a bombing in North San Jose, the plot planned massive attacks. (seven NFL football stadiums will be hit, according to the 10/12 warning) Although election is over, the possiblility of "terror attack" is still there. Because the target of Feds is still there.

kathaksung

Nov 29th, 2006, 3:23 PM

450. Next plot (11/20/06)

Feds always attack people in the name of "terrorist". The tactic they used to use are: 1. Local terror cell such like in the cases of "Miami terror cell", "New York tunnel bombing". 2. Al Qaida warning. In each plot we always heard the threat from Bin Laden, or his vice Zawahiri. Al Jazeera did the work to broadcast their tape. 3. Terror attack in Britain. It started from last year. We saw 7/7/05 London bombing; 7/21/05 London bombing; 2006 August liquid bomb event.

2006 October surprise plot was a new invention. The role was the nuclear test of North Korea. One interesting phenomenon was in that period the other three traditional evil factor: local terror cell; Al Qaida and Britain terror story were all in vacation. Not a word was heard about them in US mid-term election. Because this time the guy on duty was N. Korea.

On 11/7, election was over. The shift for N. Korea was over. Was the dirty bomb and Iran war plan over too? It seems not.

On 11/10, Israel said it might strike Iran. The mid-east war is for the security of Israel. When puppet Bush failed to carry out an "October surprise". His master may do it by himself.

Quote, "Israel official: Strike on Iran possible
By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 10, 12:17 PM ET

The deputy defense minister suggested Friday that Israel might be forced to launch a military strike against Iran's disputed nuclear program — the clearest statement yet of such a possibility from a high-ranking official.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061110/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_iran_nuclear

At same time, on 11/10, Al Qaida and British intelligence came back to the stage again.

Quote, "Al-Qaida plotting nuclear attack on UK, officials warn
Vikram Dodd, Tuesday November 14, 2006, The Guardian

The warning comes after a speech last week by the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, on the terrorist threat facing the UK, and a rare public outing for Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the head of MI5, who warned that there were at least 30 active plots to attack Britain."

To bomb Iran's nuclear site needs a big excuse. Nothing will do it except a dirty bomb attack (or even a nuclear attack) Beware of a "Christmas surprise". The bombing gift will come from your own government but packaged in the sheet of "terrorist".

MCR Freak

Nov 30th, 2006, 6:11 PM

This is why Bush won and Gore lost in 2000! www.viciouspit.com :fencing:
what exactly am I supposed to do once I get to the website?

Cartesiantheater

Nov 30th, 2006, 6:29 PM

Clinton was elected in same way. He helped the Inside group taking over the FBI. But when he was disobydent, he was punished by "Lewinsky scandal".

"They" are Feds: DOJ and its belongings: FBI and DEA. The real master behind them is likely Israels.

Re: "In the struggle to control FBI, Feds also activated that weapon. In early 1993, the director of FBI was William Sessions. Obviously he was not a favor of DOJ.

Quote, "409. ...... Sessions Home After Breaking Elbow, Insists He Won't Quit; (7/19/93, L.A.TIMES)
FBI Director William S. Sessions, who refused to resign despite Justice Department findings that he abused his office, was fired on July 19, 1993 by Pres Bill Clinton, (7/20/93 L.A.Times)

Sessions was attacked by DOJ with trifles. He refused to resign. Then he was attacked by EM wave ray. He fell and broke his elbow. He wouldn't compromise. Day off he was fired by President Clinton who was obedient to the DOJ. Clinton later had fallen too in an accident when he had conflict with FBI. In all these cases, I allege the EM wave ray has been used."

I would ask you for evidence, but I don't want to ruin the paranoid fun...

Cartesiantheater

Nov 30th, 2006, 6:34 PM

Al Gore won, *not Bush-2* !! Bush-2 hasn't won any elections. Bush-2 is an illegal president as a result of fraud in both [2000 + 2004 elections]

schizoid_lost_boy

Can't we just say that Bush sucks, instead of wishing that he secretly controls the world from an evil underground lair of injustice?

Face it: Enough of your fellow Americans are backward and idiotic enough to vote for a man who believes that the world is less than ten thousand years old...

Now ask yourself why the US is slowly descending into hell if it's being controlled by an evil mastermind... no... we are being run into the ground by a colossal idiot, put in power by other colossal idiots...

kathaksung

Dec 9th, 2006, 2:24 PM

This very interesting and informative article by our Washington friend Jeff Steinberg fits well with our latest transmissions. It appears in the Nov. 17, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Cheney and Neo-Cons Plotting More Wars

by Jeffrey Steinberg

On March 11, 2003, as final preparations were under way for the neo-cons' greatest triumph--the invasion of Iraq--New Yorker magazine investigative reporter Seymour Hersh exposed an extortion scheme by neo-con Richard Perle, to extract tens of millions of dollars out of the Saudi royal family, in league with the infamous Iran-Contra arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi. The scheme involved a Perle company, Trireme Partners LP, which wanted a piece of the billions of dollars in homeland security contracts soon to be issued by the Kingdom. The proposal, according to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, then the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, smacked of a quid pro quo: Perle, a leading critic of the Saudi regime, would drop the propaganda barrage and the calls for regime change, coming out of his Defense Policy Board, and the Saudis would cough up.

Several senior U.S. intelligence officials recently told EIR that some higher-ups in the Saudi royal family, perhaps including Prince Bandar, who is now the national security advisor to King Abdullah, regret that they didn't take the bait and pay off Perle and his partners back in January 2003. A few million dollars might have saved them several years of headaches, as the neo-con propaganda Wurlitzer waged a non-stop regime-change campaign against them. But even more to the point, suddenly, the Saudis, along with several other Sunni Arab regimes, find themselves as strange bedfellows with Washington's neo-cons and with the Ehud Olmert government in Israel--in common cause against Iran.

A Nov. 3, 2006 teaser from Vanity Fair magazine revealed that the neo-cons are going through a major retooling--wiping their hands of the entire Iraq fiasco, and placing the blame for the failure squarely on the shoulders of President George W. Bush and his team of national security incompetents and nincompoops. In a preview of a story to appear in the January 2007 Vanity Fair, author David Rose delivered excerpts from interviews he conducted in October 2006 with some of the cream of the neo-con crap--starting with the ``Prince of Darkness,'' Perle himself, and also including Kenneth Adelman, who gained infamy by proposing that the U.S. Lovers of Iraqi faker Ahmed Chalabi, and Iraq warhawks to a man, these neo-cons are now saying that if they had it to do over again, knowing that the Bush-Cheney-Rice team was the most incompetent national security management group in the post-World War II history of America, they would have opted for an alternative to war.

