Political News — April & May 2006

Ken Lay convicted--Greg Palast

Lay Convicted, Bush Walks (and Arnold Gets Lay'd)Special For TruthoutWednesday, May 24, 2006by Greg Palast But is is not what he was convicted of that is important, but what has been undone by Bush and gang.They have undone the Ro0svelt protections from price gouging. TRIPOD again screwed up the formating in a way that cannot be unraveled. In 1933, President Roosevelt made Insull's power piracy a crime. FDR signed the Public Utility Holding Company Act and laws that capped the profit of electricity monopolies. The act required them to keep lights on by accounting for all maintenance expenses, barred "trading" electricity and, most important, banned donations by the power giants to politicians. Fast-forward to January 2001. The George W. Bush administration, within 72 hours of his inauguration, issued an executive order lifting the Clinton Energy Department's effective ban on speculative trading in the California power market. The state was still in crisis, facing blackouts and 300 percent increases in power bills, the result of "deregulating" its electric system, as first suggested by Lay. Instead of a "free" market, California's electricity bidding system became a fixed casino where Lay's operatives and a tight-knit cabal of corporate cronies jacked up prices through such tricks as "death star," "ricochet" and "kilowatt laundering." In one instance, Enron "sold" the state 500 megawatts of electricity to go over a 15-megawatt line. Enron knew that sending that much power through those wires would have burned them to a crisp. To prevent this Enron-designed blackout, the state scrambled for other sources of electricity, which Enron and friends sold them at a big mark-up. California's Independent System Operator put the cost to consumers of this "gaming" at $6.3 billion in a six-month period. Under the Roosevelt rules, when utilities were regulated to a fare-thee-well, the gaming rooms would have been busted. Instead, the games have been institutionalized. For example, TXU, the corporate alias of Texas Utilities, has seen earnings per share rise 500 percent in five years. The reason: So-called deregulation allows the company to sell electricity at a price based on the sky-high cost of oil although much of its power is produced from cheaper coal or uranium. In effect, deregulation has become de-criminalization of price gouging. Even more sinister than Bush's hasty executive order allowing Enron to resume speculation in the California power market was his appointment of Pat Wood as chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the government's electricity cops. The choice of Wood was suggested, in secret, by Enron. This put Lay one step ahead of Al Capone who had to buy the cops. Lay just had them appointed. Wood may have been as honest as the day is long, but on his watch, Enron and the industry treaded through the power market like Godzilla through a kindergarten. And it continues under a new chairman, also suggested by Enron. What about the $6.3 billion filched from the wallets of California consumers, let alone the larger sums taken in by power profiteers nationwide? The Lay-blessed federal regulators barely batted an eye. Lay's brainchild of deregulation was coupled with his other grand idea: a massive increase in industry largesse to politicians. By unsubtle, but perfectly legal, means around FDR's prohibition on political donations, Enron PACs and its executives became the top Bush funders. Capone never lived to see armed robbery made legal. But Lay, even if convicted, can leave the courthouse for the Big House knowing power profiteering is now as legal as prayer. On July 14, 2005, Roosevelt's Public Utility Holding Company Act, bulwark of consumer protection, was repealed by a Congress fattened with utility industry cash.

Don't kid yourself. If you think the conviction of Ken Lay means that George Bush is serious about going after corporate bad guys, think again. First, Lay got away with murder -- or at least grand larceny. Like Al Capone convicted of failing to file his taxes, Ken Lay, though found guilty of stock fraud, is totally off the hook for his BIG crime: taking down California and Texas consumers for billions through fraud on the power markets. Lay, co-convict Jeff Skilling and Enron did not act alone. They connived with half a dozen other power companies and a dozen investment banks to manipulate both the stock market and the electricity market. And though their co-conspirators have now paid $3 billion to settle civil claims, the executives of these other corporations and banks get a walk on criminal charges. Furthermore, to protect our President's boardroom buddies from any further discomforts, the Bush Justice Department, just days ago,indicted Milberg, Weiss, the law firm that nailed Enron's finance industry partners-in-crime. The timing of the bust of this, the top corporation-battling law firm, smacks of political prosecution -- and a signal to Big Business that it's business as usual. Lay and Skilling have to pay up their ill-gotten gains to Enron's stockholders, but what about the $9-plus billion owe electricity consumers? The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Bush's electricity cops, have slapped Enron and its gang of power pirates on the wrist. Could that have something to do with the fact that Ken Lay, in secret chats with Dick Cheney, selected the Commission's chairmen? Team Bush had to throw the public a bone -- so they threw us Lay and Skilling -- for the crime, note, not of ripping off the public, but ripping off stockholders, the owner class. This limited conviction, and the announcement of only one more indictment -- of the crime-busters at Milberg-Weiss -- is Team Bush's "all clear!" signal for the sharks to jump back into the power pool. That leaves one question: if Bush's Justice Department let Ken and company keep the California loot, what about that state's own government? If you want to know how Californian's $9 billion went bye-bye, read on ... WHEN AHNOLD GOT LAY'D[From Armed Madhouse , Greg Palast's new book out 06-06-06. Order it now at www.GregPalast.com] Peninsula Hotel, Beverly Hills. May 17, 2001. The Financial Criminal of the twentieth century, not long out of prison, meets with the Financial Criminal of the twenty-first century who feared he may also have to do hard time. These two, bond-market manipulator Mike Millikin and Ken lay,not-yet-indicted Chairman of Enron Corporation, were joined by a selected group of movers and shakers -- and one movie star. Arnold Schwarzenegger had been to such private parties before. As a young immigrant without a nickel to his name, he put on private displays of his musculature for guests of his promoter. As with those early closed gatherings, I don't know all that went on at the Peninsula Hotel meet, though I understand Ahnold,_ this time, did not have to strip down to his Speedos. Nevertheless, the moral undressing was just as lascivious, if you read through the 34 page fax that arrived at our office. Lay, who convened the hugger-mugger, was in a bit of trouble. Enron and the small oligopoly of other companies that ruled California's electricity system had been caught jacking up the price of power and gas by fraud, conspiracy and manipulation. A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon it was real money - $6.3 billion in suspect windfalls in just sixmonths, May through December 2000, for a half-dozen electricity buccaneers, at least $9 billion for the year. Their skim would have been higher but the tricksters thought they were limited by the number of digits the state's power-buying computers could read. When Ken met Arnold in the hotel room, the games were far from over. For example , in June 2003, Reliant Corporation of Houston simply turned off several power plants, and when California cities faced going dark, the company sold them a pittance of kilowatts for more than gold, making several million in minutes. Power-market shenanigans were nothing new in 2000. What was new was the response of Governor Gray Davis. A normally quiet, if not dull, man, this Governor had the temerity to call the energy sellers "pirates_" -- in public! -- and, even more radically, he asked them to give back all the ill-gotten loot, the entire $9 billion. The state filed a regulatory complaint with the federal government. The Peninsula Hotel get-together was all about how to "settle"_ the legal actions in such a way that Enron and friends could get the state to accept dog food instead of dollars. Davis seemed unlikely to see things Ken's way. Life would be so much better if California had a governor like the muscle guy in the Speedos. And so it came to pass that, in 2003, quiet Gray Davis, who had the cojones to stand up to the electricity barons, was thrown out of office by the voters and replaced by the tinker-toy tough guy. The Governatorperformed as desired. Soon after Schwarzenegger took over from Davis, he signed off on a series of deals with Reliant, Williams Company, Dynegy, Entergy and the other power pirates for ten to twenty cents on the dollar, less than you'd tip the waitress. Enronpaid just about nothing. Palast, an internationally recognized expert on Enron and electricity market manipulation, is co-author of "Democracy and Regulation," the United Nation's guide to control of the utility industry. Special thanks to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles, www.ConsumerWatchdog.org, who first uncovered the confidential Peninsula Hotel documents. View Palast's investigative reports for Harper's Magazine and BBC Television's Newsnight at www.GregPalast.com.

