Dear friends,

Just today, I was watching the annual fireworks show from home (sadly I don't go down to the Cincinnati Riverfront much these days… yet I digress)… and on TV I see a “party” being held in “honor” of soldiers who were wounded in Iraq, Afghanistan… and I SAW them without legs, arms, etc and I immediately thought, by WHAT justification do these ASSHOLES have to send willing (yes, THEY enlisted) boys and girls overseas again and again to get their legs and arms blown off?

And one of them said, “Once I heal from this surgery, I'm going to put my artificial leg on, and go back to Iraq. I have a score to settle.”

Why are these people so willing to fight, to KILL?

One word:
“NATIONALISM” Fanatical nationalism.

I will FIGHT to DEFEND this great COUNTRY of mine… as they did way back in 1776 against the brits to make sure we are free, now and ALWAYS! *cue 'Proud to Be an American'*

So, this is just one finger of the hand that is closing in on everyone in this world…

If we want to STOP war, not just THIS war, we must FOCUS on this and tell everyone, “Hey now, don't' be a soldier, it doesn't mean the same thing that it did in 1776!! In fact even then soldiers were just a pawn!!! Oh wait, don't say that last part, you might come off like a conspiracy theorist NUTTER… like me! Mwahahahahaa!!! *cue maniacal laughter*

Let me put it this way:

To CHANGE a thought, we do not focus on it's effects in our life. No, we change the source of the thought, or the thought itself!

To stop war, we must think and evoke, emote and whatever about PEACE and Love.
AND we begin to CHANGE OUR MINDS about “nationalism and patriotism”….

Tell me, SINCE VIETNAM, would you ever say (either to a soldier or to your friends in conversation) 'killing and war is WRONG'? Or is it only wrong in certain cases??? What about Darfur???

NO, we don't, because those that are in CONTROL have made sure the media MACHINE talked and talked about this during GW1. remember all that? “Support our troops” and all that rubbish. Just another slogan for us to mindlessly repeat….

But when WAR strikes us, we all say, “This war is unjust!!!” ALL WAR IS UNJUST AND NONSENSICAL.

We GIVE away that permission when we say, “It's alright to take our boys and girls from childhood, INJECT them with nationalism and patriotism, IDOLIZE soldiers in movies and in history books that often SKEW the truth, then SHIP them over to be BLOWN to bits by other boys and girls who have had the same brainwashing treatment.”

To not say anything about it, for fear of retaliation, is to allow WAR to ravage our planet again and again. THIS is how we stop war. Not JUST with thoughts of love and PEACE, but with speaking our minds.

I learned from my past wiccan altar, that we must have a cup of water, representing the cup of the heart full of LOVE and also a SHARP knife of reason to cut through the bullshit. I have since moved on from spell casting, yet I still carry cup and knife… in a way. ;)

Love, Light, Peace my friends,

Gypster

A CALL FOR ETHICS IN TODAY’S WORLDWIDE SOCIETY
A multi-part essay type thing (sort of)
By ‘Gypster’

Those who lust for power and money have infiltrated most of the governments and financial systems of the world. Greed, corruption, and most of all, lack of ETHICS is rampant on this planet at this time. It is not just in the US. To kill the hydra, its many heads must be severed, lest another will come back in its place. This world is more connected than it was in the past, but this is no excuse for belligerent war mongering policy and a complete lack of ETHICS and humanity by ANY nation or institution, either covert or overt.

So, what should be done, on an individual basis, to spread the word and re-educate one another, regardless of international boundaries. We must take back our power.
There are two sides of liberty: One to protect us from tyranny, so we are at liberty to make any decision so far as it does not infringe upon this right inherent in another person, and it's mirror image is an environment of opportunity for all to achieve such freedom of choice.

PART ONE:

This entire world is geared towards oppression, even in our US. The oppression here is DEBT, an unethical practice in our lending and credit systems. Whenever, IF ever someone asks, “Why is it as such?” the answer is usually “That’s the way things are.”

