General discussion of US politics

Archive for January, 2011

AMERICAN RETREAT FROM GLOBALIZED ECONOMY DEMANDS NATIONALIZATIONS:

AMERICAN RETREAT FROM GLOBALIZED ECONOMY DEMANDS NATIONALIZATIONS:

The new United States policy, of “buy American” is essentially
unethical. A large portion of the goods that the USA buys abroad are
in fact produced by American owned subsidiaries. They are companies
that Americans invested in, that America owns a large share of, or
that America itself owns completely and wholly.  A “buy American”
policy, threatens to become a closing down of their own aggressive
global expansion of ownership and control, severing the fledgling and
already established,  necessary business relations that are vital to
the thriving and growth of that investment and ownership, by denying
what are their own companies their promised markets and reversing
their own globalized growth patterns.  While that denial might be
forced, the impact threatens to be massive and long lasting, and there
are few potential solutions to the killing field of dead manufacturing
and distribution facilities, worldwide, where America is increasingly
threatening to introduce a policy of mass murder.

Clearly the nations faced with that added and new difficulty will have
to nationalize many of  those subsidiaries and salvage what economic
worth and assets that they can, before Americans closes them down, as
having become too unprofitable,  in their continued mass economic
retreat to an increasing reversal to a growing isolationism within
their own borders. As America retreats from its failures of
responsibility for what is becoming failed economic development and
the many negative effects of American economic colonialist
expansionism, someone will have to take over, and pick up the pieces,
where America is now bugging out. Clearly only national governments,
in many of the affected nations, have that capability, in a global
economy that is becoming so severely disappointed and oppressed by the
total failure of American promise and the growing failure of American
economic policy and its ideology.

One of the major justifications for nationalization of now failing, or
about to fail, American owned internationally situated manufacturing
assets is the increased freedom to operate outside of American
business practices and policy constraints that comes from being freed
from their increasingly blood thirsty and desperate investors,
infusing potential new viability and opening additional more
innovative avenues of business practice and relations that can keep
some of the victims alive, even if not as thriving,  in the impending
American slaughter of their own economic children, now increasingly
unwanted and unwelcome in what is becoming seen as a severely
overpopulated economic world.

It is also completely unacceptable  that America bought up and
established ownership in foreign enterprises, simply to end up
pushing  them to the floor and beating them out of business, in trying
to reassert itself as an exporter of manufactured goods, rather than
an importer of foreign produced products.

We know that protectionist strategies are inevitable, and that an
increasingly desperate America will turn to protectionist strategies,
having provided no other meaningful or viable direction out of the
economic quagmire, but then we also know that nationalization of
American manufacturing subsidiaries abroad, is also an inevitable
consequence of that protectionism and its continued domino effect
results. Many countries will have no choice, but to step away from the
American capitalist experiment, acknowledging its abject failure, and
taking over control and management of the economic orphans left in its
wake.

Robert Morpheal

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

Attorney General Holder: Hold Bush administration accountable

Attorney General Holder: Hold Bush administration accountable

By Richard B. Sanders

Special to The Times

Editor’s note: Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Sanders made
news in November when he yelled "Tyrant!" at then-U.S. Attorney General
Michael Mukasey during a Federalist Society dinner in Washington, D.C.
Here he explains his thoughts about the Bush administration’s attitude
about the rule of law.

If the rule of law means anything, it must mean at least this: Those who
act or are in positions of authority in our government are subject to
the same laws as everyone else. This has been the American tradition,
the crown jewel of a free society, a government of laws, not of men.

However, under the Bush administration, we learned we can no longer take
the rule of law for granted.

If the top law-enforcement officer of the United States, our attorney
general, chooses not to enforce the criminal law against government
agents and officials committing crimes in the name of national security,
the "rule of law" is rendered a quaint phrase shorn of substance.
Unfortunately, our past attorney general, Michael Mukasey, and his
predecessor, Alberto Gonzalez, did just that.

Mukasey even advised President Bush not to issue pardons since — Mukasey
reasoned — no crimes were committed. He claimed that "national security"
superseded other laws. This is the road to tyranny and a trap for the unwary

If no prosecutions are undertaken, Mukasey’s claim will have prevailed
and history will imply no prosecution was possible because no crimes
were committed.

