Heh . . .good 'ol Claudia sent this in!

NUF SAID!

Contributed by:

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^< href="mailto:cddstarcats@yahoo.com">cddstarcats@yahoo.com


*****************************************************************
"Whatever is born, or done, in this moment of time has the qualities of this moment in time." -- C.G. Jung

"Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!" -- "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951 w/ Michael Rennie & Patricia Neal. This phrase stopped Gort, the Robot from destroying the world.

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

Text of editorial calling for Rumsfeld to go

Publications catering to the military will call Monday for secretary’s ouster

MSNBC

Updated: 7:12 p.m. PT Nov 3, 2006

This editorial will appear in the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times on Monday under the headline “Time for Rumsfeld to go”:

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.

© 2006 MSNBC Interactive

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15552388/

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^< href="mailto:cddstarcats@yahoo.com">cddstarcats@yahoo.com
Fax (eFax): 310 564-0417

*****************************************************************

"Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!" -- "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951 w/ Michael Rennie & Patricia Neal. This phrase stopped Gort, the Robot from destroying the world.

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

"If love is a drug, then I guess we're all sober..." Everybody's Gone To War, by Nerina Pallet
http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=31531

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

October 26, 2006 In a stealth maneuver, President Bush has signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), will actually encourage the President to declare federal martial law (1). It does so by revising the Insurrection Act, a set of laws that limits the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States. The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331 -335) has historically, along with the Posse Comitatus Act (18 U.S.C.1385), helped to enforce strict prohibitions on military involvement in domestic law enforcement. With one cloaked swipe of his pen, Bush is seeking to undo those prohibitions. Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2), which was signed by the commander in chief on October 17th, 2006, in a private Oval Office ceremony, allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to "suppress public disorder." President Bush seized this unprecedented power on the very same day that he signed the equally odious Military Commissions Act of 2006. In a sense, the two laws complement one another. One allows for torture and detention abroad, while the other seeks to enforce acquiescence at home, preparing to order the military onto the streets of America. Remember, the term for putting an area under military law enforcement control is precise; the term is "martial law." Section 1076 of the massive Authorization Act, which grants the Pentagon another $500-plus-billion for its ill-advised adventures, is entitled, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." Section 333, "Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law" states that "the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of ("refuse" or "fail" in) maintaining public order, "in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy." For the current President, "enforcement of the laws to restore public order" means to commandeer guardsmen from any state, over the objections of local governmental, military and local police entities; ship them off to another state; conscript them in a law enforcement mode; and set them loose against "disorderly" citizenry - protesters, possibly, or those who object to forced vaccinations and quarantines in the event of a bio-terror event. The law also facilitates militarized police round-ups and detention of protesters, so called "illegal aliens," "potential terrorists" and other "undesirables" for detention in facilities already contracted for and under construction by Halliburton. That's right. Under the cover of a trumped-up "immigration emergency" and the frenzied militarization of the southern border, detention camps are being constructed right under our noses, camps designed for anyone who resists the foreign and domestic agenda of the Bush administration. An article on "recent contract awards" in a recent issue of the slick, insider "Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International" reported that "global engineering and technical services powerhouse KBR [Kellog, Brown & Root] announced in January 2006 that its Government and Infrastructure division was awarded an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to support U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities in the event of an emergency." "With a maximum total value of $385 million over a five year term," the report notes, "the contract is to be executed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers," "for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) - in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs." The report points out that "KBR is the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton." (3) So, in addition to authorizing another $532.8 billion for the Pentagon, including a $70-billion "supplemental provision" which covers the cost of the ongoing, mad military maneuvers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other places, the new law, signed by the president in a private White House ceremony, further collapses the historic divide between the police and the military: a tell-tale sign of a rapidly consolidating police state in America, all accomplished amidst ongoing U.S. imperial pretensions of global domination, sold to an "emergency managed" and seemingly willfully gullible public as a "global war on terrorism." Make no mistake about it: the de-facto repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act (PCA) is an ominous assault on American democratic tradition and jurisprudence. The 1878 Act, which reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both," is the only U.S. criminal statute that outlaws military operations directed against the American people under the cover of 'law enforcement.' As such, it has been the best protection we've had against the power-hungry intentions of an unscrupulous and reckless executive, an executive intent on using force to enforce its will. Unfortunately, this past week, the president dealt posse comitatus, along with American democracy, a near fatal blow. Consequently, it will take an aroused citizenry to undo the damage wrought by this horrendous act, part and parcel, as we have seen, of a long train of abuses and outrages perpetrated by this authoritarian administration. Despite the unprecedented and shocking nature of this act, there has been no outcry in the American media, and little reaction from our elected officials in Congress. On September 19th, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that 2007's Defense Authorization Act contained a "widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation's governors." Senator Leahy went on to stress that, "we certainly do not need to make it easier for Presidents to declare martial law. Invoking the Insurrection Act and using the military for law enforcement activities goes against some of the central tenets of our democracy. One can easily envision governors and mayors in charge of an emergency having to constantly look over their shoulders while someone who has never visited their communities gives the orders." A few weeks later, on the 29th of September, Leahy entered into the Congressional Record that he had "grave reservations about certain provisions of the fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill Conference Report," the language of which, he said, "subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military's involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law." This had been "slipped in," Leahy said, "as a rider with little study," while "other congressional committees with jurisdiction over these matters had no chance to comment, let alone hold hearings on, these proposals." In a telling bit of understatement, the Senator from Vermont noted that "the implications of changing the (Posse Comitatus) Act are enormous". "There is good reason," he said, "for the constructive friction in existing law when it comes to martial law declarations. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy. We fail our Constitution, neglecting the rights of the States, when we make it easier for the President to declare martial law and trample on local and state sovereignty." Senator Leahy's final ruminations: "Since hearing word a couple of weeks ago that this outcome was likely, I have wondered how Congress could have gotten to this point. It seems the changes to the Insurrection Act have survived the Conference because the Pentagon and the White House want it." The historic and ominous re-writing of the Insurrection Act, accomplished in the dead of night, which gives Bush the legal authority to declare martial law, is now an accomplished fact. The Pentagon, as one might expect, plays an even more direct role in martial law operations. Title XIV of the new law, entitled, "Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Legislative Provisions," authorizes "the Secretary of Defense to create a Homeland Defense Technology Transfer Consortium to improve the effectiveness of the Department of Defense (DOD) processes for identifying and deploying relevant DOD technology to federal, State, and local first responders." In other words, the law facilitates the "transfer" of the newest in so-called "crowd control" technology and other weaponry designed to suppress dissent from the Pentagon to local militarized police units. The new law builds on and further codifies earlier "technology transfer" agreements, specifically the 1995 DOD-Justice Department memorandum of agreement achieved back during the Clinton-Reno regime.(4) It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq, and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections, the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect, declare himself dictator. Source: (1) http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/091906a.html and http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200609/092906b.html See also, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, "The Use of Federal Troops for Disaster Assistance: Legal Issues," by Jennifer K. Elsea, Legislative Attorney, August 14, 2006 (2) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill+h109-5122 (3) Journal of Counterterrorism & Homeland Security International, "Recent Contract Awards", Summer 2006, Vol.12, No.2, pg.8; See also, Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," New American Media, January 31, 2006. (4) "Technology Transfer from defense: Concealed Weapons Detection", National Institute of Justice Journal, No 229, August, 1995, pp.42-43.