In a scene worthy of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, these modern-day Brutuses have stabbed President Bush and Condi Rice in the back. As far as the neo-cons are concerned, according to a number of informed Washington sources, both Iraq and George W. Bush are yesterday's news. They are now preparing to survive the fall of the House of Bush, and are already making plans for the next confrontations: against Iran and Russia, to name the top two targets du jour.

While the Bush Presidency is flaming out in the aftermath of what has been dubbed the ``Nov. 7th Massacre,'' the neo-cons are still a formidable force inside the Republican Party, with some leading neo-con superstars, like John Podhoretz, already touting Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) as the elephant they intend to ride back into the Oval Office. Across the aisle, another crew of hardcore neo-cons is preparing to surface within the Democratic Party, should a donkey take the Presidency in 2008. It is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter era, when scores of life-long ``Scoop Jackson Democrats,'' led by Perle, Stephen Bryen, Ledeen, Gaffney, and Elliott Abrams, slithered over to the GOP as ``Reagan Democrats,'' and, after Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in 1980 over Jimmy Carter, occupied top civilian posts at the Pentagon, and cushy consulting jobs with the Reagan National Security Council.

Whichever party lands in the White House come January 2009, the neo-cons hope to be there to share in the spoils. Either way, they are busily organizing a ``Get Iran'' war alliance with frightened Sunni regimes in the Persian Gulf and Arab world and Israel--to make sure that the Bush-Cheney regime commits one more fatal atrocity--a military strike on Iran's purported secret nuclear weapons sites--before leaving office (see preceding article).

To make sure that this Iran war happens before Team Bush leaves office, the neo-cons are working through their one reliable partner remaining inside the regime--Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney's office remains Neo-con Central, with David Wurmser and John Hannah still on staff. Elliott Abrams remains the Cheney ``mole'' at the National Security Council.

According to Middle East and Washington sources, this crew was responsible, earlier this year, for trashing all efforts by the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad to reopen direct peace talks with Israel, talks that no Israeli regime prior to that of Ariel Sharon, would have flat-out rejected, no matter how much pressure came down from Washington.

More recently, they are reportedly pushing a covert weapons-smuggling operation into the West Bank, arming Fatah factions to launch what would rapidly become a full-scale civil war against Hamas. The noted retired Israeli general, Shlomo Brom, in a recent paper for the Jaffe Center at Tel Aviv University, warned that such an outbreak of communal violence among the Palestinians would be bad for Israel, provoking a likely split between a Fatah-controlled West Bank and a Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Both sides would be vying to prove that they are more effective in terrorizing Israel, through suicide bombings and rocket attacks, the general warned, and this would make life unbearable in the Jewish state.

Arab sources have added that in his recent trip to Washington, Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt was given a similar offer of ``covert military aid'' to take on Hezbollah inside that war-ruined nation, which still hasn't recovered from its 15-year civil war (1975-90). Such covert operations, aimed at provoking the neo-cons' beloved perpetual warfare throughout the Eastern Mediterranean region, do not depend on Pentagon muscle, so the departure of Donald Rumsfeld from the scene, and his replacement by former CIA Director Robert Gates, a Brent Scowcroft and James Baker III ally (and presumable a Dick Cheney enemy), does not necessarily interfere with the game.

In fact, as the Democrats prepare to take back control of the U.S. House and Senate in January 2007, they face a world map of hot-spots, all set to blow, with the slightest provocation (see accompanying map).

Several senior Washington intelligence veterans, and one regional vice president of a major U.S. defense firm, say that their greatest fear--between now and the New Year when the Democrats take the keys to Capitol Hill back--is a ``Gulf of Tonkin'' incident, a provocation covertly arranged originating from Washington, that would provide the pretext for war. The most likely target of such a scheme: Iran. The most likely architect of such an operation: Dick Cheney and his remaining coterie of neo-con troublemakers and whatever assets they have recruited from within the Special Forces community and the ``black operations'' side of the intelligence community. One burning question is whether President Bush has already signed a Presidential Intelligence Finding, authorizing these covert tricks.

On Oct. 10, 2006, the web-based magazine World Politics Watch ran a provocative story, echoing the new neo-con scheme, under the headline ``Mideast Realignment: Could Iran Unite Arabs and Israelis?'' Noting the rumors, officially denied by both sides, that Prince Bandar had secretly met in Jordan with a top Israeli government official, Frida Ghitis wrote that ``a handful of Middle East observers were not surprised to hear of possible talks between Israel and the kingdom. That's because they political transformation is fear of Shi'ite Iran by Sunni Arabs. As a result, the traditional enemy of Arabs, Israel, could gradually begin developing a subtle but powerful alliance with Sunni Muslim regimes in the Arab world.... It is this natural convergence of interests that has the potential to recast the political landscape from the traditional one of Arabs versus Israelis, which has dominated the Middle East since the late 1940s, into a Sunni vs. Shi'a alignment, with Israel and Sunni governments on the same side.''

This, Washington sources emphasize, is the latest neo-con wet dream. For years the neo-cons have been preaching their own brand of Leon Trotsky's ``Permanent Revolution,'' masked in the cry for ``democracy.'' From the start of the Bush-Cheney regime up to recent months, the number one target of these latter-day Jacobins had been what Middle Eastern historians referred to as the ``Sunni Stability Belt,'' the ruling combination of hardline monarchies and dictatorships that kept the oil patch safe and stable from the time of Sykes-Picot (1916) on. Now that the neo-con ``Shi'ite Card'' has turned Iraq into Hell-on-Earth, the flexible neo-con fantasists have modified their rhetoric, to suddenly find common cause with the very Sunni Arab monarchs and dictators whom they targetted only months ago, with such schemes as their 1996 ``A Clean Break.''

The neo-cons are shameless sophists, who have no problem distorting the truth beyond recognition--if it suits their goal of perpetual power. Will the Sunni Arab lions and the Israelis be so stupid as to walk into this trap?

Stay tuned.

James Morris <

http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=63301

kathaksung

Dec 19th, 2006, 9:16 PM

Bush wants Iraq civil war. Let Arabs fight against Arabs. That's why he refuse to have a diplomatic contact with Syria and Iran. What a cunning tactic.

Quote, "Behind the Cheney Trip to Riyadh
(Reprinted with permission of Executive Intelligence Review)
by Jeffrey Steinberg

Nov. 27, 2006 (EIRNS)-A well-placed and highly reliable source has provided the following account of Vice President Dick Cheney's Nov. 25, 2006 visit to Saudi Arabia.