Law firm that went after Eron for Fraud vendicatively indicted by Bush

Bush-Cheney and their U.S. Attorney’s Office go after law firm that went after Enron. There is substance to the accusations by Greg Palast—previous article—as to the motives for the indictment of Milberg-Weiss. The common pay for service practice is called kick backs. Don’t be fooled by the conservative spin this is given in the pro-business press.

There is substance to the accusations by Greg Palast—previous article—as to the motives for the indictment of Milberg-Weiss. The common pay for service practice is called kick backs. Don’t be fooled by the conservative spin this is given in the pro-business press.

It isn’t what has been done in the Enron scandal, but what hasn’t been done that is telling; namely, Bush has permitted 5 energy companies, of which Enron was the principle, to illegally force up the price of electricity and thereby rip off over $9 billion. Moreover he has acted to protect those companies. First by through the Attorney General’s Office limiting the scope of the prosecution of the Enron conspirators to just their accounting fraud and the manipulation of stock prices. Second by attempting to pass tort reform which would prevent attorneys from suing them for return of funds. Third, finally by instituting prosecution of the law firm which had successfully pursued Enron. Fourth, by appointing to head his energy commission in 2001 a member of Enron’s board of directors.

This persistant undoing of the regulations and supervision which were enacted early last century to promote competition in the market place by restricting collusion between companies to inflate their commodities, by supervising banks to secure deposits, by supervising reports of earnings so as to promote confidence in the stock market. In a myriad of other way our federal and state governments interfered in the market place to limit the ways in which companies could make a profit. There is a natural tendency for companies to maximize profits and their directors to dig deep into the finances of their companies. There are of course those (the Mike Millikans and Ken Lays of business) who oppose such regulation. Starting with Reagan there has been an undoing of these regulations (witness Reagan’s deregulation of the S&Ls, which cost our economy $500 billion). No President in the last century has so openly joined with the robber barons (a pejorative phrase that was in common usage until the after WWII). Moreover, there is legislative support for enactments that promote the interests of the robber barons.

Bush’s U.S. Attorney’s office since Enron “has increasingly relied upon non-prosecution deal –also called deferred prosecution agreement—in many criminal cases involving business entities.” At http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1147696533676.

The indictment of Milberg-Weiss, May 18th, sends a message to law firms about the risk of themselves facing federal investigation and indictment for bring corporate fraud cases to the courts. It came after a 5-year investigation for alleged misuse of referral fees. “Milberg Weiss, the country's premier plaintiff law firm, vigorously pursues corporate wrongdoing. In 40 years, we have successfully prosecuted thousands of class action lawsuits and recovered over $45 billion for shareholders and consumers. Our reputation for excellence has been recognized and applauded by judges all over the country. “ at http://www.milbergweissjustice.com/index.php The prosecution will very likely force the closing of our country’s primer law firm in the area of corporate wrongdoings.

“In an effort to address the government's concerns about alleged misuse of referral fees, Milberg Weiss voluntarily adopted a system to ensure that no outside firm or attorney receiving a referral fee from Milberg Weiss would share any portion with a client. Milberg Weiss also retained the services of Bart M. Schwartz, a highly respected former Chief of the Criminal Division in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, to monitor the procedures and to develop a "best practices" program. The firm offered to have Mr. Schwartz report his ongoing efforts directly to federal prosecutors in Los Angeles. In addition, as previously reported, partners David Bershad and Steven Schulman have taken leaves of absence pending resolution of the charges filed against them, not because they believe they engaged in wrongdoing, but because they hoped doing so would avoid indictment of the firm. Indictment of the firm was completely unnecessary and unjust.The government's case depends on its position that the firm and its attorneys failed to provide full and "honest services" in prosecuting cases in furtherance of its clients' interests. That charge is absurd on its face. The firm is renowned for achieving the best possible results for its clients and class members. In fact, the government makes no allegation - nor could it - that the firm did not provide first rate, highest quality legal services to every one of its clients.The firm is committed to continuing the zealous representation of its clients and has the attorneys, personnel, and resources to do so.” At http://www.milbergweissjustice.com/ourstatements.php The case is about the alleged misuse of “referral fees,” paid to other, smaller firms that brought cases to Milberg Weiss. The issue that will be before the courts is the legality of having paid plaintiffs, which made sure that the firm was often first to bring a claim on behalf of shareholders. Howard Vogel and Steven Cooperman, two of those plaintiffs as part of his cooperation with prosecutors, plead guilty in April of receiving $2.5 million for serving as Milberg-Weiss plaintiffs. Part of the charges concern the alleged paying of over $2.4 million to Palm Springs attorneys Lazar and Seltzer and others since 1984 in exchange for being named as plaintiffs in class action lawsuits. This fee for service is not a kickback, though it has been commonly called such by the pro-business press and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. This farming out of services is a normal business practice and ought not be prosecuted. However, our government all too often has other agendas besides serving and protecting the public. With Milberg-Weiss it is protecting the companies that cook their books and commit security fraud.

IRAQ WAR U.N. REPORT

Link to UN bimonthly report of their Assistance Mission in Iraq, May 23, 2006, at http://www.uniraq.org/documents/HR%20Report%20Mar%20Apr%2006%20EN.doc

Bush Violates Law in CIA Agent Leak

The second impeachable crime. First was the spying upon citizens contrary to both our Constitution and legislation passed by Congress.

GANGSTER GOVERNMENT, A LEAKY PRESIDENT RUNS AFOUL OF 'LITTLE RICO'Buzzflash 4/9/06by Greg Palast at http://www.gregpalast.com Sunday, April 9, 2006 It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual. 'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you. OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail. Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con. On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it." Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice. If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system. Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil f motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.) Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe: "Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts." Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment." Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a "racketeering enterprise." So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights. After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits of the fraud " -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys home. And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER" -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government. ********** Former racketeering investigator Greg Palast is author of "ARMED MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," to be released in June. Subscribe to the new podcast of our columns at www.GregPalast.com

Sunday, April 9, 2006 It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual. 'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you. OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail.