Some take the position that we should forgive and forget or "look
forward," as President Obama ambiguously suggested. But "looking
forward" without prosecution of past crimes brings the unsettling
question of why prosecute future crimes of the same nature? After all,
all criminal prosecutions are prosecutions for past acts, not future
ones. And, make no mistake, these are real crimes: criminal prisoner
abuse, criminal violations of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act
involving illegal wiretaps, as well as grave violations of numerous
treaties and conventions, which are war crimes as defined by federal
statute.

Inaction sets a troubling factual precedent, if not a legal one. And as
the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in his dissent
to the 1944 Korematsu opinion, which allowed the imprisonment of loyal
Japanese Americans during World War II, the opinion may be discredited,
but it is still lying about "like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of
any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need."

Our new attorney general, Eric Holder Jr., is in the position not only
to bring justice and accountability to past acts but to secure our
future by making sure the full truth is known about past criminal
conduct, and those individuals responsible are tried in a court of law.
Truth and consequences are called for unless we are prepared to let
history repeat itself. One could not say it better than Holder did in
his address to the American Constitution Society last summer:

Although we did not respond to 9/11 by imprisoning Muslim Americans, our
government authorized the use of torture, approved of secret electronic
surveillance of American citizens, secretly detained American citizens
without due process of law, denied the writ of habeas corpus to hundreds
of accused enemy combatants and authorized the use of procedures that
both violate international law and the U.S. Constitution.

Now, I do not question the motives or patriotism of those responsible
for these policies. But this does nothing to mitigate the fact that
these steps were wrong when they were initiated and they are wrong
today. We owe the American people a reckoning.

Yes, Mr. Holder, you are right. Is it now time you stand by the words so
well spoken in your confirmation hearing: "No one is above the law."
Richard B. Sanders is a justice of the Washington Supreme Court.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008699563_opinb03sande…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (14)

Some call for Bush administration trials

Some call for Bush administration trials
Want ex-leader accountable on Iraq war

By Joseph Williams, Globe Staff  |  February 3, 2009

WASHINGTON – Like others bundled against the cold on Inauguration Day, a
few dozen people along the Pennsylvania Avenue parade route were
determined to catch a glimpse of President Obama. But they wanted him to
see their simple, unmistakable message spelled out on black-and-white
signs, adding a call-and-response chant for emphasis.

"Who’s our president?" one shouted.

"Obama!" the group answered.

"Who’s going to arrest Bush?"

"Obama!"

Though the new president probably didn’t notice them, the protesters
holding the "ARREST BUSH" placards illustrated a thorny problem he will
have to confront, perhaps sooner rather than later.

While most viewed Obama’s inauguration as a fresh start for the country,
many on the political left – among some of Obama’s most ardent
supporters – want to hold George W. Bush accountable for what they
believe were illegal activities in office, including misleading Congress
on the Iraq war, spying on Americans, and permitting coercive
interrogations that critics consider to have been torture.

While Obama has tried to discourage talk of such a politically explosive
investigation, the issue surfaced during the confirmation hearings for
Eric Holder, the president’s choice for attorney general.

Though the full Senate confirmed Holder last night on a 75-to-21 vote,
the debate had a partisan edge. Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont
Democrat, scolded a small group of Republicans – Texas Republican John
Cornyn, in particular – who threatened to block the nomination unless
Holder promised he would not prosecute intelligence agents who
participated in harsh interrogations.

Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said Cornyn wanted Holder to
"turn a blind eye to possible lawbreaking" before knowing whether it had
actually occurred. "No one should be seeking to trade a vote for such a
pledge," Leahy said.

Last month, Holder told the committee that waterboarding – a harsh
interrogation technique the Bush administration apparently endorsed for
use against top terror suspects – was torture. In theory, the attorney
general has the discretion to take action or appoint an independent
prosecutor if there were evidence of criminal wrongdoing. But politics –
the appearance of partisanship, public opinion, and the president’s
agenda – would almost certainly play a role.

Last month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the top congressional Democrat,
told Fox News Channel that she favors investigations of the Bush
administration and is open to prosecutions, depending on the evidence.
And House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers of Michigan plans to
set up an independent criminal probe to find out whether Bush himself
broke any laws by invading Iraq and authorizing aggressive interrogations.

Meanwhile, a recent poll indicates that about half of all Americans
surveyed believe Bush should be investigated for potentially illegal
activities – more fuel for grass-roots activists who are keeping up the
pressure with protests, petitions, and websites.