The essential message delivered to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah by Vice President Cheney was that there is no basis for dialogue with Iran. The U.S. position in the region has been weakened, and therefore a new security architecture must be established, particularly in the Persian Gulf, to contain and counter Iran's growing influence. Already, NATO has been in dialogue with Qatar and Kuwait, in pursuit of closer, upgraded cooperation. Cheney proposed to establish a new regional balance of power, through a Sunni Arab alliance with Israel, to confront the Iranian threat. Cheney argued that to negotiate with Iran at this time would be tantamount to surrender. A new military organization will be built, involving the Gulf Cooperation Council states, Egypt, and Jordan. NATO and the United States will be closely involved, and Israel will be a de facto participant. These moves led by Cheney obviously aim to pre-empt adoption by the Bush Administration of any recommendations from the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, to initiate diplomatic talks with Iran.

Cheney took the lead in proposing this new security architecture. There is, at this point, a consensus inside the Bush Administration to pursue this policy. When President Bush arrives later this week in Amman, Jordan, to meet with Iraq's Prime Minister Maliki, he may also hold secret talks with several senior Syrian officials. In that meeting, President Bush will bluntly offer Syria the opportunity to break its ties to Iran and join in the emerging Sunni Arab bloc.

The approach to Syria coincides with a major effort, within Lebanon, to force Michel Aoun to break his alliance with Hezbollah, in the wake of the assassination of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Over the weekend, there was a meeting of leading Maronites, sponsored by Patriarch Sfeir, aimed at tightening the pressure on Aoun to break with Hezbollah, and join a Sunni Arab, Christian, Druze coalition to counter Hezbollah's power. Were the Syrians to accept the Bush offer (highly unlikely), they would be expected to pressure Hezbollah to disarm, as a condition for negotiations to get the Golan Heights back from Israel.

Condi Rice's planned meeting with Mahmoud Abbas and Ehud Olmert is aimed at kick-starting the Israeli-Palestinian talks. But the key to the Israeli policy will be to complete the construction of the wall, and to build similar walls of separation along the border with Lebanon. The argument is that both Hamas and Hezbollah represent extensions of Iran's influence into the areas bordering on Israel, and they must be contained. The "peace" offer being put on the table will center on these walls of separation.

Iran is already aware of these Cheney-led initiatives. While Arab governments will assume that Iran will react and respond to the attempt to create this Sunni Arab-U.S.-Israel security architecture to confront Iran by playing for sectarian conflict in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere, sources caution that Iran is taking a more sophisticated view. Recurring statements by President Ahmadinejad are calculated to instigate an Israeli attack on Iran's purported nuclear weapons sites. Iran anticipates some kind of attack on these sites-either by the United States or Israel. Iran would prefer an Israeli attack for several reasons. First, the United States has far more significant military capabilities to strike Iran than Israel does.

Second, any Israeli attack on a Muslim country would trigger a revolt on the Arab streets. Iran carefully studied the response of the population throughout the Persian Gulf and Arab world to the Israeli attacks on Lebanon this summer. They anticipate massive Arab support, across the sectarian Shi'ite-Sunni divide, for Iran, in the event of an Israeli strike.

http://www.larouchepac.com/pages/press_releases_files/2006/1206_cheney_riyadh.shtml

kathaksung

Dec 29th, 2006, 3:45 PM

Bush insiders provoked Iraq civil war. They need more troops in Mid-east for new war: War against Iran and Syria.

Robert Fisk: Seen through a Syrian lens,

'unknown Americans' are provoking civil war in Iraq

By Robert Fisk

04/29/06 "The Independent" -- - In Syria, the world appears through a glass, darkly. As dark as the smoked windows of the car which takes me to a building on the western side of Damascus where a man I have known for 15 years - we shall call him a "security source", which is the name given by American correspondents to their own powerful intelligence officers - waits with his own ferocious narrative of disaster in Iraq and dangers in the Middle East.

His is a fearful portrait of an America trapped in the bloody sands of Iraq, desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties. It is a scenario in which Saddam Hussein remains Washington's best friend, in which Syria has struck at the Iraqi insurgents with a ruthlessness that the United States wilfully ignores. And in which Syria's Interior Minister, found shot dead in his office last year, committed suicide because of his own mental instability.

The Americans, my interlocutor suspected, are trying to provoke an Iraqi civil war so that Sunni Muslim insurgents spend their energies killing their Shia co-religionists rather than soldiers of the Western occupation forces. "I swear to you that we have very good information," my source says, finger stabbing the air in front of him. "One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: 'Come back in a week.' When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn't get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up."

Impossible, I think to myself. But then I remember how many times Iraqis in Baghdad have told me similar stories. These reports are believed even if they seem unbelievable. And I know where much of the Syrian information is gleaned: from the tens of thousands of Shia Muslim pilgrims who come to pray at the Sayda Zeinab mosque outside Damascus. These men and women come from the slums of Baghdad, Hillah and Iskandariyah as well as the cities of Najaf and Basra. Sunnis from Fallujah and Ramadi also visit Damascus to see friends and relatives and talk freely of American tactics in Iraq.

"There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd - maybe a protest - and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: 'Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what's happening here.' And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car."

Just who these "Americans" might be, my source did not say. In the anarchic and panic-stricken world of Iraq, there are many US groups - including countless outfits supposedly working for the American military and the new Western-backed Iraqi Interior Ministry - who operate outside any laws or rules. No one can account for the murder of 191 university teachers and professors since the 2003 invasion - nor the fact that more than 50 former Iraqi fighter-bomber pilots who attacked Iran in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have been assassinated in their home towns in Iraq in the past three years.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12885.htm

kathaksung

Jan 9th, 2007, 3:23 PM

The so said civil war is done by US controlled Al Qaida and special commandoes.
Quote, "CIA controled Interior Ministry death squads?

Interior Ministry (130,000 are police, and 10,000 special commandoes) murder:

(Neocon) Bayan Jabr is the latest appointment
...the front man, & let the Israelis run it.

The secret commando units are a mix of Iraqis, Kurds, mercenaries, lead by Israelis.

Who Started The Death Squads?

Bush's neocons ...James Steele & Steven Casteel who were assigned to Paul Bremer, & they established the Interior Ministry's police force. CIA/Special Forces/DEA .... Previously, they established 'counter insurgents' (Death Squads) in S. America....

The Death Squads are a small core of the police. ...leaders are mossad, & the structure consists of Israeli control over mercenaries, & ex-Iraqi military.