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con. On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil f motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Hamas Elected in Palestine

Out of frustration over co-opted governments, the Palestinians elect an independent government U.S. and Israel work to overthrow new Palestinian government

For all their talk of “spreading democracy,” the U.S. imperialists, and their Zionist allies in Israel, have shown that they have no intention of honoring the will of the oppressed Palestinian people, who overwhelming chose members of Hamas to represent them in the January elections. According to an article in the New York Times, “The intention [of the U.S. and Israel] is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election.” “If a Hamas government is unable to pay workers, import goods, transfer money and receive significant amounts of outside aid, Mr. Abbas, the president, would have the authority to dissolve parliament and call new elections, the officials say, even though that power is not explicit in the Palestinian basic law,” the article continued. The U.S. plans to cut off all aid to Palestine, and is pressuring other countries in Europe and the Middle East to do the same. The Palestinian Authority’s total budget is around $1.9 billion. As a direct result of Israel’s invasion and continued occupation of Palestine, about $1 billion of that comes directly from international aid. “The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement (the corrupt political faction that lost its majority in the January parliamentary election).” The U.S. adopted a similar strategy to destabilize the Nicaraguan government after the Sandinista revolution in 1979. Israel has already cut off transfers of $50 million a month in Palestinian taxes and customs it collects. At the same time, the U.S. asked the Palestinian Authority to return $50 million it gave last year to help fund badly needed infrastructure projects after Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has also suspended the reconstruction of Gaza’s airport, which was destroyed by Israel in 2002, and has even gone as far as considering to cut off water and electricity to the Occupied Territories. Iran has offered to fund the Palestinian Authority if the imperialists cut off aid; but Israel has already promised to block any funds from Tehran. In an attempt to justify their pending embargos on Palestine, neither Israel or the U.S. has missed an opportunity to remind the world that Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organization by several Western governments. Of course, the real motivation of the embargo is to smash any and all resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, so that it’s plundering can continue. While the two countries have been busy denouncing Hamas as a band of terrorists, the terrorists in the U.S. and Israeli armies continue to kill scores of innocent people. Hundreds of thousands have been murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were invaded by the U.S., and Israel has killed over 3,600 Palestinians since the year 2000. And, as if the threat of a total embargo on Palestine wasn’t enough, there is also the distinct possibility of another Israeli military offensive in the Occupied Territories. The Israeli government is considering classifying the Palestinian Authority as an “enemy state,” which would pave the way for such actions, and if they’re successful, the forceful overthrow of Palestine’s democratically elected government.

In an attempt to justify their pending embargos on Palestine, neither Israel or the U.S. has missed an opportunity to remind the world that Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organization by several Western governments. Of course, the real motivation of the embargo is to smash any and all resistance to Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, so that it’s plundering can continue. While the two countries have been busy denouncing Hamas as a band of terrorists, the terrorists in the U.S. and Israeli armies continue to kill scores of innocent people. Hundreds of thousands have been murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan since they were invaded by the U.S., and Israel has killed over 3,600 Palestinians since the year 2000. And, as if the threat of a total embargo on Palestine wasn’t enough, there is also the distinct possibility of another Israeli military offensive in the Occupied Territories. The Israeli government is considering classifying the Palestinian Authority as an “enemy state,” which would pave the way for such actions, and if they’re successful, the forceful overthrow of Palestine’s democratically elected government.

AN IMPEACHABLE CRIME

GANGSTER GOVERNMENT, A LEAKY PRESIDENT RUNS AFOUL OF ‘LITTLE RICO Buzzflash, 4/9/06, by Greg Palast at http://gregpalast.com

Sunday, April 9, 2006 It's a crime. No kidding. But the media has it all wrong. As usual. 'Scooter' Libby finally outed 'Mr. Big,' the perpetrator of the heinous disclosure of the name of secret agent Valerie Plame. It was the President of United States himself -- in conspiracy with his Vice-President. Now the pundits are arguing over whether our war-a-holic President had the legal right to leak this national security information. But, that's a fake debate meant to distract you. OK, let's accept the White House alibi that releasing Plame's identity was no crime. But if that's true, they've committed a BIGGER crime: Bush and Cheney knowingly withheld vital information from a grand jury investigation, a multimillion dollar inquiry the perps themselves authorized. That's akin to calling in a false fire alarm or calling the cops for a burglary that never happened -- but far, far worse. Let's not forget that in the hunt for the perpetrator of this non-crime, reporter Judith Miller went to jail. Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con. On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it." Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice. If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system. Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil f motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.) Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe: "Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts." Statements aimed at misleading grand jury investigators are hard-time offenses. It doesn't matter that Bush's too-clever little quip was made to the press and not under oath. I've cited press releases and comments in the New York Times in court as evidence of fraud. By not swearing to his disingenuous statement, Bush gets off the perjury hook, but he committed a crime nonetheless, "deliberate concealment." Here's how the law works (and hopefully, it will). The Bush gang's use of the telephone in this con game constituted wire fraud. Furthermore, while presidents may leak ("declassify") intelligence information, they may not obstruct justice; that is, send a grand jury on a wild goose chase. Under the 'RICO' statute (named after the Edward G. Robinson movie mobster, 'Little Rico'), the combination of these crimes makes the Bush executive branch a "racketeering enterprise." So, book'm, Dan-o. Time to read The POTUS and The Veep their rights. After setting their bail (following the impeachments and removals, of course), a judge will have a more intriguing matter to address. The RICO law requires the Feds to seize all "ill-gotten gains" of a racketeering enterprise, even before trial. Usually we're talking fast cars and diamond bling. But in this case, the conspirators' purloined booty includes a stolen election and a fraudulently obtained authorization for war. I see no reason why a judge could not impound the 82d Airborne as "fruits of the fraud " -- lock, stock and gun barrels -- and bring the boys home. And if justice is to be done we will will also have to run yellow tape across the gates at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue -- "CRIME SCENE - DO NOT ENTER" -- and return the White House to its rightful owners, the American people, the victims of this gangster government. ********** Former racketeering investigator Greg Palast is author of "ARMED MADHOUSE: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War," to be released in June. Subscribe to the new podcast of our col

Think about that. While Miller sat in a prison cell, Bush and Cheney were laughing their sick heads off, knowing the grand jury testimony, the special prosecutor's subpoenas and the FBI's terrorizing newsrooms were nothing but fake props in Bush's elaborate charade, Cheney's Big Con. On February 10, 2004, our not-so-dumb-as-he-sounds President stated, "Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing. ...And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it."

Notice Bush's cleverly crafted words. He says he can't name anyone who leaked this "classified" info -- knowing full well he'd de-classified it. Far from letting Bush off the hook, it worsens the crime. For years, I worked as a government investigator and, let me tell you, Bush and Cheney withholding material information from the grand jury is a felony. Several felonies, actually: abuse of legal process, fraud, racketeering and, that old standby, obstruction of justice.

If you or I had manipulated the legal system this way, we'd be breaking rocks on a chain gang. We wouldn't even get a trial -- most judges would consider this a "fraud upon the court" and send us to the slammer in minutes using the bench's power to administer instant punishment for contempt of the judicial system.

Why'd they do it? The White House junta did the deed for the most evil f motives: to hoodwink the public during the 2004 election campaign, to pretend that evil anti-Bush elements were undermining the Republic, when it was the Bush element itself at the center of the conspiracy. (Notably, elections trickery also motivated Richard Nixon's "plumbers" to break into the Watergate, then the Democratic Party campaign headquarters.)

Let me draft the indictment for you as I would have were I still a government gumshoe: "Perpetrator Lewis Libby (alias, 'Scooter') contacted Miller; while John Doe 1 contacted perpetrators' shill at the Washington Post, Bob Woodward, in furtherance of a scheme directed by George Bush (alias 'The POTUS') and Dick Cheney (alias, 'The Veep') to release intelligence information fraudulently proffered as 'classified,' and thereinafter, knowingly withheld material evidence from a grand jury empanelled to investigate said disclosure. Furthermore, perpetrator 'The POTUS' made material statements designed to deceive investigators and knowingly misrepresent his state of knowledge of the facts."