While few expect such prosecutions to go forward against Bush
administration officials, let alone the former president, the continuing
demand for investigations could become an increasingly larger headache
for Obama.

During last year’s campaign, Obama did not rule out prosecutions, but in
one interview also emphasized the difference between what he called
"really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal
activity."

In an ABC News interview on Jan. 11, Obama said while no one is "above
the law," "my orientation’s going to be to move forward." On his second
day as president, when Obama issued orders banning torture and closing
the Guantanamo Bay detention center, he also scrapped every legal
opinion and memo that justified harsh interrogations, secret CIA
prisons, and detentions of terror suspects outside the judicial system.

Legal scholars say that bringing criminal charges against Bush, former
vice president Dick Cheney, and other senior Bush administration
officials would be a complex, highly-charged undertaking, and a
conviction – even with strong evidence – would be an uncertainty at best.

"Based on what is in the public record thus far, the allegation that
would have the most teeth is the one having to do with torture," said
Stephen Vladeck, an American University constitutional law professor.
"There is a clear prohibition under both domestic and international law
on torture. It clearly applied on the executive branch. And it’s pretty
clear that the executive branch disregarded it on several occasions."

Bush or Cheney probably would cite as a defense their administration’s
expansive view of presidential power under Congress’ grant of authority
for Bush to pursue the war on terror "with all necessary and appropriate
force." They could also invoke the decisions of President Lincoln, who
suspended the writ of habeas corpus – guaranteeing a suspect’s right to
the courts – in the Civil War.

Vladeck said Bush administration officials would probably argue that
they authorized "enhanced interrogations" to protect the country from
terrorist attacks, and that "protecting the country is more important
than protecting the right of the individual person."

Brian Walsh, a senior legal research fellow at the conservative Heritage
Foundation, said charging the former president and his advisers is a
long shot at best because any prosecutor would "have to have an
abundance of evidence to start with" that they willfully broke the law
against the country’s best interests.

Though some liberals believe prosecuting Bush would recalibrate the
limits on presidential power, Walsh said it would set a dangerous
precedent and hamstring Obama and future presidents who might need that
authority in a crisis. Moreover, liberals who vilify Bush as "Satan
incarnate" are dragging the nation closer to a "banana republic" where
political victors use their new power to destroy their enemies, he said.

"We used to think that when somebody lost an election, it was serious
reproval," Walsh said.

That echoed Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking
Republican on the Judiciary Committee that voted, 17 to 2, to send
Holder’s nomination to the full Senate.

After a private meeting with Holder about his nomination, Specter said
the nominee had given him a satisfactory answer: possible prosecutions
of those suspected of using torture would be decided on a case-by-case
basis, and any potential defendant would have White House legal opinions
on the issue as a viable defense. "I do think that President Obama has
the right approach when he said that it is preferable not to look
backwards but to look forwards," Specter said in a press conference last
week. "If every administration started to reexamine what every prior
administration did, there would be no end to it. This is not Latin America."

Yet many on the left argue the Bush White House operated with such
secrecy and impunity that only full accountability – including
punishment – can restore the governmental balance of power, renew the
public trust, and show that not even the president is above the law.

In a radio interview earlier this month, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a
Rhode Island Democrat, acknowledged why Obama, dealing with two wars and
a financial crisis, might want to move on. But "we in Congress have an
independent responsibility, and I fully intend to discharge that
responsibility," he said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/02/03/some…

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (9)

Rasmussen: "Following the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic stimulus bill proposed by Democrats, the GOP has narrowed the gap this week on the Generic Congressional Ballot"

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_ameri…

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Following the unanimous Republican opposition to the economic stimulus
bill proposed by Democrats, the GOP has narrowed the gap this week on
the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveys found that the
Democrats’ lead is down to four percentage points–42% of voters said
they would vote for their district’s Democratic candidate while 38%
said they would choose the Republican.
A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead.
While support for the Democrats is unchanged since last week, support
for the GOP is up three percentage points. The 38% who say they’d vote
for a Republican is the GOP’s highest level of support since early
December.
Voters not affiliated with either party favor the GOP by a 36% to 26%
margin, while 28% are not sure.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

!## Glenns Anal Escapades13v3

!Wow Here it is http://mmfactor.blogspot.com/ download all you want
for free dont just take what you need take what you want pics videos
movies and braille porn.  And he gave a sign the same day, saying,
This is the sign which the Lord hath spoken; Behold, the altar shall
be rent, and the ashes that are upon it shall be poured out.’

