http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121504_insider_selling.shtml

Rampant Insider Selling Raises Red Flags - AP Reports Major Corporate Execs, Including Some From the Homebuilding Industry Are Dumping Stocks - Serious Predictor of a Coming Crash - Special Commentary by Michael C. Ruppert

[In 2000 and 2002, as the US financial markets tanked, investors lost trillions of dollars in equity as stock prices plunged and investment portfolios - many connected to pension funds - lost trillions of dollars in value. What was documented in both cases was that senior executives at many of the twenty or more companies involved (WorldCom, Enron, Adelphia, Merck, Global Crossing, to name a few) had engaged in a tactic called "pump and dump" just before the stock prices collapsed. Stock prices are pumped up by the executives and key insiders who then sell at the peak before everyone else gets reamed.

In a pump and dump operation, those who can influence stock prices issue glowing reports which cause investors to put their hard-earned dollars into a stock right before it collapses. This is a wealth transfer from poor or middle class folks to the absurdly wealthy. Immediately prior to the stock's collapse, the guys on top cash out and then the price plummets. The bad guys have the cash and the little investors and pension funds have nearly worthless or severely devalued paper.

This AP story is especially alarming for a number of reasons.

In light of FTW's recent (third-ever) economic alert, a number of very credible warnings from financial experts and the continuing intentional devaluation of the dollar, this is especially ominous. It is made more so by the fact that one of the nation's leading homebuilders is dumping stock hand over fist. This does not bode well for the housing bubble.

A critical distinction needs to be made however. Insider trading and insider selling are two different things.

Insider trading is a criminal activity in which a person with advance knowledge, acquired through inside involvement with economic or business events, violates his or her fiduciary and/or legal obligations for the sake of personal profit. This is what happened before 9/11 on markets from Hong Kong, to Tokyo, to Chicago, to New York, London and Berlin. This is what Martha Stewart was sent to jail for. As described in Crossing The Rubicon, right after 9/11 the SEC issued (then quickly suppressed) a list of 38 companies where it suspected that persons with inside knowledge of the attacks knew that the stock of these companies would be adversely affected by the attacks. They thereby made undisclosed billions in profit after betting that the share prices would fall.

Insider selling is a relatively tightly-policed area of stock trading where those employed at senior levels of publicly traded companies start divesting themselves of stock they own in their own companies. Insider trading is always a criminal activity. Insider selling may or may not be, which is why the SEC watches and reports on it fairly closely. Disclosure of insider selling is required by law and executives who sell stock in their own companies are required to report it for the benefit of shareholders and other investors. It is these required reports which prompted this AP wire story.

Given the fact that this pattern was evident just before each of the last two major financial slumps, this is a very ominous warning indeed. The Wall Street executives dumping their stocks are still trying to get small investors and pension funds to buy in when they know that a crash is coming. FTW strongly recommends to its subscribers that they take a look at any 401(k) plans or pension funds to which they belong and consider making immediate shifts out of stocks and into precious metals. For those lucky enough to have such assets, a consensus is emerging that now is a good time to have at least half of one's portfolio in precious metals.

We cannot make these warnings any clearer. - MCR]


Rampant Insider Selling Raises Red Flags

By Rachel Beck
Associated Press
Dec. 14, 2004

NEW YORK - Talk about a double standard. While corporate leaders tout the benefits of investors owning their stocks, many executives seem to be running for the doors themselves.

Selling of shares by insiders - which includes executives and other top officers and directors at a company - has been rampant in recent months, with sales rising to their highest level in more than four years in November.

While no one can pinpoint an exact reason for that run-up, the implication is troubling since big insider selling is often considered bearish for the overall market as well as for individual stocks.

Of course, not all insider selling should be construed as a bad sign. Some stock sales may just be routine or may be executives wanting to free up money to cover personal expenses or to help pay the taxes on shares they buy after exercising options. And in some sectors, namely technology, stock compensation is often the bulk of executive pay, so they sell their stock for income.

In addition, November has historically been a busy time for insider selling. That's because it comes after most companies have reported their third-quarter earnings and restrictions for selling have been lifted. In addition, some executives sell in November for tax purposes.

Still, insider-trading trackers at Thomson Financial say the recent selling bonanza is "particularly noteworthy."

Some $6.6 billion in insider stock sales took place last month, the highest level since the $7.7 billion in sales tallied in August 2000, according to Thomson. Contrast that with the $144 million worth of stock that was bought by insiders last month.

The most selling came from in the financial sector, where executives sold $882 million of their own stock in November, and health care companies, whose insiders sold $734 million worth of shares. Selling in both sectors was double the five-year monthly average, according to Thomson.