For example:

Joe: “Why is it OK to pay 4-5 times as much for your home over 30 years?”

Banker: “Well, you are welcome to save for your home, or rent. Or you can just go ahead and finance it.”

(In other words, “We know you have no other choice -no other choice in the market- which is why we take 4-5 times what your house is worth simply and ONLY because we can. We are allowed to do so, so we will.”)

Joe: “What a raw deal, but hey I want this home so I just won’t think about it and sign away.”

Alright, alright. Here’s something else, if you are raising your eyebrows at that one:

ME: “—-, CitiBank charged me a late fee on my last payment, because my auto pay service sent them 61.00 instead of 63.00. I gotta call them!”

CitiBank Customer Service (if there is such a thing anymore): “Your payment was short 2.00, which is why we charged you the 39.00 fee.”

ME: “Uhhh… why was my monthly payment changed to 63.00?”

CitiBank Customer Service (if there is such a thing anymore): “We changed the interest rate on your account back in May. We sent you a letter.”

ME: “I had not received a letter from you regarding this. Why were my payments the same till now (September)? And why was this changed?”

CitiBank Customer Service (if there is such a thing anymore): “I’ll be more than happy to send you a copy (Not explaining why).”

ME: “Why were my account details changed?”

CitiBank Customer Service (if there is such a thing anymore): No answer, then, music before I was transferred back to the “automated attendant”.

ME: (At automated attendant) “—-, I can’t believe she —-in’ hung up on me!”

Automated Attendant: “I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your request, please try again.”

Of course I had to screw things up royally so that I would just be transferred to a representative instead of dealing with their completely stupid auto system. (You don’t know that trick? Oh, it’s fun. Just randomly mash numbers till the auto attendant relents and just transfers you.) This time I just shut up and asked if they would send me a letter stating the changes to my account, and asked if they would remove the fee. They did so.

Now, I took a look at the credit contract, (which I kept) and it is the most boring piece of corporate garbage I’ve read in a long time. Besides that, I need a lawyer to decipher some of what’s in it, since the language is clearly in “legalese”. Here’s what I gathered:
If I am late on 2 consecutive payments, they can raise my interest rate. They didn’t do that on my primary balance.  Primary balance? Huh? Oh, it gets better.

Turns out, that at the beginning of 2007, I was one day late then, so they charged me a late fee. I didn’t really have an excuse then, and they wouldn’t budge on the fee, so I just did the “whole pay over the phone” thing. Turns out that they put that fee into a “secondary account” which was according to the contract, “Arbitrarily opened and subject to the default rate of 29.99%”. And since January of 2007, this 39.00 fee has barely been scratched; in fact, it is now at 31.00 in September 2008.

Turns out, there’s been 1.50 in interest each month (I know it doesn’t seem like much, why am I complaining—it’s the principle of the matter) and since VERY LITTLE of my payment was going to the “secondary account”, CitBank was actually making compound interest on my account, meaning interest from interest. So, who knows how much they’ve literally nickeled and dimed me in interest.

Also, there’s nothing to prevent them from raising interest on another account with them due to payments being late, but fortunately I’ve not overstepped their “2 consecutive late payments clause”.

And one more thing regarding CitiBank’s letters: make sure you read them if you get them! They state that at least 15 days before a change is made to the terms of your account, you must be notified of such a change. At that time, you have the option of writing out “I do not agree to these changes” and sending it back to them. Problem is, I didn’t get mine! I REALLY think this is how they get around the Fair Credit Act. Who’s going to question them about whether or not they sent a letter? You? Me? A congressional panel? Santa Claus?

As far as mortgages go, I took one look at the total amount we’d be paying for our current house and I nearly fainted. But after which I said a similar thing that “Joe” did, and got a similar response. But that’s the way things are, right? But why don’t we have another choice? Why don’t mortgage companies take 10%, 20%, even 30% of a home’s value in interest? NOT 400% or more!!!! Salespeople are lucky as hell to get a commission at 20% in this day and age. And they actually did some work, not took up space in the form of an integer followed by a whole lot of zeroes sitting in an account somewhere.