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (21)

Jimmy Carter Supports New 9/11 Investigation

Members of We Are Change Ohio got a chance to meet up with the former
President Jimmy Carter while he was in Chicago on his latest book
signing tour. We asked him if he would support the victim’s family
member’s demand for a new investigation into 9/11. We took into
consideration that Carter was under the advisement of Bzrezinski who was
a key contributor to the Taliban. However Carter has been critical of
the Bush administration for years and stated that Bush exploited 9/11.
So we figured there would be no harm in asking him. Some video was
unable to get due to the aggressive secret service however we were
successful in getting a positive response from the former president and
recording the full audio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO2UGVp–ak&e

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (15)

Recep Tayyip Erdogan a true world leader, in a sea of corrupt ZIONIST stooges.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1060310.html

"The world has not respected the political will of the Palestinian people,"
the premier told The Washington Post. "On the one hand, we defend
democracy and we try our best to keep democracy in the Middle East,
 but on the other hand we do not respect the outcome of . . . the ballot box.
Palestine today is an open-air prison. Hamas, as much as they tried,
could not change the situation. Just imagine, you imprison the speaker
of a country as well as some ministers of its government and members
of its parliament. And then you expect them to sit obediently?"

"There had not been any casualties in Israel since the cease-fire of June
 2008," Erdogan said. "The Israelis claim that missiles were being sent
[from Gaza]. I asked Prime Minister Olmert, how many people died as a
result of those missiles? …The United Nations Security Council makes a
decision, and Israel announces it does not recognize the decision.
I’m not saying that Hamas is a good organization and makes no mistakes.
They have made mistakes. But I am evaluating the end result."

"We have a serious relationship [with Israel]," Erdogan told the Post.
 "But the current Israeli government should check itself. They should
not exploit this issue for the upcoming elections in Israel."

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/10896838.asp?gid=229

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

"Knews" is Not a Jew – that's 4 sure !

n Jan 30, 10:11 pm, knews4u2c…@yahoo.com wrote:

> ing

> Our readers have long been familiar with the Torah position; let us re-
> announce it boldly and clearly:

> And most of all, we await that great day when G-d’s glory will be
> revealed in the entire world, and there will be peace for all of
> humanity. Amen.

could this is be a scientology conspiracy ?
Arabs – Al Quada – Palestine uniting 4 Jesus ?

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (3)

ESTABLISHING REAL VALUE ECONOMICS

ESTABLISHING REAL VALUE ECONOMICS:

China is at a stage in its development where it is best situated to be
the leading example of real value economics. In fact it is in the
greatest need for implementing a real value economy. Everything has to
begin somewhere, and it is far more difficult for western capitalist
nations to understand and implement, even in baby steps rather than
giant steps, large economic changes. This is particularly true when it
comes to beliefs and prevailing practices. Western conservatism stands
in the way, lacking other forms of experience, to facilitate real
positive, progressive, changes. So we turn to China as the greatest
hope of the modern world for economic salvation.

There remains some hope for the Russian Federation and other areas of
the world that have too quickly and too enthusiastically jumped onto
the American band wagon of cost accounting and profit margin based
American style capitalism, with all its proven problems and its proven
inability to resolve real social, economic, and science of needs based
problems. Its inability and its stalwart unwillingness.

At first it seems very difficult to understand an economics of real
value. It is so very different from what we are so very accustomed
to.

First we have to understand the real value of anything in terms of a
real human need for whatever is assigned that real value. The need has
to be identified and adequately understood. This requires some careful
thoughtfulness, and some compassion for humanity, which are virtues
that are less common nowadays than they need to be. The tendency to
reduce needs to their most basic, and those who fight against needs
based economics by claiming that a real value economy will beat the
people down to an animal level of brute existence. Not true. Believing
in that argument can make it into the truth, but reality need not, and
does not, support that particular belief. Modern science, rather than
ideology, can provide us with a good understanding of the many needs
of a human life, and of a human being who is adequately or well
provided for. Unscientific use of ideology will only get us into
deeper trouble as it has in the past. Communism, as it existed in the
past, and various religions, tend to promote a very unscientific and
radical reduction of needs, but often that is due to those system
themselves becoming the tools of the enemies of real value.economics.
Nevertheless it is best to abandon former ideologies and to turn to a
purified, fact based, freed from ideological assumptions, science for
understanding human needs.