:: Article nr. 27769 sent on 27-oct-2006 03:18 ECT

:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=27769

:: The incoming address of this article is :
towardfreedom.com/home/content/view/911/

:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^

cddstarcats@yahoo.com
Fax (eFax): 310 564-0417

*****************************************************************
"Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!" -- "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951 w/ Michael Rennie & Patricia Neal. This phrase stopped Gort, the Robot from destroying the world.
"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow
The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.
"If love is a drug, then I guess we're all sober..." Everybody's Gone To War, by Nerina Pallet
http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=31531
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)
"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

War, by Nerina Pallet
http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=31531
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)
"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

Dangerous banned liquids given to homeless
http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/08/21/dangerous-banned-liquids-given-to-homeless/

By: Michael Hampton
Posted: August 21, 2006 9:53 pm
What happens to your toothpaste, shampoo, lipstick, water, and everything else you throw away at the airport because of stupid new airport security theater rules which say that water bottle might be carrying liquid explosives?

In Eugene, Ore., some of those items are making their way to the area?s homeless.


Charley Harvey, assistant executive director of the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County, has been picking through the discarded potential liquid explosives at Eugene Airport since last Tuesday. He took every bottle of shampoo and shaving cream, but passed on the brandy and the Vampire Blood.

Officials at the St. Vincent de Paul Society of Lane County spotted a salvage opportunity. They figured that the discarded items at the Eugene Airport were a way to provide homeless people with perfectly good products. Beginning Tuesday, they began collecting the banned goods for distribution at their First Place Family Center in Eugene.

?We?re always looking for shampoo, toothpaste and other toiletries to help homeless families,? Harvey said. ?It usually takes us a week or two to get this much (donated by the public). Hopefully, it?s an ongoing windfall.? ? Eugene Register-Guard

City officials, who own the airport trash bins, allowed Harvey to collect whatever he could find useful, so that the city wouldn?t have to throw it out.

Wait a minute, throw out tons of potentially dangerous materials? Isn?t the reason they?re banned from planes the fact that they could be explosives? One wonders now if that?s even a fact at all.

But that?s just the city airport trash bins. Anything seized at a federal security checkpoint goes through a different procedure: First, the TSA screener pours the seized liquid into a single large bin, mixing it with all the other liquids seized at the checkpoint that day. Then the mixed liquids and their containers are hauled away and disposed of by a contractor.

Hold on just a second. We all heard on the news that the danger was that terrorists would mix liquids together to create explosives such as the highly volatile TATP. Now, it seems, the Terrorist Support Agency is doing the terrorists? job for them.

?Yeah, that?s pretty stupid,? wrote Stephen VanDyke.

TSA screeners are so dedicated to this plot that they willingly risk their lives by handling potentially explosive liquids as roughly as if they were nothing more than harmless toiletries. Or maybe they?ve all been brainwashed by the KGB. Or aliens! It might be true, you know.

After all, what other explanation could there be? That all those things really are harmless, that the government?s just trying to put on a big show? That?s crazy talk. ? No Treason

Congratulations, you figured it out. Everyone ? including the TSA ? knows all of these liquids are perfectly harmless. This is pure security theater, meant to make people ?feel good? about flying in the face of a highly overblown one-in-a-million ?threat.?

The worst part is the American people are lapping it up like dogs.




Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
To make an appointment email: cddstarcats@yahoo.com
Fax (eFax): 310 564-0417

*****************************************************************

"Gort! Klaatu barada nikto!" -- "The Day The Earth Stood Still," 1951 w/ Michael Rennie & Patricia Neal. This phrase stopped Gort, the Robot from destroying the world.

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

The last time we mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

"If love is a drug, then I guess we're all sober..." Everybody's Gone To War, by Nerina Pallet
http://www.onlylyrics.com/song.php?id=31531

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/08/17/flying_while_muslim.php

Flying While Muslim

Aziz Huq

August 17, 2006

Aziz Huq directs the Liberty and National Project at the Brennan Center for Justice. He is co-author of Unchecked and Unbalanced: Presidential Power in Times of Terror (New Press, 2007), and recipient of a 2006 Carnegie Scholars Fellowship.

The partisan posturing began within hours of reports the British had arrested 20-odd suspects in connection with an alleged terrorist conspiracy to blow up passenger airplanes. Arrests were made in the U.K, not the U.S. The plot was hatched in the U.K. and Pakistan.