On a company-specific basis, consider what has gone on at networking company Avocent Corp., where company statements seem to contradict insiders' actions. On Nov. 1, the company announced a buyback plan for up to two million shares and said in a news released that the purchase of the stock "represents a solid investment for our shareholders."

Apparently, the company's insiders seemed to have ignored that memo. In the month following the announcement, they sold 578,565 shares out of an aggregate of 645,756 insider shares sold during the last 12 months, according to Vickers Weekly Insider, a newsletter that tracks trading by company executives.

There was no buying during that time period.

To be fair, much of the selling came as executives exercised their stock options, not surprising given that its shares have climbed 30 percent in the last two months reaching their highest level since last winter. In addition, the company's officers were blocked from making stock transactions from December 2003 through April of this year because of Avocent's acquisition of OSA Technologies Inc., according to vice president and chief accounting officer Edward Blankenship.

Yet, as Vickers editor David Coleman points out: "If they thought the stock would continue to climb, wouldn't it be in their interest to hold on to it rather than immediately get out?"

Looking beyond companies where executives say one thing but do something else, Coleman points to other warning signs that investors should use to gauge potentially negative signs associated with insider selling. He suggests looking out for insiders who have sold their stock at times that don't coincide with when they exercise options, or those who sell above and beyond the amount that they have exercised.

Sometimes, though, investors refuse to heed such warnings.

Take, for instance, the surge in shares of homebuilder NVR Inc., which has seen its stock jump from just over $432 a share at the start of the year to now trade about $730 apiece. That rise has come despite expectations for a slowdown in the housing market as interest rates begin to climb.

Also troublesome with that giant stock run-up is that NVR's insiders have been bailing out of the stock big time. They have sold more than $220 million in shares this year alone.

Among those selling: NVR CEO Dwight Schar, who hasn't purchased any stock since June 2002, only exercised just over 83,000 shares this year and has sold about 265,000 shares at a market value of about $155 million, according to Thomson. The company declined to comment on its insider selling, said NVR spokesman Dan Malzahn.

At least so far, NVR's investors have ignored the insiders' moves, and haven't been hurt by that decision. Whether that luck continues will surely be tested in the months ahead.

---
Rachel Beck is the national business columnist for The Associated Press. Write to her at rbeck@ap.org

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121504_insider_selling.shtml

Portman Quite Contrite

Natalie Portman has issued a major mea culpa after comments she made to a magazine caused an uproar among readers. In an interview published in the August issue of Allure, the "Closer" star described how growing up on the big screen had made her self-conscious, declaring, "I was reading [African-American sociologist] W.E.B. DuBois's stuff in school, and I was like 'Oh my God! I'm not black, but I know what it feels like!'"

That comparison didn't sit well with some readers, prompting Portman to pen an extended apology.

"My lack of eloquence, combined with my words being taken out of context, led to the printing of a statement of mine that I found personally offensive," she says in the December issue of the mag. "If I had spoken more articulately, I might have conveyed what I truly feel: I could never know what is like to be a black American. I could only imagine what it’s like to be anything other than what my own experience has been."

According to the actress, "The 'it' I was referring to when I said, 'I know what it feels like,' was not intended to signify that I know 'how black people feel,' but rather that I know what DuBois’s concept of double-consciousness feels like, in variation. Had my quote included what I actually said preceding that statement, perhaps my meaning would have been clearer." (For those curious about this double-consciousness of which Portman speaks, type the phrase and the author's name into your favorite search engine.)

Natalie, who graduated from Harvard in 2003 with a degree in psychology, says she "tried to explain my experience using a concept written by someone light-years more intelligent and eloquent than I am, whose writing made me feel like someone else had been through a similar psychological experience to mine in some way. I clearly did not express myself well enough to deserve the right to quote a man as brilliant as DuBois."

Concludes the penitent Portman, "I sincerely, and with my deepest regrets for offending any readers, apologize and apologize and apologize. This has upset me deeply, and I will do my best to be more thoughtful and articulate in the future." Which could set a dangerous precedent for other celebrities, who practice for years to learn how to say as little as possible during interviews.

Allure editor Linda Wells tells the New York Post that Portman's missive was "brave, humble, and refreshingly lacking in defensiveness," and says that "since it ran, we've gotten a ton of letters supporting her."


http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/hotgossip4

Do you know the person who wrote this?

http://www.ilaam.net/Intl/BibleUnearthed.html

The Bible Unearthed

by Larry Saltzman – The Palestine Chronicle

December 26, 2001

PalestineChronicle.com: A revolution is happening in Biblical Archeology. Biblical Archeology is critically examining the Bible against the archeological record and is turning everything we thought we knew upside down. It may disturb many that hold strong political or highly conservative religious beliefs. This will be true of Christians, Muslims and Jews who interpret the Bible literally.