Let us return to the simple example of flour, used for making bread.
The real value of the total number of units of flour that are to be
consumed by the people is the actual need for that many units of
flour. Real value is real need. In some instances this is the most
difficult principle in today’s world to really understand and accept.
Nevertheless it is the most important in any real economy that has any
real future. It breaks through the fog of economic illusions that have
caused so very much suffering in the world.

Now we can determine that X (whatever the number is) units of flour
are needed. In a real value economy we know that flour is very
important. More important than many other things. Now we can assign
the land, and other material resources, and the manpower labor that is
necessary to make X units of flour. In a real value economy there is
no need to consider the cost per unit. It is irrelevant. Only the
actual need matters. Some land is very good for growing grain, and
that land requires less other materials and less labor. It is used
first, if there is no greater need for its use than the growing of
grain. That land is not enough to grow enough grain to make X units of
flour. Now we need to use land that is less able, and needs more
materials and work to grow grain. That is perfectly good. We can now
go ahead and do that. Still not enough grain. Alright, now we can
reclaim very bad land, even arid desert, for growing grain. It takes
more materials and labor, but that does not stop us. We can grow
grain.

We will leave foreign trade for some of that flour, or grain to make
it, out of the picture for now. We can return to that problem later.

Now what happened to the cost of grain and flour ?  No problem. The
cost for flour is fixed in terms of a fixed token price in the market.
Every person can buy flour for the same reasonable price, unaffected
by cost and profit issues. Those latter issues are paper issues and
unreal. We are not concerned with those. They do not really exist.
Every person is given enough tokens, enough income, to meet their
needs based on the token prices that are assigned. You see how this
works so very nicely compared to price and wage battles and
fluctuations ?  The price of flour will never change. The wages, equal
to everyone, will never change. What changes, instead, is the
assignment of materials and labor to various needs, to produce what is
of real value, so that there is always enough flour available at that
token fixed price. Nothing could be simpler, but that simplicity will
work perfectly, unlike the cost accounting and profit margin, rising
and falling commodity pricing, of the capitalist system where it
actually becomes impossible to produce enough grain or flour to meet
the real need for it, because of paper accounting.

When you apply this same simple principle to other needs, and even
more importantly to large projects of importance to the people and
their future, you find that what needs to be done, in terms of real
need and therefore real value, can always be done. There is never any
obstacle to doing what needs to be done.

Grain and flour are very simple, but water purification, sewage
treatment, restoring the quality of rivers and lakes, equipment to
stop air pollution, is more complex. Yes, but in fact simple. You see
the need. It is obvious. A government that sees the need simply needs
to assign the materials and labor to meet that need. That includes
scientific, technical, and production labor. All of these receive
provision for their needs in the same manner as the grain and flour
making workers. There is no difference, despite differences of talents
being employed to the task. The most important thing to consider is
that all of that equipment that needs to be made and work that needs
to be done, for the sake of people’s real needs, can be done. Cost is
irrelevant. We are assigning the material and labor resources to do
it, and to do it right away, as soon as it can be accomplished. We
have no need to wait for little bits of “profit” to accumulate as
piles of paper value, in hopes that someday some of that might be
chosen to be used to provide for those neglected needs. The factory
making pipe for irrigation does not worry about the cost of the pipe,
but does its best to make the best possible pipe, as productively as
is reasonably possible, to meet needs, without excessive pressure that
damages quality and worker’s health. There is no need to push that
hard. Costs and profits are largely irrelevant. What is important is
the best quality pipe and a reasonable pace of work which also must
conform to human needs. Pipe is now available to where it is needed,
according to a hierarchy of managed and planned needs. The irrigation
project to reclaim desert, for growing grain, might be the top
priority, because grain and thus flour are known to be in short
supply. The reclaiming of desert is also a high priority, for future
quality of life and the usefulness of that land. The cost and profit
of reclaiming that desert no longer stands in the way of it being
done. It can be done without that consideration.