The Shias will kill Sunnis, and the Sunnis will kill Shias. Marines will be told it's insurgents, & Muslims foreign fighters. When it's time for Iran, the Zionists will hit America w/ a false flag that points at Iran.

http://judicial-inc.biz/iraqi_death_squads.htm

kathaksung

Jan 19th, 2007, 3:27 PM

The Provocateur State:
Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi "Insurgents"--and Global Terrorism?
by Frank Morales

WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005 <http://WW4Report.com>
www.globalresearch.ca <http://globalresearch.ca> 12 May 2005 The URL of this article is: <http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR505A.html>

According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld by his Defense Science Board, the new organization--the "Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG)"--would actually carry out secret missions designed to provoke terrorist groups into committing violent acts. The P2OG, a 100-member, so-called "counter-terrorist" organization with a $100-million-a-year budget, would ostensibly target "terrorist leaders," but according to P2OG documents procured by Arkin, would in fact carry out missions designed to "stimulate reactions" among "terrorist groups"--which, according to the Defense Secretary's logic, would subsequently expose them to "counter-attack" by the good guys. In other words, the plan is to execute secret military operations (assassinations, sabotage, "deception") which would intentionally result in terrorist attacks on innocent people, including Americans--essentially, to "combat terrorism" by causing it!

WORLD WAR 4 REPORT, May 10, 2005

http://WW4Report.com

www.globalresearch.ca

http://globalresearch.ca

12 May 2005 The URL of this article is:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR505A.html

kathaksung

Jan 29th, 2007, 3:15 PM

Israel Kills US Troops, AIPAC Spies on Investigators
By Cyte
Sunday, September 25, 2005

The federal indictment says that AIPAC heads Steven Rosen (director of foreign policy) and Keith Weissman (senior Middle East analyst) sought and obtained classified information about attacks on US troops in Iraq. They also sought and obtained a classified FBI report on the Khobar Tower bombing.

Why is Israel interested in secret reports about attacks on American troops?

US Army Col. J. Denim says the Khobar attackers picked a building that was visited by Israeli advisors. Army bomb experts found residues from explosives that are only available to the US military and Israel.

Marines also believe that it is not Iraqis, but Israeli infiltrators in command and intel who are behind the ambushes.

http://cytations.blogspot.com/2005/09/israel-kills-us-troops-aipac-spies-on.html

kathaksung

Feb 9th, 2007, 1:52 PM

Bush needs insurgence

More death is needed to convince people that US has to stay in Mid-East as long as warmonger wish.

Re: "Insurgent" bombs made in USA
Then there was this one.

On May 13, 2005, a 64 years old Iraqi farmer, Haj Haidar Abu Sijjad, took his tomato load in his pickup truck from Hilla to Baghdad, accompanied by Ali, his 11 years old grandson. They were stopped at an American check point and were asked to dismount. An American soldier climbed on the back of the pickup truck, followed by another a few minutes later, and thoroughly inspected the tomato filled plastic containers for about 10 minutes. Haj Haidar and his grandson were then allowed to proceed to Baghdad.

A minute later, his grandson told him that he saw one of the American soldiers putting a grey melon size object in the back among the tomato containers. The Haj immediately slammed on the brakes and stopped the car at the side of the road, at a relatively far distance from the check point. He found a time bomb with the clock ticking tucked among his tomatoes. He immediately recognized it, as he was an ex-army soldier. Panicking, he grabbed his grandson and ran away from the car. Then, realizing that the car was his only means of work, he went back, took the bomb and carried it in fear. He threw it in a deep ditch by the side of the road that was dug by Iraqi soldiers in preparation for the war, two years ago.

Upon returning from Baghdad, he found out that the bomb had indeed exploded, killing three sheep and injuring their shepherd in his head. He thanked God for giving him the courage to go back and remove the bomb, and for the luck in that the American soldiers did not notice his sudden stop at a distance and his getting rid of the bomb.

"They intended it to explode in Baghdad and claim that it is the work of the 'terrorists', or 'insurgents' or who call themselves the 'Resistance'.

I decided to expose them and asked your reporter to take me to Baghdad to tell you the story. They are to be exposed as they now want to sow strife in Iraq and taint the Resistance after failing to defeat it militarily. Do not forget to mention my name. I fear nobody but God, as I am a follower of Muqtada al-Sadir."

The background and admission of guilt for such satanic shenanigans was clearly outlined in Frank Morales' piece on globalresearch.ca: "The Provocateur State: Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi 'Insurgents' - and Global Terrorism," by Frank Morales <<http://globalresearch.ca/articles/MOR505A.html>> clearly demonstrates how Donald Rumsfeld said he was going to do exactly what these three sorry episodes show he actually did.

kathaksung

Feb 21st, 2007, 5:04 PM

Eliminate the Iraq elites by death squad.

Quote, "Gunmen in military-style uniforms have kidnapped more than 100 men from a research institute belonging to Iraq's higher education ministry.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6146152.stm

It's obviously an operation of CIA special force, or a special force trained by CIA. No one else could do it in such way. The strategy is to wipe out the Iraq elite which possibly will become opposing party when US troops withdraw from Iraq. US is systematically carring out a holocaust.

A holocaust in Iraq in the name of war on terror.

Quote, "Soldiers say officers commanded them to 'kill all military age males' in Iraq

Associated Press

EL PASO, Texas - Four U.S. soldiers accused of murdering suspected insurgents during a raid in Iraq said they were under orders to "kill all military age males," according to sworn statements obtained by The Associated Press.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-07-21-soldiers-statements_x.htm

kathaksung

Mar 2nd, 2007, 4:22 PM

The interest of the Inside Group is still the war in Mid-east. It looks like that Demo has taken over the control of the House. That is only a decoration to cheat people: make them to believe this is a democratic country. But it is not.

Though people hate an unjust war in Iraq, the so said representatives dare not to touch it. They rant a lot, they do nothing to stop it. They dare not to impeach Bush. They dare not to pass a law to quit the war in Iraq. They even dare not to block the fee Bush request to expand the Iraq war.

As a result, Bush expand the war in Iraq by sending more troops to there.

You can also see what representatives are in the house. Most of them are the ones who had voted yes in Oct. 2003 to authorize Bush the power for the Iraq war. And those representatives work for the Inside Group, not for the interest of the people, will be sent to occupy the next presidency in 2008. That's Hillary and Edwards.

Barack Obama is only a decration. He won't have a chance. He is the one who voted no to the Iraq war. He is not a favorite of the Inside Group.

This is how the Inside group rule this country: They select politicians by rigged election. (they control the intelligence) and make people believe the election result by fake poll. (they control the media)

lady-t

Mar 2nd, 2007, 4:39 PM

again----what does this have to do with bush's presidential campaign.. stay on topic.

kathaksung

Mar 12th, 2007, 5:31 PM

Quote, "Why is the US press silent on Brzezinski’s warnings of war against Iran?
By Barry Grey in Washington DC
3 February 2007

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The major national newspapers and most broadcast outlets failed even to report Thursday’s stunning testimony by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter, is among the most prominent figures within the US foreign policy establishment. He delivered a scathing critique of the war in Iraq and warned that the policy of the Bush administration was leading inevitably to a military confrontation with Iran which would have disastrous consequences for US imperialism.