And as for those who speak of “free markets” and “capitalism”:

Technically, we DO have a free market in most cases. But there is a MONOPOLY of the most sinister kind in the banking world, that is “world banking conglomerates” and entities like “THE FEDERAL RESERVE” that make sure that “lenders” are following certain “rules”. The only rules they are interested in following are the ones that will make them the most profit. Like, “Hey, let’s set a standard interest rate for lending.” “Oh, that’s perfect! That way, it won’t matter what bank a person goes to, we will still all make the same amount of money!” This is disguised behind regulation so that banks and lenders won’t be able to “take advantage” of the average person and hike up interest rates as high as they want.

What does this do? It removes the free market element from these private enterprises called banks. How else are they going to compete? Best customer service? Which spokesperson has the best backside? Who has the best mind numbing commercial? It takes the best competition incentive out of the picture, so that in all intents and purposes is certainly a monopoly.

In conclusion (only of part one!), what really can we do? We must all educate one another regardless of nationality since every nation and every person is in this together. We must work towards better ways, more ethical ways. We must open our eyes and see the rampant corruption and blatant greed going on in front of us. This type of change never happens overnight, but if we persevere, and never take our eyes off the end result, we will find victory in whatever our pursuit. No bank, no government can ever stop that. This is in fact, beyond their reach. We know that on an individual level, we can create happiness, success, and abundance in our lives. What if many of these individuals co-create happiness, success and abundance for all intentionally? What would the world be then if most everyone co-created this reality? We can do this; it is our right, it is our gift. Spread the word. We can make a difference. A politician with agendas can’t make these differences; we can’t rely on government like we used to. Such is the world’s evolution. The structured life of old is literally crumbling away. Such is our collective destiny. We must graduate to the next level. This is the way we must go.

Love, Light, Peace, my dear friends,
Gypster

I found this at Salon.com:

And what's more disturbing about it, is that Todd Palin works for BP. and for those who want to paint him up like some "blue collar worker" who "hunts and does the fishin'", just see how much BP pays him. Google it. It's certainly not a blue collar salary. Anyway, for your enjoyment, the article I found.

_____________________

Sept. 16, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- Not long after Sarah Palin was sworn in as Alaska's governor in December 2006, her husband, Todd, started showing up in the state capitol in Juneau. He'd hang around her office, or he'd sit in on meetings with Cabinet officials or legislators. He'd leave for a few weeks to go work his $100,000-a-year oil job on the North Slope, then come back to Juneau (or Anchorage, depending on where Palin was spending her time). At some point, the "First Dude" became enough of a fixture in the statehouse that people just sort of figured he belonged there.

Soon, Todd Palin was getting copied on e-mails dealing with official state business. He had already helped write the state budget, gotten involved in personnel matters and called up lawmakers when he -- or Sarah Palin -- had a bone to pick with them. Apparently Palin's inner circle figured they better include him on messages about pending legislation or ongoing controversies, too. The First Dude's involvement in Palin's efforts to get her ex-brother-in-law fired from the state police force have now earned him a subpoena from the Legislature, and he also allegedly intervened to have John Bitney (a former friend) fired from the state payroll for having an affair with the ex-wife of one of Todd Palin's buddies. The Washington Post reported last week that the Palins billed the state $1,371 for Todd's airfare to Washington, when he joined Sarah Palin at a National Governors Association conference, and for the whole family to fly around Alaska watching him compete in the Iron Dog snowmobile race.

In the Palin administration, Todd appears to have had an unusually strong role, the extent of which remains unclear. He is not on the state payroll and was never elected -- but the First Dude has crossed over from the standard-issue supportive political spouse to something far more influential, weighing in on policy and political matters in ways that few observers seem to understand. His apparent influence in his wife's administration -- some in Alaska have referred to him as the "shadow governor" -- has raised questions about whether a Sarah Palin vice-presidency would hand the same type of backstage power to Todd, and what that might mean in the running of the U.S. government.