For the factory producing pipe, freed from excessive concerns with the
cost of production, the acquiring of the very best equipment to stop
water and air pollution is no longer a concern. They can get it as
soon as it can be built and installed. In fact they must get it, and
as quickly as possible. Similarly better sources of cleaner energy.
The cost of the energy no longer matters. We know that pipe is
necessary. We know, from the science, that some means of energy
production are cleaner, better for the environment, and better for
people, but they might be expensive in a capitalist system when it
comes to calculating the cost of pipe. No matter. Forget that. The
pipe factory can now have the best system for producing energy. The
cost does not matter. Only human needs being met, now and in the long
term, and the need for making pipe, as real value to meet the need for
it, matters. Now we begin to understand the effects of a real value
economy.
We can do what is necessary to make the lives of people better,
faster, and to avoid problems that might not be solvable in the
future, if we do not solve them today. Only a real value economy can
accomplish that. A paper value economy, tied up tight in accounting of
costs and profits cannot ever do that. We must have a real value
economy.

Now, if we consider fishing as an interesting example. Over fishing of
the sea is becoming a problem. Some species are endangered, and fish
stocks in the sea are being greatly reduced. It is the lowest cost
method of getting fish. In a capitalist system a net in the sea is
preferred because of cost and profit, as long as something can be
caught. Forget that. While some fishing of the sea continues we can
help to solve the problem in a real value economy, in a way capitalism
has been unable to do. We can farm many different species. We only
need the materials and labor to build and run the farms. The cost is
irrelevant. We need fish. So we can build farms to help assure a good
supply of fish for the future. Science will help to find the best ways
and the best species to farm in that way. Again, the token price of
fish will not change. When someone goes to market fish will be
available to them, at the same price, without concern as to the cost.
Cost does not matter anymore.

Now, as to foreign trade. Ah, what a huge problem. Not really. We no
longer care about the paper values of things that we trade to the
world. Howeve,r, we must be very careful to produce what is of real
value to trade, even if we are pressured to do differently. That is
because everything we make has an effect on people, and takes material
and human resources to make. If we make the wrong things, we waste the
materials and resources. Even if the “devil” asks for it, and wants to
give us large piles of paper for it, that does not mean that we should
make that deal with the “devil” and make and supply those things. We
must consider what else is really needed and thus of real value,
first, within the priority of needs. We must never be seduced to
making what is not of real value, while what is of real value fails to
be made. This failure is exactly what is happening in the chase for
paper value. Making what is not really needed, of no real value,
within a legitimate  science of needs only places excessive stress on
environment, society and quality of life. It also places undue stress
on other material and labor resources, when we have to solve the added
problems that that essentially worthless production causes. We need to
solve the environmental and human problems of production and work that
is of real value first, not dissipate our resources, and lack
resources, for what is of little or no real value. This approach will
always better the quality of life, reduce rates of illness and related
costs, and alleviate human suffering. The opposite attitude of making
anything that brings paper value, regardless of real value in terms of
needs, will always prove essentially destructive and damaging to the
present quality of life and even more to the future quality of life of
the people.

A real value economics also cares for the human need for leisure,
cultural activity, the arts, adequate intellectual stimulation, sports
for those who desire them, and no longer seeks to consume people
completely as if they are merely costly production machines that must
be driven harder and harder to reduce costs and improve production and
thus profits. That one dimensional way of life comes to an end in real
value economics. No one has to be a slave of profit, but everyone
needs to contribute to what is of real value for the collective needs
of all the people.

This includes having to work too hard, too long, without real leisure,
robbed of the enjoyments of human life, and thus needs not being met,
because of the false necessity, imposed by the paper value economy, to
reduce costs and to improve profits. In a real value economy we do not
have to push for constantly reduced costs, ever increasing production,
and constantly worrying about profit margins. While we need to utilize
production capacity for real value production, with reasonable
efficiency, we do not have to work under the extremes of pressure that
a cost, and profit mentality so brutally imposes. Where pressures to
produce are in fact valid can be in terms of producing real value, but
then that has that reward to the well being of the people and can be
better justified but even then planning should strive to reduce that
pressure by improving capacity for meeting real value needs so that
people do not become pushed beyond reasonable limits, in terms of the
science of needs.