Most significant and disturbing was Brzezinski’s suggestion that the Bush administration might manufacture a pretext to justify a military attack on Iran. Presenting what he called a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran,” Brzezinski laid out the following series of events: “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in, quote/unquote, ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran...”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f03.shtml

kathaksung

Mar 22nd, 2007, 3:35 PM

The Sunni Muslim in Iraq is anti-Israel. Saddam had used his Scuds missle to attack Israel in the First Gulf war.

The Shiite Muslim in Iraq is anti-Israel. It's religion ally - Iran - hates Israel too.

Either one takes dominent in Iraq will be an Islamic government which will be hostile to Israel. If they are in civil war, then they have no time and ability to take care of the business of Israel. Who is benefit from Iraq civil war?

kathaksung

Mar 31st, 2007, 6:42 PM

Who wants war?

On March 13th Representative Pelosi was booed when she addressed the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee when she said she wants to pull the troops out of Iraq ("The Hill"). A few weeks ago we saw that Jewish Hollywood Directors are turning against Hillary. Why? She is against the war. Israel feels that if the US pulls out of Iraq, it will be a threat to its security.

The point is that AIPAC does not represent the vast majority of American Jews who support the Democratic Party and want our troop out of that conflict. However, there organization has tremendous economic and political power and its seems they would like to destroy the hopes of the party to win in 2008.

http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?messageID=700151228&#700151228

kathaksung

Apr 11th, 2007, 6:32 PM

US and Israel intelligence are carring out a policy to provoke a civil war in Iraq. The purpose is to let Iraqis to kill Iraqis. Well, the terrorist is there, withdraw troops is cut and run. Bush says. So Bush can have US troops stay in Mid-east until the next war - a war on Iran or Syria.

That's why we saw Al Qaida (a special force to act on behalf of US intelligence) launched attack at Shiite shirine to started the conflict between Sunni and Shiite. We already know the 911 attack was in the name of Al Qaida which gave Bush the justification to start the war in Mid-east - war on Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US and Israel intelligence controlled death squad of Iraqis government which is used to kill Sunni people. On the other hand they controlled insurgence and Al Qaida to kill Shiite civilians by car bombing. That is how they created a civil war in Iraq.

kathaksung

Apr 22nd, 2007, 3:54 PM

Iraq war is for the security of Israel. The longer the war, the safer the Israel. That's why they need an insurgence to drag the US troops in Iraq as long as possible.

Where the car bomb came from?

Here is another case that US Army plant it to provoke a civil war in Iraq.
Quote, "He got suspicious because the Americans call him ask if he is already in the market

Iraqirabita tell a story about an Iraq interpreter working in an American military base was sent to the city by his bosses to by computer hardware, he took the car but he stopped by friends.

He got suspicious because the Americans call him every now and then asking him if he already in the market, he parked the car in the middle of nowhere and answered yes, few minutes after that the car exploded. The guy left the country after that to Turkey.

For more information in English on American black budget special operations money being used to set up so called suicide bombing, below

http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive2006/fallujah_baghdad_devastated_cities.htm#us_special_ operations_suicide_bombing

kathaksung

May 2nd, 2007, 7:37 PM

So many tricks to set up so many bombings. Many bombing aimed at Iraqi police. The heavy casualty of police can irritate a revenge from police to the insurgence (Sunni people). A way to escalate the civil war.

Khadduri's report <http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA505A.html> went like this:

Told him to report to an American military camp

"A few days ago, an American manned check point confiscated the driver license of a driver and told him to report to an American military camp near Baghdad airport for interrogation and in order to retrieve his license.

The next day, the driver did visit the camp and he was allowed in the camp with his car.

He was admitted to a room for an interrogation that lasted half an hour.
At the end of the session, the American interrogator told him:

'OK, there is nothing against you, but you do know that Iraq is now sovereign and is in charge of its own affairs.

Hence, we have forwarded your papers and license to al-Kadhimia police station for processing.

Therefore, go there with this clearance to reclaim your license.
At the police station, ask for Lt. Hussain Mohammed, who is waiting for you now.

Go there now quickly, before he leaves his shift work".

The driver did leave in a hurry, but was soon alarmed with a feeling that his car was driving as if carrying a heavy load, and he also became suspicious of a low flying helicopter that kept hovering overhead, as if trailing him.
He stopped the car and inspected it carefully.

He found nearly 100 kilograms of explosives hidden in the back seat and along the two back doors.

The only feasible explanation for this incident is that the car was indeed booby trapped by the Americans and intended for the al-Khadimiya Shiite district of Baghdad.

The helicopter was monitoring his movement and witnessing the anticipated "hideous attack by foreign elements".

(http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KHA505A.html )

kathaksung

May 12th, 2007, 2:28 PM

A stage of "hanging on", waiting for the next super 911 for another war.

How can Bush has US troops stay in Iraq? When he has excuse of "maintain security" there. That's why US and Israel intelligence and pentagon manipulate Al Qaida and insurgence and death squad to create a riot over there.

Why Bush wants a surge when "civil war" is created by himself? Remember the time he needs surge was the time when he plans to attack Iran. He needs more troop for the Iran war.

The Capital Hill resolution is only a show to convince American people they are in "democracy". Does it do anything on Bush? No. He still has troops added up in Iraq. They hang on at a "veto". All the players now are waiting for is another super 911 attack. Once that happens, Bush again will be a hero and Americans will lose more money and lives and civil rights to that Inside group.

loganosborne

May 12th, 2007, 6:44 PM

kathaksung please tell me what your above post has to do about the election campaign between Bush and Gore?

kathaksung

May 22nd, 2007, 1:30 PM

kathaksung please tell me what your above post has to do about the election campaign between Bush and Gore?

Why Bush won and Gore lost? Because this country is controlled by the Inside Group. Election is only a cover up. Bush won because he will to sell his soul to the devil - that is to allow a false flag attack (911) taking place in US so he could activate the war in Mid-east. I try here to perspect the truth of US politics and how Bush (Inside Group) blinds people on Iraq war.

Did you find a straw in your harassing mission?

----------

Quote, "Is Bush’s War Winding Down or Heating Up?