But it was U.S. politicians who first mounted their soapboxes. “Move to question your opponent’s commitment to the defeat of terror,” crowed National Republican Party Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds. Following this rush to judgment was a campaign to expand government powers. Both Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales floated proposals to study new British anti-terrorism laws. Now the question is: Will the Bush administration and its allies in Congress be able to introduce its borrowed “Cool Britannia” finery in time for the November 2006 polls?

Set aside for a moment the hazards of enlarging executive power when public fear is at fever pitch and partisan politics at its zenith. Are the proposed powers really new or really needed? The short answer is no.

The federal government already, in fact, exercises many of the powers the British have—and uses them deeply unwisely, in ways that don’t build the nation’s security. The government is seeking non-solutions to non-problems. The problem has never been power—it’s whether there are methods of holding government accountable for using its power in an accurate, fair and proportionate way.

From 2000 onward, the United Kingdom enacted four significant counterterrorism laws. Like the USA PATRIOT Act, each package contained a complex of interconnecting provisions. Chertoff picked out two areas for examination: the British police’s ability to detain suspects for up to 28 days under a new Terrorism Act, which came into force on April 13, 2006, and the British police’s broader surveillance powers. Reliable pro-administration hawks David Rivkin and Lee Casey added profiling to the wish-list. They contend that “British attitudes toward ethnic and religious profiling appear to be far more pragmatic.” Which is a polite way of saying “let’s treat people differently based on race or religion.”

Chertoff et al. offer no evidence that warrantless surveillance, preventative detention or improved intelligence/police coordination had any role in detecting the liquid bombing conspiracy. Like the USA PATRIOT Act, these powers are a wish-list untethered to practical needs—or practical problems.

Consider first how the British plot was intercepted, and whether the administration borrowings would help in such detection. Electronic surveillance appears not to have been decisive for the arrests—and nothing suggests such surveillance could not be carried out in accord with existing federal statutes. As Juliette Kayyem explained in The Washington Post , the real breakthrough came via an informant.

The alleged liquid-bomb conspiracy is a signal that human intelligence of this ilk will become increasingly important. Technology for planning and carrying out terrorist attacks is becoming more available. The chilling simplicity of the plot and the practical inability of security personnel to seal public spaces against such attack should warn us that high-tech surveillance of money and technology transfer will be less important in the future. Indeed, Bin Laden did not create an organization as much as he fashioned an ideology that could be disseminated and operationalized by Internet and word-of-mouth. His ideas can then be acted on independently in Bali, Istanbul, London or Casablanca. Sheer force simply doesn’t work against this strategy.

What will matter increasingly in counterterrorism strategies is human intelligence and governments’ ability to work with minority communities to identify and cultivate sources and intelligence from the ground up. None of the Chertoff et al. wish-list helps on this count. Nothing in the proposed new powers would necessarily thwart a similar liquid bomb plot in the future.

Instead, Rivkin and Casey rush to the most facile and dangerous solution of institutionalizing racial prejudice—even though it has long been clear that al-Qaida is vigorously recruiting people who do not fit ethnic stereotypes, and succeeding. Increased profiling will simply accelerate this trend. In their rush to justify the unwise and reckless policies already used by the Bush administration, they endorse measures that would alienate the communities from which not only terrorist recruits come, but also a vital resource for combating terrorists. Their proposals would dry up the most important sources of recruits for intelligence services. In the name of building executive power to discriminate, they would make us all less safe.

The British authorities know all this—and try hard not to make the mistake that Casey and Rivkin advocate, in the face of heated public pressure. The Brits cultivate human intelligence both through wise investment by the intelligence agencies and also via smart public policy. One of the most important post-9/11 initiatives begun by the British MI5—the security service responsible for protection against espionage and terrorism—is to aggressively recruit Arabic and Asian language speakers. By contrast, inquiries last year by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military revealed that the Department of Defense had fired 20 Arabic and six Farsi speakers pursuant to its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Better dead than gay, appears to be Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s modus operandi.

Further, the British government is trying—albeit inconsistently—to reduce the number of extremists. The July 2005 bombings in London prompted a wave of new police efforts to build bridges to Muslim communities. Two weeks after the July attacks, Prime Minister Tony Blair convened a summit meeting with British Muslim leaders to find ways to strengthen communities against radicalism. Seven working groups were established to develop comprehensive economic and political strategies. British police also developed coordinated plans for responding to hate crimes against South Asian communities in the aftermath of a terror attack. To be sure, these policies were only partially successful—but that doesn’t mean they haven’t played an important role in reducing the number of plots.

The preventative detention power that Chertoff put on the table, finally, is no stranger to U.S. law. In the U.K., the 2006 Terrorism Act allows preventative detention without charge for 28 days. Since 9/11, the Department of Justice has used a 1984 law enacted to secure testimony from witnesses who might otherwise flee. This “material witness” statute is deployed to secure de facto indefinite detention of terrorist suspects. A study conducted by Human Rights Watch and the ACLU found that federal courts have not rejected a single request for a post-9/11 “material witness” warrant. Out of 70 such arrestees, 42 were released without charge. Seven were charged on counts of “material support” (an amorphous, ambiguous crime that reaches much seemingly innocuous conduct). Twenty were charged with non-terror offenses. Two were designated “enemy combatants”—never to be charged or tried (one, Jose Padilla, to be released just as the U.S. Supreme Court looked set to decide his case).

Locking up material witnesses makes good news copy for politicians. Recruiting Arabic and Urdu-speaking FBI agents doesn’t. Guess which really makes us safer. What’s needed now—and what has been needed since 9/11—are measures to ensure intelligence powers are used in a responsible, accountable fashion, that abuses are stopped, and that mistakes aren’t covered up or ignored. This is the national security agenda that would make the nation safe and keep it proud. Whether it’s the agenda touted by the Bush administration this fall is unlikely.