French workers oppose move to break the back of labor

Fear of the Polish Plumber By Tony Wesolowsky IN THESE TIMES, APRIL 14, 2005 An excellent prolabor publication at inthesetimes. {Contents lack the right slant of the corporate media} Neoliberalism's discontents are fighting back in Europe. The "Polish plumber"--a symbol of cheap labor--became a catchphrase in France's "No" camp during its referendum on the E.U. constitution. His specter, wrench in hand, is rising again.

Neoliberalism's discontents are fighting back in Europe. The "Polish plumber"--a symbol of cheap labor--became a catchphrase in France's "No" camp during its referendum on the E.U. constitution. His specter, wrench in hand, is rising again.

Since the start of the year, public opposition has foiled two attempts by the European Union parliament to pass sweeping "liberalization" laws in the shipping and service industries. Labor unions and anti-neoliberal organizations like the French group ATTAC protest that corporate elites are using the European Union as a front to roll back Europe's enviable, but eroding, social welfare system. Armed with slingshots, whistles and placards, thousands of workers from across Europe descended on Strasbourg, France--headquarters of the European parliament--on Jan. 16. Inside, European lawmakers were considering whether to "liberalize" dock services across Europe. Angry workers were met by police armed with tear gas and water cannons. Sixty-four police and an unspecified number of picketers were injured. At the same time, an estimated 50,000 dockworkers in Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and other ports shut down shipping operations with a 24-hour strike.”Not one crane is moving,” said German dock union spokesman Uwe Schroeder. The E.U. measure aimed to end monopoly cargo handling operations at many of Europe’s ports—an attempt to lower costs and raise productivity and investment. Dockworkers feared that breaking up the monopolies would eliminate jobs, lower wages and raise safety risks. The protests and strike worked, as the European parliament voted 532 to 120 to reject the measure. A month later in February, a bigger battled loomed with legislation to liberalize the E.U. service sector. The European Union’s argument: Goods can be freely traded within all 25 E.U. members, but not services. Named the Bolkestein Directive (in honor of Frits Bolkestein, the former E.U. Commissioner for the internal market and industry), it would have introduced the controversial “country of origin principle.” In theory, what opponents called the “directive from hell” would allow any company to set up shop anywhere in Europe, but operate under the laws and regulations of its home country. In practice, it would have allowed firms from eastern European countries like Poland—where wages are a fraction of those in western Europe and labor laws are weak—to operate anywhere in the European Union under Polish laws. On Feb. 16, a massive labor-led campaign against the Bolkestein Directive paid off when the European parliament passed, by 179 votes, a version of the directive minus the controversial “country of origin principle” provision and with labor safeguards intact. The battle over the Bolkestein Directive illustrated an East-West fissure in the European Union. Workers in the west saw it as a back-door attempt to cut their wages and erode standards. Those in the former Communist bloc viewed it as a front-door entrance to better paying jobs. Eastern Europeans have become unwitting foot soldiers for neoliberalism. Last year, the governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, declared that immigration from eastern Europe had “reduced wage inflation” in Britain. With Bulgaria and Romania set to join the European Union in 2008, downward pressure on wages is expected to grow. And talks on allowing Turkey to join only heighten such fears, albeit mixed with a large dose of Islamophobia. More and more Europeans don’t like where the Eurocrats in Brussels are leading them. Eurocrats know their market project is facing a credibility problem with the public. A January opinion poll showed Europeans both east and west generally cool to the European Union. But while they may be down, they are surely not out. The European Union’s so-called executive branch, Council of Ministers, has the power to nix the European parliament’s amendments to the Bolkenstein directive and, as the E.U. parliament Web site points out, is likely to ignore the parliament’s overwhelming rejection of the port directive. Such is democracy, E.U. style.

Armed with slingshots, whistles and placards, thousands of workers from across Europe descended on Strasbourg, France--headquarters of the European parliament--on Jan. 16. Inside, European lawmakers were considering whether to "liberalize" dock services across Europe. Angry workers were met by police armed with tear gas and water cannons. Sixty-four police and an unspecified number of picketers were injured. At the same time, an estimated 50,000 dockworkers in Antwerp, Rotterdam, Le Havre and other ports shut down shipping operations with a 24-hour strike.”Not one crane is moving,” said German dock union spokesman Uwe Schroeder.

The E.U. measure aimed to end monopoly cargo handling operations at many of Europe’s ports—an attempt to lower costs and raise productivity and investment. Dockworkers feared that breaking up the monopolies would eliminate jobs, lower wages and raise safety risks. The protests and strike worked, as the European parliament voted 532 to 120 to reject the measure.

A month later in February, a bigger battled loomed with legislation to liberalize the E.U. service sector. The European Union’s argument: Goods can be freely traded within all 25 E.U. members, but not services. Named the Bolkestein Directive (in honor of Frits Bolkestein, the former E.U. Commissioner for the internal market and industry), it would have introduced the controversial “country of origin principle.”

In theory, what opponents called the “directive from hell” would allow any company to set up shop anywhere in Europe, but operate under the laws and regulations of its home country. In practice, it would have allowed firms from eastern European countries like Poland—where wages are a fraction of those in western Europe and labor laws are weak—to operate anywhere in the European Union under Polish laws.

Why the government is flooding the labor market

What ought a nation, and in particular the United States, be doing as far as allowing foreigners to live in their nation? Illegal immigration, which of late we hear so much about, is part of an overall question of immigration. Its answer requires first to resolve the issue of the obligation of a state to its citizens, because to expand the populace has effects upon population density, upon employment, and upon wages. A nation is like a family in so far as it makes demands upon its members, and yields benefits. There are degrees of evolution for nations. The most highly evolved ones seek assiduously to establish social justice; viz., a just proportioning of the burdens and rewards. The same applies to the good family. Secondly we must understand the political roots if we are to find a lasting solution.

In theory, the purpose of the nation is to provide for the common good of all its members. It is to maximize the well being of all its people. A nation will often permit a particular group to receive more benefits per unit of labor than another group. However, an inordinate reward violates the mandate, for it is promoting the well being of a particular class at the expense of all others. There is no free lunch. Thus in the example of physicians, in order to attract the most qualified people and have them perform at a high level of service it is necessary for their income to average after expenses $200,000 per year, then a just society would permit this level of reward.[i] Of course, depending on skill and workload some physicians would receive more and others less. For them to earn on an average $400,000 per year would be to significantly deviate from the just proportioning.

When a class, such as physicians, landlords, or bankers claim that they have a right to make what the market will bear, they are attempting to get the nation to neglect its obligation of social justice. They argue that more is needed for them to perform at a high level, but the example of other nations shows this to be false. Our nation is ranked first in cost of health care and 37th (according to a 2002 United Nations study) in quality for medical care, when factoring in the entire populace. And they argue that government intervention will only worsen the situation.[ii] Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living and an extremely graduated tax system. Arguments of self-interest are seldom sound.