The Coming Attack on Iran

By Paul Craig Roberts

Many commentators believe that the failure of the neoconservatives’ “cakewalk war” has destroyed their influence. This is a mistaken conclusion. The neoconservatives are long time allies of Israel’s right-wing Likud Party and are part of the Israel Lobby in the US. The Israel Lobby represents the views of only a minority of American Jews but nevertheless essentially owns both political parties and most of the US media. As the neoconservatives are an important part of this powerful lobby, they remain extremely influential.

Neoconservatives have called for World War IV against Islam. In Commentary magazine Norman Podhoretz called for the cultural genocide of Islamic peoples. The war is already opened on four fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iran.

’Is Bushs War Winding Down or Heating Up?

<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16105.htm>

kathaksung

Jun 2nd, 2007, 4:38 PM

486. Old wine in new bottle (5/23/07)

The April plot went sour which I think connected with the VT massacre and planned Attorney General Gonzalez's stepping down. The planned Gonzalez's stepping down does not relate to the firing of 8 Federal prosecutors (it's only a cover up) but related to taking the responsibility for the crime Feds would have committed in April plot. (unreasonable search and possible death in the operation.)

As usual, Feds quickly planned a new plot. The marking date for April plot is 4/17. 12 days later, they created a highway collapse on 4/29. (see "482. The collapse of Highway 580. (5/3/07")
The tactic is old: to kill my parents in San Francisco (of course, looked like natural disease), force my sister taking underground Bart from Oakland to San Francisco. Create a "terror bombing" in the tunnel. Thus they could fulfill an "elimination" and "distraction" in one operation.

Feds had carried out this tactic several times by closing the Bay Bridge. I was aware of this because each time they shut down the Bay Bridge, it always coincidence to the alleged framed case. Since Bay Bridge is the second busiest bridge on the globe, Feds each time could only close it for two days (week ends). That helped me to know the exact action day they planned. This time they closed a main exit highway from the Bay Bridge, hoping it could be closed for long period. After the highway collapse, the minister of Federal transportation, Mary Peters visited the spot and promised to pay the full cost. The recover time was set for six month (half year). Wah, DOJ got six months for their plot, I thought.

But that incident made impact on economy. Expert estimate that before the highway reopening, the economy would have a loss of 4 million to 6 million each day. Then, Governor Schwarzenegger announced the rebuilding would be done in two months. He set the date at June 27. What made him choose that date, I don't know. It coincidence with Tony Blair's date of stepping down. It seems the Inside Group having its fiscal year ending at that month.

Yesterday, the newspaper said the highway 580 will reopen on 5/25. From 6 months to less than a month, the difference is too big. A 500% error margin is not professionals should make. The 6 months estimation at first may reflect the Feds desire. They want a long period for their plot. Less than a month is actual time needed for reconstruction. It may also reflect that Feds abandoned their original plan. I have immediately revealed the oil tanker crash was a designed accident of Feds on May 3 - four days after the highway collapse.

Then what will happen next? Still the old tactic. Terror attack and war to distract. After a silence for more than a month, such news come out again, from Cheney, Bush and Muller.

Re: "On Carrier in Gulf, Cheney Warns Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: May 11, 2007
BRUSSELS, May 11 - Vice President Dick Cheney used the deck of an American aircraft carrier just 150 miles off Iran's coast as the backdrop today to warn the country that the United States was prepared to use its naval power to keep Tehran from disrupting off oil routes or “gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/world/middleeast/11cnd-cheney.html

Re: "Pres. Prepares for Possible D.C. Nuke

14-May-2007
Recently Whitley Strieber speculated that another terror attack might be on the way-a nuclear attack , this time. On May 10, President Bush issued a national security directive ordering all agencies to prepare for a surprise attack on the Federal government.

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=6203

Re: 'FBI's Mueller: Bin Laden Wants to Strike U.S. Cities With Nuclear Weapons

Ronald Kessler
Tuesday, May 15, 2007

http://www.newsmax.com/popunders/mainpop_internal.htm

Re: "Confirmed: Photos Show London Dirty Bomb Tests

New photograph confirms devices going up throughout London are to track spread of gasses
Steve WatsonInfowars.net
Monday, May 21, 2007

We hope that the latest dirty bombs tests do not "go live" in an amazing coincidence such as happened on 7/7/05 when scheduled drills of exploding trains actually happened at the same time in the same places.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IssuesAndAlibis_The_Forum/message/18871

kathaksung

Jun 12th, 2007, 1:25 PM

Quote, "Lieberman: U.S. Should Weigh Iran Attack

The Associated Press
June 10, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq.

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."
."

To me Lieberman wants more American soldiers to fight and die for the security of Israel. That's why he could be selected to be senator even his Demo constituents abandoned him.

Israel controls US intelligence through DOJ. They select politicians by rigged election. Thus hijacked the US.

kathaksung

Jun 22nd, 2007, 4:10 PM

Fake democracy

It looks like a system of democracy, it is only a covert totalitarian under the cover of "freedom".

Both parties work for one master: the Inside group. When people get angry with one party then the Inside Group let the other party go to perform on the stage so people thought there is a change and relaxed then.

But when the issue relates to the interest of the Inside group, whichever the party is, they would vote for the interest of the Inside Group not for the people. Iraq war is an unjust war, Demo joined GOP passed the Iraq war Authorization Bill. Now though Demo knew it's against people's will, they still released the funds too for another war - Iran war.

We saw in May, the House suddenly ended a confrontation with Bush administration, released the Iraq military fund. Bush got what he needed for Iran war. The expense for Iraq operation is about 56 billion each year. This time Bush got more than 100 billion, almost double than ordinary expense. What is extra money for? It's for Iran war.

You see, Demo not only released military fund, they also covertly approved for another war. The only person who doesn't know is the public.

Of course, they always have an excuse. This time it is: support our troops.
You can oppose Bush's policy. It is democracy. But you must support our troops. It is patriot. Anyway the troops are under Bush's command. So support our troops is actually support Bush. It is tricky.

Who played as a dummy in this game?

kathaksung

Jul 2nd, 2007, 3:28 PM

XDR TB

A lawyer who travelled the world with incurable TB. My comment on this issue is:

After six years experience with Bush, you still don't know this is another intimidation of the government?

Extreme Drug Resistant TB = SARS = Bird Flu = incurable disease = death.

When Bush will start another war in Mid-east, to deal with those who will oppose him there will be a bio-war. Either you are in domestic or a foreigner, they can send a patient (in the name) to where you live to spread the disease (For TB case).(For Bird Flu case, they spread it in the name of migrate birds.) Bird Flu is too old to intrigue your nerve, so they let out a new one: incurable TB.