It will disturb many secular Zionists who justify modern Israel's existence and the proposed annexation of "Judah and Sumaria" based on the Biblical Texts. You can choose to believe this research or not. But it has profound implications for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. This article will review the theories of one of the foremost of these revolutionary Biblical archeologists – Israel Finkelstein.

Professor Finklestein is an Israeli and has received a lot of criticism in Israel for his work from conservative elements in the society that are aware of what it means for the Biblical underpinnings of Zionism. To read more about the research that lies behind this summary, I refer you to the writings of Israel Finklestein. The most accessible book is The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, written with Neil Asher Silberman and published by The Free Press in 2001. Finkelstein is one of a group of radical archeologists that is turning the field of biblical archeology on its head.

Archeologists live in a world of tells, strata, Carbon 14 dating, Jericho IV, The Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, Iron Age I and Iron Age II and of course pottery shards and architectural styles. Slowly but surely as they excavate and date the significant Archeological sites located in modern Israel and parts of Occupied Palestine the history of the region as recorded in the Bible is being re-written from what the Bible has told us. What follows is a very brief summary of that research and an analysis of its implications.

Professor Finklestein has not attempted himself to interpret his research in the context of the contemporary political and diplomatic complexities of the Middle East. He has simply presented the facts that the archeological record has revealed. Some archeologists still disagree, but his is a mainstream scientific view and not the work of a fringe writer with a political or conspiracy ax to grind. And more and more prominent scholars in the field are moving to something like his viewpoint, even though they may disagree on the details.

Israel, Judah and Samaria were simply Canaanite States that arose out of indigenous Canaanite culture and not from the invasion of a mythical people called the Hebrews. Israel was a small Canaanite State that briefly achieved a golden age, reaching its' height of power and glory in the reign of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel. The House of David never ruled in Israel, it ruled over the Canaanite State of Judah.

Finklestein is convinced that the House of David did exist. David and Solomon were probably tribal chiefs in the hill country that became the Kingdom of Judah. Jerusalem was the Capital of Judah not of Israel. In the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was an unimportant very small town with no great Temple. The major cult centers were farther to the north in the cities of Israel. In fact the great cities of Canaan that were previously attributed to the Solomon were built by Israeli Kings like Ahab.

It was under King Josiah that the Bible was finally written and something resembling modern Judaism begins to take shape in the 7th and 8th centuries BC. It is a political document that is designed to glorify the Josiah and to connect him falsely with the golden era when the state of Israel briefly rose up as a powerful and advanced civilized center. The Bible is essentially a work of propaganda, weaving historical fragments and myths of various Canaanite peoples into a powerful justification for Josiah's rule and expansionist policies.

I personally draw a positive conclusion from this research. As an American-Jew, I have long struggled with the contradictions and problems of Zionism and the unjust policies of the State of Israel towards Palestinians. For those brave enough to seize this research in the right spirit, there is a solution in it for the problems of the Middle East. Simply stated, European Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, and Palestinians are brothers and sisters and share a common Canaanite ancestry. There were a small number of voices amongst the early Zionists who were against the creation of a separate Jewish state in the region. They lost out to the bigger faction lead by David Ben-Gurion, who suffered from the disease of European colonialism. Ben-Gurion and those in his camp saw the natives of the region as an obstacle to be eliminated. I believe Jews around the world need to take pride not in Israel as a modern colonialist State but in the entire region of Palestine as the homeland of Canaanite and Israelite culture that we are descended from. European Jews are simply Europeanized Canaanites; Palestinians, whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish were simple Arabacized Canaanites. Even modern genetic research is proving that we come from the same ancestry.

Think of Irish-Americans or Italian-Americans returning to their ancestral homelands to experience the culture and the people. They do not think they have the right to conquer the land and dispossess those who stayed behind. Rather they go back to re-connect with their cultural roots from those who are part of the living culture. Because of Zionism, Jews lost the chance to return to Palestine and re-connect with the Palestinians who are the people that have carried forward the culture of ancient Canaan. Viewed in that light, I see the fight against Zionism as being as much my fight as the Palestinians fight. It is the Zionists who created a rift between family, where there should have been friendship and cooperation. It is modern Zionism that disconnected me from my roots not connected me. It is that movement that even stole the spiritual base of Judaism and associated it for the first time in two thousand years with aggression and oppression of others. Whatever flaws my European ancestors had, they were not the ones starting wars and building colonial empires, as was the Christian majority in Europe.