Bush Approval Rating Hits the 20s for First Time

His father's lowest was 29%, so baby boy is even with Daddy. Nixon was at 27% at the time of his resignation. Oh, it is a thing of beauty! -- CDD

Bush Approval Rating Hits the 20s for First Time

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002501667

By E&P Staff

Published: May 11, 2006 11:10 PM ET

NEW YORK President Bush’s job approval rating has fallen to 29%, its lowest mark of his presidency, and down 6% in one month, according to a new Harris poll. And this was before Thursday's revelations about NSA phone surveillance.

Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and 43% in January.

Roughly one-quarter of U.S. adults say “things in the country are going in the right direction,” while 69% say “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track.”

Some 28% of Americans said they consider Iraq to be one of the top two most important issues the government should address, up from 23% in April. Interest has faded slightly in the immigration issue.

Other recent major polls have pegged Bush's approval rating from 31% to 37%.

Yes, We Know They're Illegal

What does it mean to oppose something on the grounds that it is “illegal”? Should we oppose non-heterosexual marriage based on its illegality? Shall we condemn San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom for the illicit marriages he allowed in 2004? Or are Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin (the first couple to be illegally wedded in San Francisco) to blame?

A passing glance at American history confirms beyond the shadow of a doubt that, as long as this nation has existed, it has existed under laws that have been nothing short of amoral. People of color, women, blue-collar workers, queers and yes, immigrants have been oppressed in appalling, inexcusable ways, all of which were legal.

So, no, these immigrants are not legal. But instead of opposing their presence in the U.S., we should oppose the laws that make them illegal. There’s nothing shocking about seeing a legal system with a long history of fostering unjust exclusion … foster unjust exclusion. And it is unjust.

There are currently slightly less than 12 million unauthorized migrants in America and just over half of them are from Mexico. (This, incidentally, does not excuse the use of the word “Mexicans” as an umbrella term for unauthorized migrants or authorized migrants or Hispanics in general. That is racist.) Why are they here?

U.S. trade policy. As “one Mexican farmer told a researcher, 'If the U.S. sends subsidized corn into Mexico, send it in trains with benches to bring back the Mexican farmers who will need jobs.'"

NAFTA went into effect in 1994. Interestingly, although “free trade” is right there in the name, the U.S. began selling subsidized (and therefore cheap) agricultural products (mostly corn) in Mexico. Unable to compete, 1.7 million Mexican farmers found themselves destitute. What were they to do? Before NAFTA, 7 percent of migrant farm workers in the U.S. were unauthorized. By 2004, that number had risen to 50 percent.

Not all the farmers NAFTA displaced came here. Some stayed on to work for a pittance at the 2,200 U.S. factories that just happened to wander South of the border—how fortuitous! Incidentally, there certainly is a link between illegal immigration and unemployment among U.S. citizens and that link is NAFTA. Flint, Michigan, famously plummeted into indigence shortly after GM took advantage of NAFTA and moved many plants to Mexico.

To put it crudely, it’s our fault. Our nation is continuing to pursue policies (see CAFTA ) that wreck foreign economies. It is, then, not our place to complain about unauthorized migrants. They do pay taxes. They pay a whole lot of taxes, in fact. They do not deflate wages. But that’s hardly even relevant. Whether or not they benefit us, we have the moral obligation to welcome them into the U.S.; any law that does not acknowledge this is, well, wrong. History demonstrates that determining whether something is right based on whether it is legal is, mildly speaking, inaccurate. Fortunately, history also demonstrates that we tend to eventually come to our senses. So, please, let’s.

--Sandi Burtseva

Bush's Paper Trail Grows
John Prados
April 03, 2006

John Prados is a senior fellow of the National Security Archive in Washington, D.C., and author of Hoodwinked: The Documents that Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (The New Press).

On March 27, The New York Times published an article based on access to the full British record of the Iraq policy conversation that President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair held on January 31, 2003, as recorded by Blair’s then-national security adviser David Manning. British legal scholar Philippe Sands had already revealed this discussion in his book Lawless World , and the British television network Channel 4 had—two months ago—printed many of the same excerpts of Manning’s memo, but the Times coverage focused new attention on the memo, previously ignored by the U.S. media.

The memo reveals that the two leaders agreed that military action against Iraq would begin on a stipulated date in March 2003—despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction had been found there. The memo reveals how the two leaders mulled over ways to supply legal justification for the invasion. Indeed this record supplies additional evidence for the view that Bush planned all along to unleash this war.

Suddenly, the media descended upon the Bush White House demanding explanations. Spokesman Scott McClellan answered that “we were preparing in case it was necessary, but we were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution.” McClellan tried to turn the question around by insisting that the press had been covering Bush at the time chronicled in the memo, implying that if the truth were different the press should have known better. He referred repeatedly to a December report from U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix to back his assertion that Iraq had failed to cooperate with the inspections. Evidently that cowed the reporters, for there has been little follow-up. But White House damage control should not be allowed to cover up this evidence that the president knew his case for war was based on faulty evidence.

First, the evidence is overwhelming that Bush hosted the January 31 meeting to manage his move to war, not as an occasion to review progress toward disarming Iraq. The record of the session shows this—with talk of the war plan, the starting date, the justification and the securing of a second U.N. resolution as a legal cover, but there is more than that. Consider the context: the day the memo was taken U.S. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell began the extensive review at the CIA of the allegations he would use to make his Security Council “briefing”—already scheduled—supposedly “bulletproof.” It was also that same day that the codebreaking National Security Agency issued a directive to spy on the friendly nations who were members of the U.N. Security Council to divine their attitudes on the move to war.

The day before, according to Bob Woodward’s account, Bush had told Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, “We will kick ass.” By his account, Berlusconi tried to dissuade Bush from war. Woodward duly notes the president resorting to his standard line that no decision had yet been made on military action. The Manning memo suggests otherwise, with Bush revealing March 10 as the projected date for beginning bombing—a campaign to hit 1,500 targets in four days, the “shock and awe” which U.S. officials bragged about at the time. Moreover, on January 24, the U.S. military commander, General Tommy Franks, had sent his final war plan up through Rumsfeld to the president. Bush’s comment to Blair on January 31, that “he was not itching to go to war,” is belied by the entire surrounding structure of events.