All the virus, I think, came out from pentagon's bio war laboratory. Once the Iran war started, (or Lebanon or Syria), you prepare for a qarantine from government in the name of some incurable disease.

This case is just a prelude of the coming "terror attack" and war.

Jul 2nd, 2007, 3:36 PM

I think this thread should have been moved to conspiracy long ago, at least some of it anyway. Its well beyond current events.

ApocalypticEnvoy

Jul 2nd, 2007, 5:30 PM

I think this thread should have been moved to conspiracy long ago, at least some of it anyway. Its well beyond current events.

Eli Lilly was part of the conspiracy. Prozac sales have skyrocketed since 2000. I wonder if Kath can hold on for 18 more months or get committed. As someone stated earlier, moveon already.

kathaksung

Jul 12th, 2007, 12:11 PM

Jimmy Carter thought Bush administration the worst in history.

Quote, "I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history."

But an incompetant candidate is just the favorite of Inside group.

Because an efficient candidate who can run this country in better way must have at least some of common sense, a feeling of honor, respect of law and the Constitution and a little bit of morality. In such condition, he would not waste money and lives for an unnecessary war. Let alone to start false flag attack to rip the civil rights from people. (Patriot Act)

That's why they put an incompetent puppet on the seat. Bush willingly sold his soul to that group. He did everything other people dare not do to favour that Group. He made a mess on US economy and politics. He is an idiot because he doesn't care for his own reputation. He abandons basic value of moral and civil right.

The foundation for Bush's rule is "war" and "terror attack". We saw how Bush got his power by activating 911 attack, (justify the war in Mid-east) anthrax attack (push the pass through of Patriot Act) DC sniper shooting spree (push the pass through of Iraq war authorization). To maintain his rule, he intimidate people with continue Terror threat. (by its tool - Al Qaida)

Remember, the cost of all these were paid by American people with their tax money and their lives. The beneficiary is a little interest group. Israel got its state security; Pentagon (DOD) got fat budget; Feds (DOJ) had expanded police power; oil group and military industry got big business.

Beware of another terror attack and new war Bush will activate to save his group and himself.

kathaksung

Jul 22nd, 2007, 12:55 PM

In 2005, so said Al Qaida bombed the Shiite shrine in Samarra which provoked the conflict between Sunni and Shiite. This month, the remnant of the shrine was bombed again. This time Iraqis see more clearly when they start to realize the true face of the US. That US activates false flag "terror attack" to provoke a civil war.

Quote, "Iraqis Accuse U.S. Of Bombing Shrine -
thebulletin <http://I.webring.com/profile?y=thebulletin>reply </forum?forum=winwithoutwarweb;submitforummsg;title= Re+%28571%29%3A+Iraqis+Accuse+U%2ES%2E+Of+Bombing+ Shrine>
Both Sunni and Shias Iraqis have accused the U.S. of being behind the bombing the al-Askari shrine in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia religious sites, in order to further incite sectarian violence between the two rival Islamic groups and provide a justification for the American surge.

Sunni Muslim leaders belonging to the Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq have questioned how terrorists could get access to the site which has been heavily guarded by about 60 Federal Protection Service forces and 25 local Iraqi police and closed to the public since it was attacked last year in a bombing which many also believed to be the work of US forces.

Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Full article - http://prisonplanet .com/articles/ june2007/ 130607Shrine. htm
http://s.webring.com/forum?forum=winwithoutwarweb;did=571

kathaksung

Aug 1st, 2007, 3:19 PM

I didn't hear any Al Qaida threat from Iraq before March 2003. Now Bush needs a big army there to fight against them. Where are these Al Qaida from? Which one created them, war on terror or Iraq war?

kathaksung

Aug 12th, 2007, 1:04 PM

Psychological Operation

When Bush needed war in Mid-east, he activated 911 attack, in the name of Al Qaida. We saw the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

When Bush needs more troops for war on Iran, he did it by surge, in the name to fight Al Qaida in Iraq. This is why Al Qaida bombed Shiite shrine in Sammara and bombing Iraqi civilians in the market: to provoke a civil war in Iraq so Bush can have an excuse to surge.

The troop is ready, but he still needs an excuse to start the war. Beware of another super 911. This time it is likely a nuclear bombing, he'll take the advantage of "shock and awe" to start another war.

That's why you have Chertoff's gut feeling, double reward of Bin Laden's head, new Bin Laden's tape, London's bomb case, all are psychological operation for the coming false flag terror attack. It's that simple.

kathaksung

Aug 22nd, 2007, 1:42 PM

Who support insurgence?

In message "458. The execution of Saddam (12/30/06)", I wrote:

"You can view Saddam as a shrine of Sunni Muslim. Kill Saddam is to pour oil on a fire. It will flame a civil war.

What excuse the Neocon uses to have US troops staying in Iraq? Insurgence and riot. Although some people said Iraq war is like Vietnam war, it is not.

There were two big countries: Soviet Union and China behind the Vietnam. It was their support of weapons and economic aids which helped North Vietnam to win the war. There was none such support for Iraq. Iran and Syria, are much weaker and smaller than Soviet Union and China then. They themselves know they are the next target of the Neocon. They dare not to offend US by supporting the Iraq insurgence. To stay in Iraq, Neocon try to make a mess in Iraq - they need a civil war of Iraq. "

Then who support the insurgence and militias the weapon they need? To my analysis, there is only one suspect: US. which has motives and ability.

The following news proved it's no others than US supplied weapon to the Iraqi insurgence and militias, though media use the word of "missing".

Quote, "ABC News: 190,000 AK-47s Sent to Iraq Are Missing

A young boy aims an AK-47 assault rifle during clashes between ... The Pentagon cannot account for 190,000 AK-47 rifles and pistols given to Iraqi ...

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3450946

ANITH

Aug 22nd, 2007, 11:36 PM

And here are some of the companies he paid-off being revealed.
WASHINGTON — National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell pulled the curtain back on previously classified details of government surveillance and of a secretive court whose recent rulings created new hurdles for the Bush administration as it tries to prevent terrorism.

McConnell's comments _ made in an interview with the El Paso (Texas) Times last week and posted as a transcript on the newspaper's Web site Wednesday _ raised eyebrows for their frank discussion of previously classified eavesdropping work conducted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. Among the disclosures:

_ McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help.

_ He provided new details on court rulings handed down by the 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves classified eavesdropping operations and whose proceedings are almost always entirely secret. McConnell said a ruling that went into effect May 31 required the government to get court warrants to monitor communications between two foreigners if the conversation travels on a wire in the U.S. network. Millions of calls each day do, because of the robust nature of the U.S. systems.
_ McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up."