Each class and group therein strives to get special to receive rewards in excess of the ideal, as measured by the public weal. The balancing between different interests has in our nations history always been significantly flawed. In the last 50 years the power has shifted to big business more than at any time prior in our history. This shift was accelerated when the requirement for balanced media programming was ended under the Reagan Administration. This changes in the production of ideas permitted big business, among other things, to form a much closer alliance with government. Though they have always contributed the lion’s share of share of the funds to those whom the people elect to govern, those elected could now serve more opening big business. For example, in the 50’s neither party would have attempted to pass NAFTA, nor would they permit the wholesale outsourcing of jobs. People on an average perceive today much differently NAFTA and outsourcing. The payback per dollar of contribution is much greater now than ever in the past. Finally, the report card for executives and the CEO is graded by board members and stockholders according to the moves they make for to increase profits. Big business slanting of the media, the pro-business swing of the masses of voters in their perception of their best interests, the ever increasing more blatant promotion of the interests of big business by our elected officials are all part for not just the understanding of the immigration morass, but also for formulating what would be a just policy as measured by the public weal.

Among the special considerations sought by big business and promoted by legislation has been the reduction of wages. Gradually the membership of labor in unions has dropped from over 30 percent in 1950 to the current 11%. This was achieved by priming the pump with anti-union slant in the media followed by legislative enactments. And as union membership has dropped so too has dropped the percentage return on the products of their labor, and a similar drop in return has been experienced by white-collar workers. Once most household were had only one worker. Only those at the top have had an ever-increasing share of the rewards.

Big business has wanted our government to allow a very large influx of aliens for to cheapen labor; and they have got it. This is violating the mandate of government to promote the public weal. It would be like a family of eight children increasing to 12 by adopting 4 more children and reducing the expenditure per child by 33%. There is no need for the adoption of these children other than that the parents want it. So too this has happened to the blue-collar of our nation. Our government’s immigration position--legal and illegal--has permitted the flooding of the labor pool. By so doing wages have dropped, which please big business. Since such an decrease in the well-being of so many people for the benefit of a few violates the promotion of the public weal, liberal immigration policies ought to be opposed.

The flood began with Reagan and his conservative cohort as a maneuver to cheapen labor. He relaxed the enforcement of laws penalizing employers for hiring illegals. By the time he left office there were an estimated 3 million illegals. Now it is 11 million. Mexico’s second greatest source of foreign revenue, after oil, is the dollars that illegals send back to their country. Nearly 10% of the work force is both illegal and cheap. The second part of the attack is through immigration, thus adding millions more into the cheap, unskilled labor pool. We currently have the greatest flood of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Low wages affect quality of life, and thus we need to both remove those here illegal and limit immigration.

Why the government is flooding the labor market

What ought a nation, and in particular the United States, be doing as far as allowing foreigners to live in their nation? Illegal immigration, which of late we hear so much about, is part of an overall question of immigration. Its answer requires first to resolve the issue of the obligation of a state to its citizens, because to expand the populace has effects upon population density, upon employment, and upon wages. A nation is like a family in so far as it makes demands upon its members, and yields benefits. There are degrees of evolution for nations. The most highly evolved ones seek assiduously to establish social justice; viz., a just proportioning of the burdens and rewards. The same applies to the good family. Secondly we must understand the political roots if we are to find a lasting solution.

In theory, the purpose of the nation is to provide for the common good of all its members. It is to maximize the well being of all its people. A nation will often permit a particular group to receive more benefits per unit of labor than another group. However, an inordinate reward violates the mandate, for it is promoting the well being of a particular class at the expense of all others. There is no free lunch. Thus in the example of physicians, in order to attract the most qualified people and have them perform at a high level of service it is necessary for their income to average after expenses $200,000 per year, then a just society would permit this level of reward.[i] Of course, depending on skill and workload some physicians would receive more and others less. For them to earn on an average $400,000 per year would be to significantly deviate from the just proportioning.

When a class, such as physicians, landlords, or bankers claim that they have a right to make what the market will bear, they are attempting to get the nation to neglect its obligation of social justice. They argue that more is needed for them to perform at a high level, but the example of other nations shows this to be false. Our nation is ranked first in cost of health care and 37th (according to a 2002 United Nations study) in quality for medical care, when factoring in the entire populace. And they argue that government intervention will only worsen the situation.[ii] Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living and an extremely graduated tax system. Arguments of self-interest are seldom sound.

Each class and group therein strives to get special to receive rewards in excess of the ideal, as measured by the public weal. The balancing between different interests has in our nations history always been significantly flawed. In the last 50 years the power has shifted to big business more than at any time prior in our history. This shift was accelerated when the requirement for balanced media programming was ended under the Reagan Administration. This changes in the production of ideas permitted big business, among other things, to form a much closer alliance with government. Though they have always contributed the lion’s share of share of the funds to those whom the people elect to govern, those elected could now serve more opening big business. For example, in the 50’s neither party would have attempted to pass NAFTA, nor would they permit the wholesale outsourcing of jobs. People on an average perceive today much differently NAFTA and outsourcing. The payback per dollar of contribution is much greater now than ever in the past. Finally, the report card for executives and the CEO is graded by board members and stockholders according to the moves they make for to increase profits. Big business slanting of the media, the pro-business swing of the masses of voters in their perception of their best interests, the ever increasing more blatant promotion of the interests of big business by our elected officials are all part for not just the understanding of the immigration morass, but also for formulating what would be a just policy as measured by the public weal.

Among the special considerations sought by big business and promoted by legislation has been the reduction of wages. Gradually the membership of labor in unions has dropped from over 30 percent in 1950 to the current 11%. This was achieved by priming the pump with anti-union slant in the media followed by legislative enactments. And as union membership has dropped so too has dropped the percentage return on the products of their labor, and a similar drop in return has been experienced by white-collar workers. Once most household were had only one worker. Only those at the top have had an ever-increasing share of the rewards.

Big business has wanted our government to allow a very large influx of aliens for to cheapen labor; and they have got it. This is violating the mandate of government to promote the public weal. It would be like a family of eight children increasing to 12 by adopting 4 more children and reducing the expenditure per child by 33%. There is no need for the adoption of these children other than that the parents want it. So too this has happened to the blue-collar of our nation. Our government’s immigration position--legal and illegal--has permitted the flooding of the labor pool. By so doing wages have dropped, which please big business. Since such an decrease in the well-being of so many people for the benefit of a few violates the promotion of the public weal, liberal immigration policies ought to be opposed.

The flood began with Reagan and his conservative cohort as a maneuver to cheapen labor. He relaxed the enforcement of laws penalizing employers for hiring illegals. By the time he left office there were an estimated 3 million illegals. Now it is 11 million. Mexico’s second greatest source of foreign revenue, after oil, is the dollars that illegals send back to their country. Nearly 10% of the work force is both illegal and cheap. The second part of the attack is through immigration, thus adding millions more into the cheap, unskilled labor pool. We currently have the greatest flood of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Low wages affect quality of life, and thus we need to both remove those here illegal and limit immigration.

Why the government is flooding the labor market

What ought a nation, and in particular the United States, be doing as far as allowing foreigners to live in their nation? Illegal immigration, which of late we hear so much about, is part of an overall question of immigration. Its answer requires first to resolve the issue of the obligation of a state to its citizens, because to expand the populace has effects upon population density, upon employment, and upon wages. A nation is like a family in so far as it makes demands upon its members, and yields benefits. There are degrees of evolution for nations. The most highly evolved ones seek assiduously to establish social justice; viz., a just proportioning of the burdens and rewards. The same applies to the good family. Secondly we must understand the political roots if we are to find a lasting solution.