The other significant finding in the Manning memo concerns Tony Blair’s intentions. The press reporting at the time—regardless of what Scott McClellan says today—was that the purpose of the Blair-Bush meeting was to decide whether there needed to be a second U.N. resolution. Postwar investigations in London show that in late January Blair received official advice from his attorney general Lord Goldsmith that such a resolution was necessary to fulfill the terms of the existing resolution 1441. At the meeting with Bush, however, the record shows Blair presented the project as a convenience. “If anything goes wrong . . . a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs,” Blair said, according to Manning’s memo.

Bush went along with Blair’s talk of a resolution, but his own propositions on justifications for war revealed his true lack of interest in U.N. action. Bush speculated about deceiving Saddam into shooting at U.S. aircraft phonied up to look like U.N. planes, or getting an Iraqi scientist to assert that WMD were being concealed. The most widely reported aspect of the Bush-Blair meeting was these speculations (talk of a Saddam assassination was less justification than opportunity).

Bush told Blair he would “twist arms” to get a U.N. resolution, corresponding exactly to the NSA spy directive, which would track the success of Bush arm-twisting through U.N. members’ own communications. Regardless of the outcome, Bush told Blair, “military action would follow anyway.” Blair’s assurance at that point that Britain stood with the U.S. put him squarely in the box with Bush of seeking to initiate an aggressive war.

Finally, on the matter of U.N. inspections, David Manning appears to have engaged in some policy advocacy, as opposed to strictly confining himself to recording the proceedings of this meeting in his memorandum to Tony Blair. Manning’s paper notes the conversation among the leaders on the urgency of action if Bush’s timeline was to be met. Blair’s adviser argued that, “We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, [and] do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find.” But Manning’s view did not reflect the realities of—at least—U.S. intelligence cooperation with the inspections. Rather, the CIA had been parsimonious in its help, taking weeks to begin providing tips, and then holding back many of its target folders, while national security adviser Condi Rice had put pressure on Blix to declare Iraq in violation.

Immediately upon finishing their talk, at 4:12 p.m. Bush and Blair appeared before newsmen, where Bush declared, “Saddam Hussein is not disarming. He is a danger to the world.” Bush then added archly, “This issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months,” an almost exact repetition of Blair’s comment at their secret meeting, as recorded by Manning, that “we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months.”

President Bush asserted, inaccurately, that Resolution 1441 “gives us the authority to move without any second resolution,” a position the Attorney General of Great Britain had rejected only days before. Blair followed up, insisting that Dr. Blix had told the Security Council that Saddam was not cooperating with UN inspectors. In fact, what Blix had said when he reported to the U.N. on January 27 was that there had been difficulties with the Iraqi government but the situation was improving, and he added that his inspectors had made 300 visits to 230 different sites without finding any evidence of WMD. Nuclear inspector Mohammed ElBaradei had agreed, “We have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program.” Hans Blix’s own take on the Bush-Blair conversation rings true: “The U.S. government did not want to raise the hope that there was any way out but war.”

On balance the newly revealed record of President Bush’s secret meeting of January 31, 2003, confirms that by that date Bush’s Iraq war was certain. The Manning memo supplies an explicit picture of Bush not merely cherrypicking only the intelligence he wanted to use, but scheming to overcome the consequences of not finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In all likelihood the debate over the Iraq war will come to center on the question of how much sooner than January 2003 was Bush’s war policy cast in stone. Was it September 2002, when Bush blurted out “I don’t know what more evidence we need” and set up the White House Iraq Group to sell the war? Was it April at a previous Bush-Blair summit in Crawford or December 2001 when General Franks presented the first war plan to the president? Was it on or immediately after 9/11 or was it the day George W. Bush took the oath of office as President of the United States?

WARNING: Don't play at the office unless you have privacy. "F" word is sung in this.

CHENEY GOES AHEAD

WITH FOLSOM PRISON CONCERT

Vice President Dick "Buckshot" Cheney kept his word to the inmates at California's maximum security Folsom State Prison. He played a one hour set with his band "Dickie and The Trigger Happy Birdie Killers". The set received a luke warm reception until Cheney launched into his new, as yet unreleased, single "Go Fuck Yourself". During the guitar solo the Vice President thrilled the assembled audience by producing a rifle and opening fire. "He seems angry. Very angry" one inmate said "I mean, I always thought that the American people didn't like to vote for angry people but...Man, that dude is angry!" I managed to obtain a tape of the performance and am proud to present it here....

-- Paul Hipp

Contributed by:

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com/ >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
*****************************************************************

"If a nation is unable to perceive reality correctly, and persists in operating on the basis of faith-based delusions, its ability to hold its own in the world is pretty much foreclosed." -- "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire," by Morris Berman

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley

Blasphemy in the Cult of BushTwo


http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/02/11.html#a7117

important items today -- an article from the Times and a Dana Milbank column in the Post – highlight the growing (both in terms of numbers and importance) opposition among Republicans to the Administration's illegal eavesdropping program. And yet, as described by Milbank's column, the most blindly loyal Bush followers remain steadfastly intolerant of any criticisms of the Leader.

In that regard, it is noteworthy how true conservative believer Bob Barr -- whose conservative credentials include serving as House Manager of the Clinton Impeachment and being the primary sponsor of the Defense of Marriage Act -- was treated like an evil traitor at the Conservative Political Action Conference held this weekend all because he is critical of The President's violations of FISA.