No one has accused Todd Palin of interfering in state business for his own personal benefit -- instead, the situation has remained somewhat inscrutable, if not odd. According to local politicos and observers, he lurks around the capitol if he doesn't have anything better to do, which, since he works seasonal jobs in oil and fishing, is fairly often.

"It's sort of puzzling," says Gregg Erickson, a Juneau columnist for the Anchorage Daily News and a longtime watchdog of state government. "He obviously plays an important role ... I've seen him in the governor's office, and I know she's conducted interviews in the governor's office with him present."

John McCain's campaign didn't answer a request for comment on Todd Palin or what his role in the Palin administration might indicate about how he'd be involved if McCain and Palin win the election.

In Sarah Palin's political profile and governing methods, critics see a direct political heir of George W. Bush. And Todd Palin's behind-the-scenes strength is one way in which Palin's Juneau administration appears to mirror that of Bush and Cheney -- with its proclivity for secrecy and cronyism. Sarah Palin has used a private e-mail address on most of the e-mails her husband was copied on, and reportedly was advised by aides that such nonofficial communications could be protected from potential subpoena. Legislators and political insiders in Alaska say a small circle of trusted Palin aides keep most decisions and deliberations close to the vest, with Todd Palin among them. These maneuverings may sound quite familiar, if you recall Bush staffers using private Republican National Committee e-mails instead of whitehouse.gov accounts, or the faith George Bush has put in trusted advisors to work closely with him in private, even when they don't seem up to the job.

The extent of Todd Palin's involvement in state business only began to come into view recently, when a conservative critic of the Palin administration used Alaska's public records laws to request copies of e-mails sent by two of her closest aides about state business. The activist, Andrée McLeod, is a Republican gadfly in Anchorage and an on-again, off-again state employee herself; she worked in Alaska House Speaker John Harris' office during the last legislative session. She was once a friend of Sarah Palin's -- the two worked together when Palin was on the state's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to expose conflicts of interest by the chairman of the Alaska Republican Party, Randy Ruedrich. ("Though she ruffles a feather or two now and again, this intelligent Alaskan is exactly what we need during these times," Palin had said of McLeod, a quote that McLeod used in a campaign flier for a failed 2004 bid for the Anchorage school board.)

Now McLeod says Palin is using government time and resources to pursue political goals -- the same thing the two of them accused Ruedrich of doing. But when she requested copies of administration e-mails, Palin's office redacted most of what they turned over, and refused to turn over more than 1,000 messages, citing executive privilege. Todd Palin got a copy of about 40 of those messages, though -- which makes it hard to figure out why other members of the public can't also have them. "This whole [notion of] open, transparent, honest ethical government is bogus," McLeod told Salon. "Her rhetoric has been shown to be bogus."

Palin's administration has refused to release records for other reasons that don't seem convincing; Erickson says he once had a request for internal documents denied because, according to Palin's administration, the public might not understand the documents he was seeking.

What Todd Palin's role seems to underscore is the extent to which his wife has run Alaska without engaging in the normal machinations of government. Insiders say Palin pays scant attention to the day-to-day workings of the bureaucracy that employs about 15,000 people. John McCain's campaign has used that number of employees to talk up Palin as having the executive experience necessary to be vice-president, or president -- but critics say she hasn't displayed an understanding of the details needed to manage even a state as sparsely populated as Alaska. "As far as her governing ability goes, it's a learning curve," says House Speaker Harris, a Republican who has clashed with Palin since she took office. "I think she's trying to learn, and that's one of the problems of somebody who comes from the outside -- completely from outside government, or state government, and maybe even federal government, for that matter."

Democratic Les Gara, a state representative in Alaska, says that Palin is too detached from the job to do it well. "I do not believe that she's paid enough attention to the details of policy and how government works and the issues facing the state to run the nation," Gara says. "It's not her lack of experience -- I think a smart person who's really engaged and really curious can be in national office [without experience]. It's the lack of curiosity on the day-to-day workings of government that I've got the concern about."