In theory, the purpose of the nation is to provide for the common good of all its members. It is to maximize the well being of all its people. A nation will often permit a particular group to receive more benefits per unit of labor than another group. However, an inordinate reward violates the mandate, for it is promoting the well being of a particular class at the expense of all others. There is no free lunch. Thus in the example of physicians, in order to attract the most qualified people and have them perform at a high level of service it is necessary for their income to average after expenses $200,000 per year, then a just society would permit this level of reward.[i] Of course, depending on skill and workload some physicians would receive more and others less. For them to earn on an average $400,000 per year would be to significantly deviate from the just proportioning.

When a class, such as physicians, landlords, or bankers claim that they have a right to make what the market will bear, they are attempting to get the nation to neglect its obligation of social justice. They argue that more is needed for them to perform at a high level, but the example of other nations shows this to be false. Our nation is ranked first in cost of health care and 37th (according to a 2002 United Nations study) in quality for medical care, when factoring in the entire populace. And they argue that government intervention will only worsen the situation.[ii] Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living and an extremely graduated tax system. Arguments of self-interest are seldom sound.

Each class and group therein strives to get special to receive rewards in excess of the ideal, as measured by the public weal. The balancing between different interests has in our nations history always been significantly flawed. In the last 50 years the power has shifted to big business more than at any time prior in our history. This shift was accelerated when the requirement for balanced media programming was ended under the Reagan Administration. This changes in the production of ideas permitted big business, among other things, to form a much closer alliance with government. Though they have always contributed the lion’s share of share of the funds to those whom the people elect to govern, those elected could now serve more opening big business. For example, in the 50’s neither party would have attempted to pass NAFTA, nor would they permit the wholesale outsourcing of jobs. People on an average perceive today much differently NAFTA and outsourcing. The payback per dollar of contribution is much greater now than ever in the past. Finally, the report card for executives and the CEO is graded by board members and stockholders according to the moves they make for to increase profits. Big business slanting of the media, the pro-business swing of the masses of voters in their perception of their best interests, the ever increasing more blatant promotion of the interests of big business by our elected officials are all part for not just the understanding of the immigration morass, but also for formulating what would be a just policy as measured by the public weal.

Among the special considerations sought by big business and promoted by legislation has been the reduction of wages. Gradually the membership of labor in unions has dropped from over 30 percent in 1950 to the current 11%. This was achieved by priming the pump with anti-union slant in the media followed by legislative enactments. And as union membership has dropped so too has dropped the percentage return on the products of their labor, and a similar drop in return has been experienced by white-collar workers. Once most household were had only one worker. Only those at the top have had an ever-increasing share of the rewards.

Big business has wanted our government to allow a very large influx of aliens for to cheapen labor; and they have got it. This is violating the mandate of government to promote the public weal. It would be like a family of eight children increasing to 12 by adopting 4 more children and reducing the expenditure per child by 33%. There is no need for the adoption of these children other than that the parents want it. So too this has happened to the blue-collar of our nation. Our government’s immigration position--legal and illegal--has permitted the flooding of the labor pool. By so doing wages have dropped, which please big business. Since such an decrease in the well-being of so many people for the benefit of a few violates the promotion of the public weal, liberal immigration policies ought to be opposed.

The flood began with Reagan and his conservative cohort as a maneuver to cheapen labor. He relaxed the enforcement of laws penalizing employers for hiring illegals. By the time he left office there were an estimated 3 million illegals. Now it is 11 million. Mexico’s second greatest source of foreign revenue, after oil, is the dollars that illegals send back to their country. Nearly 10% of the work force is both illegal and cheap. The second part of the attack is through immigration, thus adding millions more into the cheap, unskilled labor pool. We currently have the greatest flood of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Low wages affect quality of life, and thus we need to both remove those here illegal and limit immigration.

Why the government is flooding the labor market

What ought a nation, and in particular the United States, be doing as far as allowing foreigners to live in their nation? Illegal immigration, which of late we hear so much about, is part of an overall question of immigration. Its answer requires first to resolve the issue of the obligation of a state to its citizens, because to expand the populace has effects upon population density, upon employment, and upon wages. A nation is like a family in so far as it makes demands upon its members, and yields benefits. There are degrees of evolution for nations. The most highly evolved ones seek assiduously to establish social justice; viz., a just proportioning of the burdens and rewards. The same applies to the good family. Secondly we must understand the political roots if we are to find a lasting solution.

In theory, the purpose of the nation is to provide for the common good of all its members. It is to maximize the well being of all its people. A nation will often permit a particular group to receive more benefits per unit of labor than another group. However, an inordinate reward violates the mandate, for it is promoting the well being of a particular class at the expense of all others. There is no free lunch. Thus in the example of physicians, in order to attract the most qualified people and have them perform at a high level of service it is necessary for their income to average after expenses $200,000 per year, then a just society would permit this level of reward.[i] Of course, depending on skill and workload some physicians would receive more and others less. For them to earn on an average $400,000 per year would be to significantly deviate from the just proportioning.

When a class, such as physicians, landlords, or bankers claim that they have a right to make what the market will bear, they are attempting to get the nation to neglect its obligation of social justice. They argue that more is needed for them to perform at a high level, but the example of other nations shows this to be false. Our nation is ranked first in cost of health care and 37th (according to a 2002 United Nations study) in quality for medical care, when factoring in the entire populace. And they argue that government intervention will only worsen the situation.[ii] Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living and an extremely graduated tax system. Arguments of self-interest are seldom sound.

Each class and group therein strives to get special to receive rewards in excess of the ideal, as measured by the public weal. The balancing between different interests has in our nations history always been significantly flawed. In the last 50 years the power has shifted to big business more than at any time prior in our history. This shift was accelerated when the requirement for balanced media programming was ended under the Reagan Administration. This changes in the production of ideas permitted big business, among other things, to form a much closer alliance with government. Though they have always contributed the lion’s share of share of the funds to those whom the people elect to govern, those elected could now serve more opening big business. For example, in the 50’s neither party would have attempted to pass NAFTA, nor would they permit the wholesale outsourcing of jobs. People on an average perceive today much differently NAFTA and outsourcing. The payback per dollar of contribution is much greater now than ever in the past. Finally, the report card for executives and the CEO is graded by board members and stockholders according to the moves they make for to increase profits. Big business slanting of the media, the pro-business swing of the masses of voters in their perception of their best interests, the ever increasing more blatant promotion of the interests of big business by our elected officials are all part for not just the understanding of the immigration morass, but also for formulating what would be a just policy as measured by the public weal.

Among the special considerations sought by big business and promoted by legislation has been the reduction of wages. Gradually the membership of labor in unions has dropped from over 30 percent in 1950 to the current 11%. This was achieved by priming the pump with anti-union slant in the media followed by legislative enactments. And as union membership has dropped so too has dropped the percentage return on the products of their labor, and a similar drop in return has been experienced by white-collar workers. Once most household were had only one worker. Only those at the top have had an ever-increasing share of the rewards.

Big business has wanted our government to allow a very large influx of aliens for to cheapen labor; and they have got it. This is violating the mandate of government to promote the public weal. It would be like a family of eight children increasing to 12 by adopting 4 more children and reducing the expenditure per child by 33%. There is no need for the adoption of these children other than that the parents want it. So too this has happened to the blue-collar of our nation. Our government’s immigration position--legal and illegal--has permitted the flooding of the labor pool. By so doing wages have dropped, which please big business. Since such an decrease in the well-being of so many people for the benefit of a few violates the promotion of the public weal, liberal immigration policies ought to be opposed.