That does not stop us from farming fish and trading them to Germany in
exchange for machines made in Germany that we have a real need for. If
Germany still persists in its failure to adopt a real value economy we
can use the prevailing “price” of fish in Germany to close our deal
with Germany, in trade for the going “price” of the machines.
Similarly as to any other commodity that Germany believes it needs in
exchange for what can be obtained there that will meet our needs.
Eventually Germany will join in, into a globalized real value economy.
It is inevitable, even if it might take a long time, and some
difficulties, to get there. In the meantime we have to make some
compromises, but those compromises do not necessarily have to have bad
effects on our own real value economics where real value is
implemented. In fact we have a trading advantage because we can trade
at Germany’s price for fish, without considering the cost of the
production of those fish. That cost does not matter to us. We simply
produce fish in the best way, of the best quality, and we can plan to
produce more fish than the local need, to trade with Germany for
something that they have invented, and have, that we do not have the
material and human means to manufacture. We have no problem in that.

Remember too that in a real value economy there is never any worry or
reality of unemployment, lack of means to what is needed by people.
That is because cost is no longer a factor. Profit is no longer a
factory. Anything that is deemed to meet needs can be done. There is
no end of something to do that needs to be done. It can all be done is
the most fundamental difference.

Robert Ezergailis

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Did Osama Bin Laden ever say he was behind 9/11 ?

Tuesday, January 8, 2008
FBI wary of Osama ‘confession’

Though Bush indignantly defended the authenticity of a videotape
released in December 2001 in which someone who resembled bin Laden
confessed to masterminding the 9/11 attacks, the FBI apparently doesn’t
think much of the tape. Neither does it give much credence to
"confessions" made by al Qaeda operatives to CIA interrogators, it would
seem, and hence gives the 9/11 commission narrative little support.

These points are the more disturbing in light of the recent disclosure
by Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton that the White House had signed off on a
decision to prevent the 9/11 commission from questioning al Qaeda
captives. That disclosure came in a statement by the former commission
co-chairmen, who assailed the CIA for obstructing the 9/11 probe by
hiding and then destroying videotapes of al Qaeda captives being
interrogated.

In 2006, the Muckraker Report stirred up a little tempest when it
disclosed that the FBI’s "Most Wanted" website failed to list bin Laden
as a suspect in the 9/11 attacks and quoted FBI spokesman Rex Tomb as
explaining there is no hard evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks.

The Washington Post’s Dan Eggen responded with a story saying that the
omission was "fodder for conspiracy theorists" and quoting Tomb as
saying the FBI had "no need" to add the 9/11 attacks. A lawyer was then
quoted to the effect that since bin Laden hadn’t been indicted [the
administration wanted "enemy combatants" kept away from U.S. juries]
that perhaps the FBI was uncomfortable with listing him as a suspect.

If you’ll go to the FBI "Most Wanted Terrorists" site today, you’ll see
that the situation hasn’t changed. The FBI refuses to list bin Laden as
a suspect in 9/11. He’s a suspect in the bombing of two American
embassies in Africa prior to 9/11 and generally in terrorist attacks
around the world.

Not one word about 9/11.

http://fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/

Assuming Tomb was initially quoted accurately — and the Post does not
say otherwise — one is left to the conclusion that the FBI does not
consider the Pentagon’s videotape as "hard evidence."

Bush played up this tape thus: "For those who see this tape, they’ll
realize that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no
conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilization."

Questioned about the tape’s authenticity, Bush responded, "It is
preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored. That’s a
weak excuse to provide a weak support for an incredibly evil man."

U.S. forces allegedly stumbled across the tape in the city of Jalalabad,
Afghanistan.

Yet, the FBI seems not to regard this Pentagon intelligence find as
"hard evidence" of bin Laden’s connection to the 9/11 attacks.

Knowing how Bush and Cheney were eager to override objections of
intelligence professionals and use rigged Pentagon intelligence linking
Saddam to WMDs and 9/11, it seems quite likely that the White House and
Pentagon steamrollered the FBI into playing along with a false 9/11
narrative but that the bureau is letting anyone with eyes to see know
that it really doesn’t buy that story.

The Muckraker links are http://teamliberty.net/id267.html and
http://teamliberty.net/id293.html

A useful roundup of tape facts and observations can be found at
http://whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

Similarly, if the FBI believes there is a lack of hard evidence linking
Osama to 9/11, then the bureau does not accept CIA reports of the
confessions of Osama lieutenant Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other al
Qaeda operatives. It has been reported that the FBI pulled its agents
from CIA interrogation sessions over concerns about the value of
statements obtained under duress.

On the other hand, it should be noted that the FBI "played the game" by
not throwing cold water on what was obviously planted evidence to
identify the purported 9/11 hijackers.

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (7)