However much she may or may not grasp the political system in Juneau, Palin has apparently given her husband much opportunity to insert himself in state business whenever the two see fit. Will she operate the same way if she finds herself in Washington?

______________________

Putting the obvious opinions aside, I still feel REALLY uneasy about this guy....

From Salon.com by Mike Madden

Hey, regarding this big, stupid "bailout", I invite you to view the videos on my You Tube page that I have bookmarked!

You Tube

Because... I've figured it out....

1. there's no such thing as a bad mortgage, there is still a material asset associated with it in the form of a deed

2. if the mortgage is sold, the deed must be sold along with it

3. now, a lot of these are upside down on the mortgage vs "value" of their homes, but that doesnt' mean the market won't correct itself in a year, maybe 6 months, if this is LEFT ALONE

4. no, what these guys want to do, is use the Gov't to buy out these "bad" mortgages at cost.
then, they will swoop back in, and buy them at pennies on the dollar, after all, who cares, it's just american tax money, right?

5. Then INFLATION sets in, all of our money is devalued, and EVERYTHING costs more.

Please, don't go along with it!!

********UPDATE!!!!*************

Apparently, there are several other factors to consider here...

1. The three ratings agencies (Moody's, Standard & Poors, and Fitch Ratings) that determined the credit and market worhtiness of these mortgages were paid by the very same companies that created the mortgages in question.

2. Only 100 Billion dollars worth of these mortgages are considered "at risk", the other 600 billion are considered to be still good. This confirms my suspicions stated above.

What are Bilderberg Conferences all about?
The Bilderberg Secretariat proclaims the conferences to be '...private in order to encourage frank and open discussion'. Frank and open discussion is a good thing in any forum but when those doing the discussing are some of the very most powerful financiers and media tycoons in the world it begs the question: If what they discuss is for the good of ordinary people why not publicise it! Isn't it a perverted use of the word 'open' when no-one can find out what they're saying?

Is Bilderberg a secret conspiracy?
When such rich and powerful people meet up in secret, with military intelligence managing their security, with hardly a whisper escaping of what goes on inside, people are right to be suspicious. But the true power of Bilderberg comes from the fact that participants are in a bubble, sealed off from reality and the devastating implications on the ground of the black-science economic solutions on the table.

No, it's not a 'conspiracy'. The world's leading financiers and foreign policy strategists don't get together at Bilderberg to draw up their 'secret plans for the future'. It's subtler than that. These meetings create an artificial 'consensus' in an attempt to spellbind visiting politicians and and other men of influence. Blair has fallen for this hook, line and sinker. It's about reinforcing - often to the very people who are on the edge of condemning Globalisation - the illusion that Globalisation is 'good', 'popular' and that it's inevitable.

Bilderberg is an extremely influential lobbying group. That's not to say though that the organisers don't have a hidden agenda, they do, namely acumulation of wealth and power into their own hands whilst explaining to the participants that globalisation is for the good of all. It is also a very good forum for 'interviewing' potential future political figures such as Clinton (1991) and Blair (1993). [see above for more on this]

The ideology put forward at the Bilderberg conferences is that what's good for banking and big business is good for the mere mortals of the world. Silently banished are the critical voices, those that might point out that debt is spiralling out of control, that wealth is being sucked away from ordinary people and into the hands of the faceless corporate institutions, that millions are dying as a direct result of the global heavyweight Rockefeller/Rothschild economic strategies.

When looking at one of the (partially reliable) participant lists it should be remembered that quite a number of participants are invited in an attempt to get them on-board the globalisation project. These are carefully selected people of influence, who have been openly critical of globalisation. Examples are Jonathan Porritt (Bilderberg 1999) and Will Hutton (Bilderberg 1997) but there are many others. Most of these kinds of participants are happy to speak about the conference afterwards, and may even be refreshingly critical.