The flood began with Reagan and his conservative cohort as a maneuver to cheapen labor. He relaxed the enforcement of laws penalizing employers for hiring illegals. By the time he left office there were an estimated 3 million illegals. Now it is 11 million. Mexico’s second greatest source of foreign revenue, after oil, is the dollars that illegals send back to their country. Nearly 10% of the work force is both illegal and cheap. The second part of the attack is through immigration, thus adding millions more into the cheap, unskilled labor pool. We currently have the greatest flood of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Low wages affect quality of life, and thus we need to both remove those here illegal and limit immigration.

Why the government is flooding the labor market

What ought a nation, and in particular the United States, be doing as far as allowing foreigners to live in their nation? Illegal immigration, which of late we hear so much about, is part of an overall question of immigration. Its answer requires first to resolve the issue of the obligation of a state to its citizens, because to expand the populace has effects upon population density, upon employment, and upon wages. A nation is like a family in so far as it makes demands upon its members, and yields benefits. There are degrees of evolution for nations. The most highly evolved ones seek assiduously to establish social justice; viz., a just proportioning of the burdens and rewards. The same applies to the good family. Secondly we must understand the political roots if we are to find a lasting solution.

In theory, the purpose of the nation is to provide for the common good of all its members. It is to maximize the well being of all its people. A nation will often permit a particular group to receive more benefits per unit of labor than another group. However, an inordinate reward violates the mandate, for it is promoting the well being of a particular class at the expense of all others. There is no free lunch. Thus in the example of physicians, in order to attract the most qualified people and have them perform at a high level of service it is necessary for their income to average after expenses $200,000 per year, then a just society would permit this level of reward.[i] Of course, depending on skill and workload some physicians would receive more and others less. For them to earn on an average $400,000 per year would be to significantly deviate from the just proportioning.

When a class, such as physicians, landlords, or bankers claim that they have a right to make what the market will bear, they are attempting to get the nation to neglect its obligation of social justice. They argue that more is needed for them to perform at a high level, but the example of other nations shows this to be false. Our nation is ranked first in cost of health care and 37th (according to a 2002 United Nations study) in quality for medical care, when factoring in the entire populace. And they argue that government intervention will only worsen the situation.[ii] Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have a higher standard of living and an extremely graduated tax system. Arguments of self-interest are seldom sound.

Each class and group therein strives to get special to receive rewards in excess of the ideal, as measured by the public weal. The balancing between different interests has in our nations history always been significantly flawed. In the last 50 years the power has shifted to big business more than at any time prior in our history. This shift was accelerated when the requirement for balanced media programming was ended under the Reagan Administration. This changes in the production of ideas permitted big business, among other things, to form a much closer alliance with government. Though they have always contributed the lion’s share of share of the funds to those whom the people elect to govern, those elected could now serve more opening big business. For example, in the 50’s neither party would have attempted to pass NAFTA, nor would they permit the wholesale outsourcing of jobs. People on an average perceive today much differently NAFTA and outsourcing. The payback per dollar of contribution is much greater now than ever in the past. Finally, the report card for executives and the CEO is graded by board members and stockholders according to the moves they make for to increase profits. Big business slanting of the media, the pro-business swing of the masses of voters in their perception of their best interests, the ever increasing more blatant promotion of the interests of big business by our elected officials are all part for not just the understanding of the immigration morass, but also for formulating what would be a just policy as measured by the public weal.

Among the special considerations sought by big business and promoted by legislation has been the reduction of wages. Gradually the membership of labor in unions has dropped from over 30 percent in 1950 to the current 11%. This was achieved by priming the pump with anti-union slant in the media followed by legislative enactments. And as union membership has dropped so too has dropped the percentage return on the products of their labor, and a similar drop in return has been experienced by white-collar workers. Once most household were had only one worker. Only those at the top have had an ever-increasing share of the rewards.

Big business has wanted our government to allow a very large influx of aliens for to cheapen labor; and they have got it. This is violating the mandate of government to promote the public weal. It would be like a family of eight children increasing to 12 by adopting 4 more children and reducing the expenditure per child by 33%. There is no need for the adoption of these children other than that the parents want it. So too this has happened to the blue-collar of our nation. Our government’s immigration position--legal and illegal--has permitted the flooding of the labor pool. By so doing wages have dropped, which please big business. Since such an decrease in the well-being of so many people for the benefit of a few violates the promotion of the public weal, liberal immigration policies ought to be opposed.

The flood began with Reagan and his conservative cohort as a maneuver to cheapen labor. He relaxed the enforcement of laws penalizing employers for hiring illegals. By the time he left office there were an estimated 3 million illegals. Now it is 11 million. Mexico’s second greatest source of foreign revenue, after oil, is the dollars that illegals send back to their country. Nearly 10% of the work force is both illegal and cheap. The second part of the attack is through immigration, thus adding millions more into the cheap, unskilled labor pool. We currently have the greatest flood of immigration since the beginning of the 20th century. Low wages affect quality of life, and thus we need to both remove those here illegal and limit immigration.

Democratic Party's Strategy?

From www.inthesetimes.com on the twiddle-de-twiddle-dumb parties. The problem with the alternative to the Republican Party is that they drink from the same trough of election funding, and want to continue drinking as much as possible therefrom: one is lard the other vegetable oil. Thus the Democrats have passed NAFTA, and that they have failed to offer a significant alternative to the Republican follows from their watering hole. The article below is about the outcome of this phenomena. In These Times is a monthly Washington watch magazine with a strong pro-union slant. Views > April 14, 2006 The Seinfeld Strategy By David Sirota

The problem with the alternative to the Republican Party is that they drink from the same trough of election funding, and want to continue drinking as much as possible therefrom: one is lard the other vegetable oil. Thus the Democrats have passed NAFTA, and that they have failed to offer a significant alternative to the Republican follows from their watering hole. The article below is about the outcome of this phenomena.