Conservatism in some circles really has morphed into The Cult of George Bush, which is why any criticism of the Leader -- even when the criticism is based on conservative principles -- is deemed to be blasphemous to the Cause. This excerpt from Milbank’s column really tells you all you need to know about what "conservativsm" has come to mean in certain circles:

Barr answered in the affirmative. "Do we truly remain a society that
believes that . . . every president must abide by the law of this country?" he
posed. "I, as a conservative, say yes. I hope you as conservatives say
yes.

"But nobody said anything in the deathly quiet audience. Barr merited
only polite applause when he finished, and one man, Richard Sorcinelli, booed
him loudly. " I can't believe I'm in a conservative hall listening to him say
[Bush] is off course trying to defend the United States," Sorcinelli fumed.

For them, even to be subjected to the idea that "Bush is off course" is traumatic and wrong. Such an opinion has no place at a "conservative" event, where only praise and reverence of the Commander-in-Chief is appropriate. One sees this time and again: "conservatism" these days very rarely has anything to do with actual conservative principles of government and has come to be distorted shorthand for "George Bush follower."

The more one agrees with and praises the Commander-in-Chief, the more "conservative" one is, even when his actions aren't even remotely "conservative." That really is the definition of a creepy cult of personality, and it has consumed a large segment of the Republican Party.

--Posted by Glenn Greenwald

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^

Iran’s Oil-exchange threatens the Greenback

By Mike Whitney

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11654.htm

01/23/06 "ICH" -- -- The Bush administration will never allow the Iranian government to open an oil exchange (bourse) that trades petroleum in euros. If that were to happen, hundreds of billions of dollars would come flooding back to the United States crushing the greenback and destroying the economy. This is why Bush and Co. are planning to lead the nation to war against Iran. It is straightforward defense of the current global system and the continuing dominance of the reserve currency, the dollar.

The claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is a mere pretext for war. The NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) predicts that Iran will not be able to produce nukes for perhaps a decade. So too, IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei has said repeatedly that his watchdog agency has found “no evidence” of a nuclear weapons program.

There are no nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs, but Iran’s economic plans do pose an existential threat to America, and not one that can be simply brushed aside as the unavoidable workings of the free market.

America monopolizes the oil trade. Oil is denominated in dollars and sold on either the NYMEX or London’s International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), both owned by Americans. This forces the central banks around the world to maintain huge stockpiles of dollars even though the greenback is currently underwritten by $8 trillion of debt and even though the Bush administration has said that it will perpetuate the deficit-producing tax cuts.

America’s currency monopoly is the perfect pyramid-scheme. As long as nations are forced to buy oil in dollars, the United States can continue its profligate spending with impunity. (The dollar now accounts for 68% of global currency reserves up from 51% just a decade ago) The only threat to this strategy is the prospect of competition from an independent oil exchange; forcing the faltering dollar to go nose-to-nose with a more stable (debt-free) currency such as the euro. That would compel central banks to diversify their holdings, sending billions of dollars back to America and ensuring a devastating cycle of hyper-inflation.

The effort to keep information about Iran’s oil exchange out of the headlines has been extremely successful. A simple Google search shows that NONE of the major newspapers or networks has referred to the upcoming bourse. The media’s aversion to controversial stories which serve the public interest has been evident in many other cases, too, like the fraudulent 2004 presidential elections, the Downing Street Memo, and the flattening of Falluja. Rather than inform, the media serves as a bullhorn for government policy; manipulating public opinion by reiterating the specious demagoguery of the Bush administration. As a result, few people have any idea of the gravity of the present threat facing the American economy.

This is not a “liberal vs. conservative” issue. Those who’ve analyzed the problem draw the very same conclusions; if the Iran exchange flourishes the dollar will plummet and the American economy will shatter.

This is what author Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D in economics, says in a recent article The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse:


“From a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between …between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its "classical medicine" by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression…, will choose inflation. …The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. …To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses…and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency …”

So, raise interest rates and bring on “total financial collapse” or take the “Weimar way out” and cause the “hyperinflationary destruction of the American economy.”

These are not good choices, and yet, we’re hearing the same pronouncements from right-wing analysts. Alan Peter’s article, “Mullah’s Threat not Sinking In”, which appeared in FrontPage Magazine.com, offers these equally sobering thoughts about the dangers of an Iran oil-exchange:

“A glut of dollar holdings by Central Banks and among Asian lenders, plus the current low interest rate offered to investor/lenders by the USA has been putting the dollar in jeopardy for some time… A twitching finger on currency's hair-trigger can shoot down the dollar without any purposeful ill intent. Most estimates place the likely drop to "floor levels" at a rapid 50% loss in value for a presently 40% overvalued Dollar.”

The erosion of the greenback’s value was predicted by former Fed-chief Paul Volcker who said that there is a “75% chance of a dollar crash in the next 5 years”.

Such a crash would result in soaring interest rates, hyperinflation, skyrocketing energy costs, massive unemployment and, perhaps, depression. This is the troubling scenario if an Iran bourse gets established and knocks the dollar from its lofty perch. And this is what makes the prospect of war, even nuclear war, so very likely.

Peter’s continues:

“With economies so interdependent and interwoven, a global, not just American Depression would occur with a domino effect throwing the rest of world economies into poverty. Markets for acutely less expensive US exports would never materialize.

The result, some SME's estimate, might be as many as 200 million Americans out of work and starving on the streets with nobody and nothing able to rescue or aid them, contrary to the 1920/30 Great Depression through soup kitchens and charitable support efforts.”

Liberal or conservative, the analysis is the same. If America does not address the catastrophic potential of the Iran bourse, Americans can expect to face dire circumstances.