The Bilderberg organisers are accepted by those 'in the know' as the prophets of Capitalism. Will Hutton, deputy Editor of The Observer newspaper in London and left-leaning Economist, described private clubs of the elite as masterminded by 'The High Priests of Globalisation'. The ecclesiastical allusion is not accidental.

Not content with owning unimaginable amounts of money and property they want to use that wealth to acquire even more power for themselves. Power is the most dangerous and addictive drugs known to man. Will the craving be satisfied when a handful of men own and control everything on earth?

Who is behind Bilderberg?
Bilderberg is run by a Steering Group - if you're wondering who's responsible for so much of the capital-friendly and dissent-crushing law-making, poverty and general misery in the world this may be the place to look.

There must certainly be some sociopathic minds behind Bilderberg since they go to so much trouble to promote policies that lead to exploitation, inequality and despair. These individuals seem oddly switched off from the suffering they are clearly causing. Surely only pernicious people would want to control the ideology of the world's mainstream press, and undermine natural political discourse. Public opinion and democratic institutions are a threat when you want to own the world.

The perverse objective of the Bilderberg Steering Group is to dress totalitarian corporate ideology up to appear rational and push it out, unattributable, for mass consumption under Chatham House rules. Meanwhile, outside the Bilder-bubble, 'god-is-money' globalisation is the new religon with the greedy given a pat on the back as they plunder both the earth and a large part of the human spirit.

Source: bilderberg.org

Hello again, everyone!

I'm doing my research! Today it was the concept of "Political Opposition Manufacture", specifically regarding this 700 billion bailout we are facing-- with no apparent choice whether or not we can finance it.

So today, I googled this concept that just came to me, and I got this:

Putin's Opposition

Now, this may be a stretch of the imagination, but bear with me. These guys, neither party, or the media, is offering us the choice of not going through with this bailout. If you pay close attention to the fact that the media just repeats over and over about the "debate over the bailout" and this "opposition" by the republicans and others who state that there's no assurances for taxpayers, you can see that they don't offer any other choice in the matter than US FOOTING THE BILL FOR WALL STREET PIGS.

Beware of this ploy guys, this may be the FIRST example many of you probably have seen of this phenomena, this PLOY all people in a position of leadership use to control and influence the minds of innocent people. But I assure you, that there are many, many others, not just from the Bush administration.

Keep your eyes open for this tactic! Look at the two main parties! Ask yourself, "Are they just manufacturing opposition?"

For the days coming, as we approach a new era in mankind's evolution, we MUST BEGIN to see through these smoke and mirrors!

Love, Light, Peace

Gypster

The Money Masters (It's really long, but worth it!)

This is the story of banking through the ages, as it was never taught to us in school! Only the Elite class really know about all of this! This is a must see, to educate ourselves for the coming days!

2012 is approaching! Let us facilitate the GREAT CHANGE that was predicited.

It is in our hands!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

Brief Filed Today in Appeal by Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the D.C. Court of Appeals to reinstate the case of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, saying that the government is abusing the "state secrets privilege" to silence employees who expose national security blunders.

"The government should be applauding, not punishing, employees who risk their jobs to expose threats to our nation's security," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "If the lower court ruling stands, many thousands of government employees will be unprotected from retaliatory dismissal, with no recourse in the courts, and others will be even less willing to risk exposing misconduct or corruption."

Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program. She challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing suit in federal court. Last July, the district court dismissed her case when Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called state secrets privilege. The ACLU is representing Edmonds in the appeal.

The ACLU has announced its willingness to support other national security whistleblowers and has encouraged others to come forward. Notable whistleblowers such as John M. Cole and Frederic Whitehurst support Edmonds' case, as do several senators, the families of 9/11 victims, the Project On Government Oversight and a long list of others. Many of them will be joining a friend-of-the-court brief to be filed later this month. Representatives of these groups will be available for interview at a noon news conference at the National Press Club on Wednesday, January 26.