_ Offering never-disclosed figures, McConnell also revealed that fewer than 100 people inside the United States are monitored under FISA warrants. However, he said, thousands of people overseas are monitored.

McConnell's comments were a dramatic departure from the government's normally tight-lipped approach to disclosing any information about how it spies on electronic communications _ some of its most sensitive and costly work. The FISA court's activities are particularly protected.

Even as he shed new light on the classified operations, McConnell asserted that the current debate in Congress about whether to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will cost American lives because of all the information it revealed to terrorists.

"Part of this is a classified world. The fact that we're doing it this way means that some Americans are going to die," he said.

McConnell was in El Paso last week for a conference on border security hosted by House Intelligence Chairman Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas. The spy chief joined Reyes for an interview with his local paper.

At the end of the interview, McConnell cautioned reporter Chris Roberts that he should consider whether enemies of the U.S. could gain from the information he just shared in the interview, Roberts said. McConnell left it to the paper to decide what to publish.

"I don't believe it damaged national security or endangered any of our people," said El Paso Times Executive Editor Dionicio Flores.

McConnell appeared days after Congress passed a temporary law to expand the government's ability to monitor suspects in national security investigations _ terrorists, spies and others _ without first seeking court approval in certain cases. The highly contentious measure expires in six months.

After Sept. 11, Bush authorized the terrorist surveillance program to monitor conversations between people in the United States and others overseas when terrorism is suspected. Until January, no warrants were required. But as the Democratic Congress took over, the Bush administration decided to bring the program under the oversight of the FISA court.

McConnell said the court initially ruled that the program was appropriate and legitimate. But when the ruling had to be renewed in the spring, another judge saw the operations differently. This judge, who McConnell did not identify, decided that the government needed a warrant to monitor a conversation between foreigners when the signal traveled on a wire in the U.S. communications network.

McConnell said the government got a temporary stay on the ruling, but it expired at the end of May. "After the 31st of May, we were in extremis because now we have significantly less capability," he said.

At the same time, the intelligence community was wrapping up years of work on a National Intelligence Estimate on threats to the homeland _ an analysis that is considered its most comprehensive judgment. It found the threat was increasing, McConnell noted.

Because he sees FISA as a major tool to keep terrorists out of the country, McConnell said he pressed Congress to change the law.

McConnell's interview raised concerns at the Justice Department, where senior officials questioned whether the intelligence chief had overstepped in discussing the secret FISA court.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse referred questions to McConnell's office, where his spokesman Ross Feinstein declined to comment.

In a phone interview, Michigan Rep. Peter Hoekstra said he never felt at liberty to discuss some of the information that McConnell did, including the FISA court rulings, but the executive branch gets to decide what is classified. "What I think it tells you is how important they believe it is to get this FISA thing done right," said Hoekstra, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

He said McConnell is hurt by the personal attacks on him during the FISA recent debate. Among them, Democrats have alleged that he negotiated in bad faith and was too beholden to the White House.

In addition, Hoekstra said he thinks McConnell wanted to push back on accusations that the legislation gave the attorney general unprecedented new powers. "I think they felt they had to become more public," he said.

kathaksung

Sep 12th, 2007, 3:12 PM

About McConnell's fallacy:

504. Fence (8/23/07)

Last night my wife came back from her Peru trip. It means the first phase of August plot was over. In that phase, my relatives and I were the murder targets. The ending signal is the noise from back yard this morning. A fence has been installed hours ago. The synchronization of the events is amazing. It starts from my petition to Senators on 8/8. I think the new passed law is a violence to the Constitution. The response from Feds was swift. Next day -

8/9. ** Yard work team appeared in next house. Landlord informed me he would remodel the yard and would change the fence which separated our yards. I agreed.
** At night my wife came home said she would have a tour to Peru. (the first phase of plan starts)

8/11. Both yard workers and neighborhoods disappeared. Leave it an empty house. I then realized the seriousness of that fence affair. Feds determined to carry out the plot. They didn't leave any chance for me to recall the agreement for dismantling the fence.

8/15. ** Yard work team appeared in neighbor's yard. The fence was dismantled.
** An 8 magnitude earthquake took place in Peru. (The action of first phase starts)

8/16. ** My wife and my relatives left for Peru.
** Yard workers used my yard as their access path. I rebuked them.

8/13 and 8/18. I wrote messages #502 and 503, alleged the August plot.

8/22 ** At night my wife came back from Peru.
8/23 ** In the morning, yard worker appeared and the new fence is installed. (The first phase ended)

During the period of my wife's trip, my backyard was left open. Feds created an excuse to access my backyard. I had to write #503 to announce I didn't allow those workers access my backyard.

The fence actually can't stop a burglar. The fence is only a legal symptom to protect your privacy. Anyone surpasses it without permission is illegal. The Fourth Amendment is same thing. It's a fence of law to protect us from unreasonable search and arrest.

I thought that first phase action was a swift response from Feds to my petition on surveillance without warranty. The coincidence is when that first phase ended on 8/22, next day (this morning) Mercury News has an article about that case. "Intelligence director reveals surveillance facts, figures" (S.J.M.N. 8/23/07)

The fallacy are:
1. Quote, "McConnell confirmed for the first time that the private sector assisted with President Bush's warrantless surveillance program. AT&T, Verizon and other telecommunications companies are being sued in federal court in San Francisco for their cooperation. "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help."

The point is these companies don't work with the permission of the Court. Should they practice to the law or they are outlaw?
The point is can the firm be immune from the crime they committed because it is big and famous and facing a bankruptcy? Will thus encourage more violence?
The point is the Feds has an unrestricted power now. They behaved like an outlaw. It makes firms, individuals, organizations all obeyed to it not to the law. That is dangerous to society.

2. Quote, " McConnell said it takes 200 hours to assemble a FISA warrant on a single telephone number. "We're going backwards," he said. "We couldn't keep up.""

All court cases (civil or criminal) take a long time to file. Even to buy a house, there is a long time to fulfill the procedure. It must be dealt with great care. It also takes a long procedure to recruit an agent for FBI. Have you ever heard they complain "We couldn't keep up."?

Nothing hinders Feds to do the eavesdropping. There is a three days grace period for them to re-submit the application. So they can do it any time when they think it's urgent.
What Feds want now is to be an outlaw. Do whatever they want.

Warrantless surveillance means you lost the protect of the Fourth Amendment. Without the protection of that fence, you may face unreasonable search and arrest. The 4th Amendment is set up against the corruptive law enforcement agent. Now the corrupt agent disable the law, they can intrude your house to plant and frame the case. If you still want your civil right, stand up to protect that fence.

http://www.webslingerz.com/jhoffman/congress-email.html