Now we can understand why the corporate-friendly media has omitted any mention of new oil exchange in their coverage. This is one secret that the boardroom kingpins would rather keep to themselves. It’s easier to convince the public of nuclear hobgoblins and Islamic fanatics than to justify fighting a war for the anemic greenback. Never the less, it is the dollar we are defending in Iraq and, presumably, in Iran as well in the very near future. (Saddam converted to the euro in 2000. The bombing began in 2001)

There are peaceful solutions to this dilemma, but not if the Bush administration insists on hiding behind the moronic deception of terrorism or imaginary nuclear weapons programs. Bush needs to come clean with the American people about the real nature of the global energy crisis and stop invoking Bin Laden and WMD to defend American aggression. We need a comprehensive energy strategy, (including government funding for conservation projects, alternative energy-sources, and the development of a new line of “American-made” hybrid vehicles) candid negotiations with Iran to regulate the amount of oil they will sell in euros per year (easing away from the dollar in an orderly way) and a collective “international” approach to energy consumption and distribution (under the auspices of the UN General Assembly)

Greater parity among currencies should be encouraged as a way of strengthening democracies and invigorating markets. It promises to breathe new life into free trade by allowing other political models to flourish without fear of being subsumed into the capitalist prototype. The current dominance of the greenback has created a global empire that is largely dependent on debt, torture, and war to maintain its supremacy.

Iran’s oil bourse poses the greatest challenge yet to the dollar-monopoly and its proponents at the Federal Reserve. If the Bush administration goes ahead with a preemptive “nuclear” strike on alleged weapons sites, allies will be further alienated and others will be forced to respond. As Dr. Petrov says, “Major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions.”

There is increasing likelihood that the foremost champions of the present system will be the very one’s to bring about its downfall.

Translate this page

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
*****************************************************************

"If a nation is unable to perceive reality correctly, and persists in operating on the basis of faith-based delusions, its ability to hold its own in the world is pretty much foreclosed." -- "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire," by Morris Berman

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley

Breaking from NewsMax & MoneyNews.com

Economist Magazine Warns 'Danger Time' for U.S.

This week's edition of The Economist magazine offers an ominous warning for the U.S economy.

"Danger Time for America" -
the respected global weekly magazine states, depicting a cover
drawing of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan passing a stick of
dynamite labeled the "The Economy."

The Economist is not given to alarmist warnings.

But the magazine believes the U.S. economy is in for a rocky road beginning
this year, and challenges economic optimists' recent sunny predictions
regarding the U.S. financial picture. The Economist report mirrors the
analysis that has been offered by the Financial Intelligence Report, a publication of NewsMax and MoneyNews. The FIR has been warning investors for some time of the potential economic chaos that Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan is about to drop on the American economy. For more info Go Here Now.

has been warning investors for some time of the potential economic
chaos that Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan is about to drop on the
American economy. For more info Go Here Now

The magazine targets Greenspan, who will soon retire from the Federal Reserve with most people bombarding him with glowing praise and congratulations for a job well done.

Not so fast, says The Economist.

The publication says: "The economy that
Alan Greenspan is about to hand over is in a much less healthy state
than is popularly assumed."

While respectfully bowing to the
retiring Fed chairman, with a sly wink to "Greenspan's 'exuberant'
send-off," The Economist's outlook soon turns dour, both on Greenspan
and on the U.S. economy.

"During much of his 181/2 years
in office America enjoyed rapid growth with low inflation, and he
successfully steered the economy around a series of financial hazards,"
says the article.

"In his final days of glory, it may
therefore seem churlish to question his record. However, Mr.
Greenspan's departure could well mark a high point for America's
economy, with a period of sluggish growth ahead. This is not so much
because he is leaving, but because of what he is leaving behind: t

While the magazine acknowledges that
Greenspan "can't control huge economic uncertainties" and "is
constrained by limits of what monetary policy can do," it points out
that one cannot exaggerate Greenspan's influence over the economy and
financial markets.

It is in the setting of monetary policy that Greenspan falls particularly short, The Economist concludes.

"The main reason why America's growth
has remained strong in recent years has been a massive monetary
stimulus," it says. "The Fed held real interest rates negative for
several years, and even today real rates remain low."

The magazine notes that Greenspan
triggered two of the greatest bubbles in history, the
dotcom bubble of the 1990s and the real estate one the magazine
warns is about to pop.

Greenspan's actions have created a
domino effect through which American consumers could borrow against the
rising, potentially artificial value of their homes to buy plush hot
tubs and $5,000 barbecue pits. In this way, Americans have been able to
literally consume more than they earn.

And that is leading to a consumer
financial environment in which Americans have negative savings rates, a
growing burden of household debt and a sizable current-account deficit.
[See: Sir John Templeton warns of housing bust - Go Here Now.]

Says The Economist: "Part of America's
current prosperity is based not on genuine gains in income, nor on high
productivity growth, but on borrowing from the future.

For the present, that means slower growth, weaker job creation and low wage growth.

Citing Morgan Stanley, The Economist
points out that over the past four years total private-sector labor
compensation has risen by only 12 percent in real terms, compared
with an average gain of 20 percent over the previous five
expansions.

The U.S. economy during the past several
years has been fueled by real estate and related spending - not from an
increase in labor compensation which has fueled previous economio

"Given that consumer spending and
residential construction have accounted for 90 percent of GDP
growth in recent years, it is hard to see how this can occur without a
sharp slowdown in the economy."

Investors who agree that the United States may be facing economic trouble ahead can prepare by reading the following reports:

Investors who agree that the United States may be facing economic trouble ahead can prepare by reading the following reports:

• Prepare for the coming Greenspan recession: Discover the 7 steps to take now to protect your wealth and survive this coming storm. Go Here Now.
• Sir John Templeton first warned housing prices could crash 50%. Find out what he said and learn how to protect yourself and even profit from the coming storm - Go Here Now.
• With a net worth of $43 billion, Warren Buffett is America's greatest stock investor. He is also warning of a possible economic crisis. Find out Buffett's 8 Great Investment Plays. Just Go Here Now.
• Find out why gold will soar in the year ahead Go Here Now.

• 10 Dividend Stocks will weather a bear market -- See Them Here.

Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
*****************************************************************

"If a nation is unable to perceive reality correctly, and persists in operating on the basis of faith-based delusions, its ability to hold its own in the world is pretty much foreclosed." -- "Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire," by Morris Berman

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley

Majority in U.S. Say Bush Presidency Is a Failure, Poll Finds http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_us&refer=us&sid=aKSlfaIwdI6w


Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- A majority of Americans said the presidency of George W. Bush has been a failure and that they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who oppose him, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.

Fifty-two percent of adults said Bush's administration since 2001 has been a failure, down from 55 percent in October. Fifty- eight percent described his second term as a failure. At the same point in former President Bill Clinton's presidency, 70 percent of those surveyed by Gallup said they considered it a success and 20 percent a failure.
In a poll conducted in January of 2002, after Bush was president for one year, 83 percent of those surveyed said his presidency was a success.

In the new poll, conducted Jan. 20-22, fifty-one percent of those surveyed said they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who do not support Bush's policies.

The percentage of Americans who called Bush ``honest and trustworthy'' fell 7 percentage points in the last year to 49 percent, the poll found.

The new poll also found that 62 percent of Americans said they are ``dissatisfied'' with ``the way things are going'' in the U.S., unchanged from a December survey. The percentage of ``dissatisfied'' Americans reached its peak in October of 2005 when 68 percent of those surveyed agreed.

The survey interviewed 1,006 U.S. adults and has a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points. For the questions about whether Bush's presidency is a success, about 500 U.S. adults were surveyed and the margin for error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Nicholas Johnston in Washington at njohnston3@bloomberg.net


Contributed by Claudia

Reach Out and Touch No One by Maureen Dowd The New York Times http://www.topplebush.com/oped2450.shtml January 7, 2006

Doing the math, you've got to figure that the 12 wise men and one wise woman had about 30 seconds apiece to say their piece to the president about Iraq, where vicious assaults this week have killed almost 200 and raised U.S. troop fatalities to at least 2,189. It must have been like a performance by the Reduced Shakespeare Company, which boils down the great plays and books to their essence. Proust is "I like cookies." Othello raps that he left Desdemona "all alona, didn't telephona." "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" condense into "The Idiodity." "Henry V" is "A king's gotta do what a king's gotta do," and "Antony and Cleopatra" is "Never get involved in Middle Eastern affairs." Beyond taking a class picture ringed around Mr. Bush's bizarrely empty desk - a mesmerizing blend of "Sunset Boulevard," "The Last Supper" and a "Sopranos" ad - the former secretaries of state and defense had to make the most of their brief colloquy with W. The spectral Robert McNamara might have enlightened on Vietnam: "Didn't understand the culture. Misjudged the opposition. Didn't know when to get out." If he was a fast talker, he could have added: "It's the dominoes. If Iraq falls, then Syria falls, then Lebanon falls, and before you know it, all of Southeast Asia - I mean, the Middle East - will fall." Melvin Laird only needed to add: "Ditto." Al Haig's summation would have been a cinch: "I resign. I'm in charge here. I resign - again." Instead of his good-soldier silence, Colin Powell could have redeemed himself with four words: "I should have resigned." Madeleine Albright might have succinctly imparted some wisdom from Somalia and Rwanda: "Didn't understand the culture. Misjudged the threat. Didn't know when to get in." James Baker, Svengali and Sphinx, must have been thinking: "I told your dad not to let you in here. I could tell you how to get of Iraq in 10 minutes, but you're too under the sway of that nutball Cheney to listen." George Shultz only needed to say: "I have a tiger tattooed on my fanny," and Lawrence Eagleburger could have abridged his thoughts to "I need a smoke. Bad." It may seem disturbing at first, that with several hundreds of years' worth of foreign policy at his elbows, and a bloody, thorny mess in Iraq, Mr. Bush would devote mere moments to letting some fresh air into his House of Pain. Sure, he has A.D.D. But he just spent six straight days mountain-biking and brush clearing in Crawford. He couldn't devote 60 minutes to getting our kids home rather than just a few for a "Message: I Care" photo-op faking sincerity? "We all went into the bubble and came out," one of the wise men noted. Mr. Eagleburger explained their role as props, saying it was hard to volubly express yourself with a president. "There was some criticism, but it was basically 'You haven't talked to the American people enough.' " Lighting a cigarette on the way out - he'd thrown one in the bushes on the way in - he added the world-weary coda: "We're all has-beens anyway." Mr. Eagleburger knows the truth. If W. had wanted to really reach out, rather than just pretend to reach out so that his poll numbers would go up, he would have sought advice outside his warped inner circle long ago - including from his own father. Because W.'s mind is so closed to anybody except yes-men who tell him his policies and wars are slam-dunks, uneasy seasoned mandarins are forced to make a noisy stink. Brent Scowcroft, one of Bush Senior's closest friends, had to resort to the pages of The New Yorker to voice his objections. He ominously said Dick Cheney, his old colleague, was someone he no longer recognized. You wonder whether the other contemporaries of Cheney and Rummy from Ford, Reagan and Bush I days were thinking the same thing at Thursday's meeting: Why have these guys gone so kooky? W. is drunk on Cheney Kool-Aid. So he got testy when Ms. Albright pointed out that North Korea and Iran were going nuclear while the U.S. was bogged down in Baghdad. Then, after a quick photo in the Oval, he shooed the old-timers out, letting anyone who wanted to stay talk to the security factotum Stephen Hadley. Still busy spreading fog over the war, W., Cheney, Rummy and Condi had no time to hear McNamara expound on the fog of war. In the picture, as Ms. Albright cringes, Mr. McNamara looks haunted, unable to escape second-guessing over Vietnam. The only thing that would have made the photo even more utterly phony was the presence of that vintage warmonger, Henry the K. Topplebush.com Posted: January 8, 2006

*********************
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium

"A Nation of Sheep breeds a Government of Wolves." -- Edward R. Murrow

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross." --Sinclair Lewis (1935)

"By words the mind is winged." - Aristophanes

"Maybe this world is another planet's Hell." - Aldous Huxley