In the brief filed today, the ACLU sharply criticizes the government's "radical theory" that every aspect of the Edmonds' case involves state secrets and therefore it cannot go forward. In accepting the government's theory, the ACLU said, the district court relied on the government's secret evidence but denied Edmonds the opportunity to prove her case based on non-sensitive evidence. That approach, the ACLU said, "made a mockery of the adversarial process and denied Ms. Edmonds her constitutional right to a day in court."

"As a U.S. citizen, I am disturbed that my government is imposing such severe punishment on truth tellers," Edmonds said. "I am pursuing this appeal not only on my own behalf but on behalf of government employees everywhere who understand that nothing is more important than protecting our security."

The state secrets privilege, when properly invoked, permits the government to block disclosure of particular documents that would cause harm to national security. In the Edmonds case, the government used the privilege not just to protect particular documents but to urge dismissal of the entire case.

History has shown that the government has relied on the state secrets privilege to cover up its own negligence. In the 1953 Supreme Court case that was the basis for today's state secrets privilege doctrine, United States v. Reynolds, the government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security. Nearly 50 years later, in 2004, the truth came out-the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet.

The government is engaged in a similar cover-up in the Edmonds case, the ACLU said. In 2002, at the request of Senate Judiciary Committee members Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the FBI provided several unclassified briefings to Members of Congress in which it confirmed many of Edmonds' allegations.

More than two years later, the Justice Department retroactively classified those briefings, which were reported in the Congressional Record, and asked Members who had the information posted on their web sites to remove certain documents. The ACLU said the move was a blatant attempt to bolster the government's efforts to dismiss Edmonds'case on state secrets grounds. The retroactive classification has also been challenged in a separate lawsuit brought by the Project On Government Oversight.

Only two weeks after the district court dismissed Edmonds' case, FBI director Robert Mueller wrote a letter to Senator Grassley reporting that the Department of Justice Inspector General had completed a classified investigation and concluded that Edmonds' allegations "were at least a contributing factor in why the FBI terminated her services."

Later this week, in response to a separate Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the Inspector General is expected to release an unclassified version of the report's executive summary. The rest of the report will remain classified.

Oral argument in Edmonds' case is scheduled for April 21, 2005. Ann Beeson will be arguing on behalf of Edmonds. Co-counsel in the case are: Melissa Goodman and Benjamin Wizner of the national ACLU; Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area; Mark Zaid of the Washington law firm Krieger and Zaid; and Eric Seiff of New York.

The ACLU brief is online at /natsec/gen/14507lgl20050112.html.

An October 28, 2002 news release from Sen. Grassley's office in support of Sibel Edmonds, with links to his letter to FBI Director Mueller and the transcript of a "60 Minutes" interview, is online at http://grassley.senate.gov/releases/2002/p02r10-28.htm.

A website about Edmonds' case is online at http://www.justacitizen.com/. Nearly 7,000 people have already signed an online petition in support of her case.

 

Source- ACLU

Two economists lead the opposition movement, one from the University of Chicago, the other from Northwestern University. And Thursday their concerns were brought into the White House meeting.

Senator Richard Shelby went to the White House armed with a letter. The letter is signed by 200 economists, including three Nobel Prize winners, and warns Congress not to back the bailout
Kellogg School of Management Associate Professor Paola Sapienza organized the economic "write-in."

"Thinking this is the only way would be a mistake for Congress," said Sapienza.

Sapienza and the others find fault with the Paulson plan for three reasons:
Its ambiguity: Very short on specifics and oversight, they say.
Its fairness: Because taxpayer's will be subsidizing the risk investors "chose" to take.
And it's long-term effects: The economists say paying for it will take a generation.

"Ben Bernanke likes to say there are no atheists in fox holes, well General Bernanke just called in from the fox hole and said we want a nuclear strike. It's that radical and we're going 'is it really that bad?'" said John Cochrane, finance professor, University of Chicago.

Prof. Cochrane says despite what you hear from Wall Street and Washington financial armageddon is not upon us.

"Before you go nuclear I think we need to know if there's something really bad out there they're not telling us about," said Cochrane.