For the first time in more than a decade, Democrats seem to have a shot at taking back Congress. But also for the first time in recent history, Congress is on the cusp of switching hands without a voter mandate. How is that possible? Because Democrats are only in the hunt thanks to gross Republican missteps—and they are going out of their way to make sure their potential election to the majority is about nothing. Call it the Seinfeld strategy. Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein reports, “Democratic leaders are drifting toward a midterm message that indicts Bush more on grounds of competence (on issues such as Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and prescription drugs) than ideology.” As a short-term electoral tactic, the Seinfeldian “competence” strategy allows the GOP to right itself with new management. Sadly, it is not a strategy based on ideological differences that puts a boot to conservatives’ neck when their hypocrisy trips them up and they fall down. Thus, while Democrats celebrate the resignations of people like Reps. Tom DeLay (Texas) and Duke Cunningham (Calif.), the GOP simultaneously celebrates because they can now counter the Democrats’ “competence” argument by pointing out that their party has sloughed off the incompetents. In short, the Republican Party and the right’s ideological agenda march forward, largely unscathed. In making such a limited critique, Democrats tacitly validate conservatives’ ideological goals and further reinforce the public feeling that Democrats have no convictions of their own. For example, despite the GOP scandals and the political opportunities they present, Democrats refuse to push serious reforms like public financing of elections and instead push half-measures and focus on Republican missteps. In the process, they are implicitly saying they believe the system that most Americans know is corrupt is actually perfectly acceptable. The same thing on Iraq: The Democratic Party refuses to take a position wholly different from the Republicans, simply saying the management of the war—rather than the war itself—is the problem. National Democratic leaders will say they are forced to use the “competence” argument because it is the one big theme that unifies their ideologically diverse congressional membership. But that hides the not-so-secret fact that very powerful, very vocal, and very ideological forces within the Democratic Party support many of the conservative goals that a “competence” strategy inherently validates. {that is because they receive their funds from the same corporate sources that have cooped the Republicans--jk}. On domestic policy, these forces went public in April at a press conference at the Brookings Institution. Led by Citigroup chairman Robert Rubin—Clinton’s former Treasury secretary—the “Hamilton Project” announced plans to “to take on entrenched Democratic interests” such as teachers’ unions, according to the Financial Times. Participants at the event used words like “protectionist” to describe courageous congressional Democrats fighting to reform the corporate-written trade pacts Rubin and others helped pass in the ’90s. They also advocated school “vouchers” and “entitlement reform”—code words for defunding public education and eviscerating bedrock Democratic programs like Social Security and Medicare. {a result of Corporate America is pushing for lower taxes--jk}. At least they were honest in naming themselves after Alexander Hamilton, the leader of the elitist Federalist Party and rival of Thomas Jefferson, the populist founder of the Democratic Party. Public opinion data consistently show Americans are desperate for political leaders who will represent ordinary citizens’ interests—not just powerful lobbyists and their wealthy corporate clients. Until Democrats decide to stop taking part in “business as usual” and start fighting back against the right wing’s ideology, they will face the same political liabilities they do today. David Sirota is the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) and a Senior Editor at In These Times. He also writes for Working Assets, and is a twice-a-week guest on "The Al Franken Show." His forthcoming book Hostile Takeover will be released by Random House's Crown Publishers in Spring 2006.

Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein reports, “Democratic leaders are drifting toward a midterm message that indicts Bush more on grounds of competence (on issues such as Iraq, Hurricane Katrina and prescription drugs) than ideology.”

As a short-term electoral tactic, the Seinfeldian “competence” strategy allows the GOP to right itself with new management. Sadly, it is not a strategy based on ideological differences that puts a boot to conservatives’ neck when their hypocrisy trips them up and they fall down. Thus, while Democrats celebrate the resignations of people like Reps. Tom DeLay (Texas) and Duke Cunningham (Calif.), the GOP simultaneously celebrates because they can now counter the Democrats’ “competence” argument by pointing out that their party has sloughed off the incompetents. In short, the Republican Party and the right’s ideological agenda march forward, largely unscathed.

In making such a limited critique, Democrats tacitly validate conservatives’ ideological goals and further reinforce the public feeling that Democrats have no convictions of their own. For example, despite the GOP scandals and the political opportunities they present, Democrats refuse to push serious reforms like public financing of elections and instead push half-measures and focus on Republican missteps.

In the process, they are implicitly saying they believe the system that most Americans know is corrupt is actually perfectly acceptable. The same thing on Iraq: The Democratic Party refuses to take a position wholly different from the Republicans, simply saying the management of the war—rather than the war itself—is the problem.

Euro as the Cause for the Iraq War

Clark points out the government’s efforts to stop the switch to the euro as the currency of exchange for OPEC countries was the principle cause for the war. Article published in Jan of 03, revised in March & Jan of 04. Published at http://www.ratical.org/ratville Clarks article at www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by William Clark

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth by William Clark

Continued on the Euro, oil & Iraq

Hillary another in bed with big business--Huffington

This article confirms that as long as the Democrats drink from the same trough as the Republicans, the differences between the two are inconsequential. NAFTA was passed on Clinton’s watch. This helps explain why Murdock supports Hillary. Fri, 19 May 2006 from THE HUFFINTON POST’S - - - - - WEEKLY DIGEST BY Arianna Huffington (one of the uncompromised—read her Pigs at the Trough):

May 14 -- With less than a week to go before it opens, the buzz surrounding the film adaptation of The Da Vinci Code is reaching a crescendo. It's everywhere -- billboards, magazine covers, TV commercials, the sides of buses. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou racing around Europe trying to uncover the stunning secrets of the Holy Grail, and of how the patriarchy of the church systematically removed the Sacred Feminine from Christianity.The tag line: "Seek the Truth."Meanwhile, on the political front, I've been trying to crack The Hillary Code.Unlocking the latest Clinton cryptex, we find not a papyrus map but other kinds of symbolic clues: Making headlines with her warm assessment of Bush. Partying with a Who's Who of the GOP power elite, including Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist. Planning a fundraiser to be hosted by -- wait for it -- Rupert Murdoch.It doesn't take a dashing Harvard symbologist and a sexy French cryptographer to figure this one out. Hillary Clinton is determined to single-handedly remove every last vestige of authenticity from American politics.She's being aided by the Knights Templar over at the DLC. And, of course, the Holy Father of triangulation himself, William Jefferson Clinton -- the self-styled Pope of the Global Village (or at least the Global Initiative).At this point, she doesn't have a self-flagellating albino monk tracking her, but John McCain's own authenticity is getting paler by the minute, with Jerry Falwell's Liberty U. standing in for the ultra-devout Opus Dei.We have reached a moment when the disastrous policies of the Bush administration have left GOP support in a free-fall, with more Americans saying Democrats would do a better job dealing with Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration, taxes, prescription drug prices and civil liberties. They even believe, by a double digit margin, that Democrats come closer to sharing their moral values. Yet at this most propitious political moment, the presumptive favorite to lead the Democrats is doing everything in her power to distance herself from what should be the central holy tenet of the Democratic Party: opposition to the war in Iraq.It's not just the canoodling with the right. It's the relentless, unabashed pandering in an effort to rebrand herself as a red state-friendly centrist.The sacred scrolls of her inauthenticity are legend and legion: the co-sponsorship of anti-flag burning legislation, her call for "common ground" on abortion, her willingness to go along with Bush's missile defense fantasies, her "Sistah Souljah Moment" attack on video games (perhaps she should have been more worried about the spy satellite games the NSA was apparently playing), and her endless photo-op-ready partnerships with Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, Tom DeLay and Rick Santorum. And, worst of all, her steadfast -- often bellicose -- support for the war in Iraq.Sloshing through the muck and mire of the Bush administration cesspool -- and the sick joke it's made of the promise to restore honor and integrity to Washington -- voters are craving an authentic leader who stands for something more than getting elected.Instead, we have Hillary, phonier than Alberto Gonzales' Senate testimony on domestic spying, sucking up the media oxygen -- and piles and piles of Democratic moolah. The Hillary Code is a very big-budget production: she's already amassed more than $20 million in campaign cash.But more importantly, her dreary, shape-shifting slog toward 2008 is likely to leave voters as puzzled as Hanks' Robert Langdon when he first finds the murdered Louvre's curator laid out in front of the Mona Lisa. America needs a leader who will restore our faith in our democracy, not another shameless, trying-to-be-all-things-to-all-people politician who will further undermine it. A faith healer, not a faith stealer.The Da Vinci Code is a heart-pounding, pulse-racing thriller. The Hillary Code is a head-pounding, soul-sapping killer.My advice to Dems: See the movie, reject the candidate... and find a leader who will "seek the truth," not some deceptive middle ground.