Both Sapienza and Cochrane say the Bush administration is hyping the urgency with which Congress needs to act. They believe the markets can hold their own for a week or two or three and give congress time to determine whether such a big bailout is essential.
(Copyright ©2008 WLS-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

from Chicago News

FIRST COMMENT FROM THAT PAGE:


U of Chicago Professor

9/27/08 1:55 AM EDT
Statistically speaking, the bailout plan will not meet the need. Private markets need to react privately. See how Sweden solved their similar situation without asking the taxpayers to fund it. This rush to bailout smacks very much of the rush to war in Iraq

Guys, in light of the recent rejection of the proposal by the house, which is a HUGE win for the American public, the contrive stock market crash is beginning. May I remind you all that even though there is a stock market crash, it will not necessarily result in a recession or depression. If you do your homework, you will realize that these things usually right themselves pretty quickly and don't affect many people who do not play in the markets.

I own a business. My livelyhood is dependant on how strong the markets are (sort of) and I am telling you, this is really nothing to worry about. Because those that are stronger will buy up the “weaker stock” and things will be right as rain soon enough, unless the FED decides to contract the money supply and cause a depression. This is the only, the ONLY thing that will cause a depression, folks. Less money in circulation preceeded by major inflation, which was about to happen (and may still if the bailout goes thru).

Please see this:
http://www.economicshelp.org/2007/08/what-happens-when-stock-market-falls.html

and I know the movie, The Money Masters, is long… but please watch it about the Fed and how finance works. It will open your eyes to these patterns and help you to NOT PANIC.

“The leaders of both the Republican and Democratic Parties are rushing ahead with their $700 billion bill,” says Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate for president.  “Without a single hearing and without considering other solutions, Congress is preparing to put the typical American family on the hook for more than $8,000.  Legislators in both parties need to stand up for the American people and say no,” says Barr.

“If bailouts are the answer, why hasn’t the $300 billion housing bailout worked?  What of the $100 or more billion bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?” Barr asks.  “This bailout package doesn’t resolve the underlying problems.  It merely transfers the liabilities to the taxpayers,” he observes.  “Instead, we need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions.”

“The process will be painful.  Some companies will go bankrupt.  Some firms will go into receivership.  Healthy companies will take over failing institutions,” Barr adds.

“Instead of bailing-out banks and investors, Congress should address the causes of today’s economic mess.  The first is to end government pressure for irresponsible lending.  That means privatizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and repealing the Community Reinvestment Act.  It also means depoliticizing the nation’s money supply. The Federal Reserve cannot continue artificially inflating the money supply, which creates the illusion of a boom that is inevitably followed by a bust,” observes Barr.

“The government needs to investigate and prosecute fraud.  It also needs to adjust accounting rules, such as ‘mark-to-market,’ which threaten the balance sheets of sound companies.  We need to streamline complicated regulations that have not created transparency for customers and investors.  And we need to look at any rules that make it harder for companies to make the necessary adjustments themselves,” says Barr.

“The bailout bill is not only bad because it forces innocent taxpayers to pay off irresponsible bankers and investors, but because the bill creates an excuse for more extensive federal economic meddling—setting corporate salaries, receiving stock in companies, and 'adjusting' mortgage terms.  Once the government gets into these areas of the economy, it isn’t likely to get out,” Barr warns.

Finally, Barr explains, “we must force the federal government to get its fiscal house in order.  The national debt already is $9.5 trillion.  Social Security and Medicare currently threaten us with $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities,” Barr says.  “Just where will this new $700 billion come from?”

“With the economic crisis upon us, painful adjustments are inevitable.  Instead of bailing-out those who made the mess and slowing down the adjustment process, Congress needs to get out of the way.  Its job is to fix government policies that have made things worse.  The job of the American people is to replace those politicians who created the failed policies—and who today think the answer is to conscript the public’s money to pay off failed businessmen.  Only by voting for Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party will the American people be voting for the change that is necessary."

Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr represented the 7th District of Georgia in the U. S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003.

The Libertarian Party is America's third largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties.  You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting www.LP.org. The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more freedom.