It is the Zionists who through their acts of ethnic cleansing and on-going violence have made enemies out of people who share a common ancestry with me. The disease of European Colonialist thinking prevented them from seeing how much the Palestinians had to share with us of the ancient cultures and common heritage. Those who came from Europe may have had the advantage of European technology, but the Palestinians had something far more valuable that the Zionists treated with contempt and discarded.

My hope though, is that a new vision of the common ancestry of Jews and Palestinians can be shared and spread and used to defeat the discredited legacy of Zionism. The ancient Canaanites had a great culture. From their culture springs Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Their culture as expressed by the Canaanite civilizations of Judah and Israel exerts more influence on great portions of humanity than does that of far greater military powers and empires of the ancient world. Where the myths and religions of other ancient civilizations of the Middle East are no longer believed or practiced by many people, The religious heritage of Judah is practiced in the form of Christianity, Islam and Judaism by something approaching two billion people on every inhabited continent. When we can recognize and accept our profound common heritage, perhaps we can begin to overcome the suffering and warfare of the twentieth century and move towards lasting peace and justice in the Middle East.

Larry Saltzman is an American Jew who believes that the meaning of the Holocaust is that "never again" means that no people on the planet should be persecuted. He is deeply involved in organic gardening and has an orchard of some 60 fruit trees. He had been opposed to the Israeli occupation for some time, but when he learned of the wanton destruction of orchards and farmland by Israeli troops in the Palestinian Territories this past year, he decided to become active. He has a B.A. in Anthropology from UCLA but works as a computer programmer.

Extracted 09/03/02 from The Palestine Chronicle

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6368832/#041130a

Epic change in the Middle East? (Joe Scarborough)

There are cracks in time when leaders are given a chance to bend history and forever change the course of events inside countries and across continents.

Americans did it in 1776, the French in 1789, Europe reverberated with revolution in 1848 and 1989, while New Yorkers and the world saw their lives transformed on a clear fall morning three years ago.

But being the optimistic fool that I am, I dare to believe that 2005 could be a year of epic change in the Middle East by ushering in an era of freedom to a region that has only know death, despair and dictatorships over the past century.

I know I sound terribly naive in a week when we are confronted with stories of a young Palestinian girl riddled with bullets, U.S. troops continuing to be blown up by cheap and plentiful roadside bombs, and Israeli security checkpoint guards taunting Palestinian citizens in a way that elicits memories of the Holocaust for Jewish survivors.

As a strident defender of Israel, I am sickened by the news of this young girl being gunned down and then filled with countless bullets after she was already dead. Read the story and tell me how the hell this could have happened.

Meanwhile, the chances of success in Iraq seem more remote everyday, but only because media outlets in America and across the world obsess on the negative while dismissing U.S. progress there. The notable exception at the New York Times was Dexter Filkens' piece on Iraq that we linked earlier this week. In case you missed it, here it is again. A MUST READ!

As Tom Friedman noted in his "Postcards from Iraq" column, U.S. troops continue to believe they are fighting a war that is noble, and more importantly, the most important military battle of our generation.

America is not fighting to defend oil fields or colonial holdings. We are fighting to save Western Civilization from an exceedingly grim future filled with terror attacks in New York, Washington and the rest of the world.

But it is a war Americans are determined to win.

A year ago, NBC executives visited MSNBC to get a briefing on the 2004 election. While some outside analysts present predicted American deaths in Iraq would spell doom for the President's reelection effort, I took a contrary position. (What a surprise.)

I told NBC's leaders that Americans outside of Manhattan and L.A. understood on a visceral level that our nation was in a world war with Islamic terrorists, and that the cost of victory would include the death of many young Americans. I said Iraq would not be viewed as Somalia or Bosnia or Kosovo.

This would be seen as a war centered on American self-interest— the very narrow interest of protecting our families and loved ones from future terror attacks.

Given the choice of fighting the war in America or Iraq, Americans would chose Iraq any day of the week.

I repeat this conclusion a year later— which set a few eyes rolling at the time— because Americans confirmed my prediction in the 2004 election by picking George Bush and a group of new Republican Senators.

While that shocked most journalists in the mainstream press (read Tom Wolfe's column in Rolling Stone this week), it surely shook up Zarqawi and the other terrorists fighting in Iraq even more.

Forget that BS you've been reading from some left-wingers saying these thugs wanted Bush to win to aid recruitment. It is absolute nonsense.

Zarqawi has been posting messages to his followers for months predicting doom for his deathsquads in Iraq if the Shiite majority backed Iraq's new government and January's free elections. Bush's re-election sends the clear message to terrorists that Americans have decided this is a war that must be fought and won.

Regardless of what the New York Times wants you to believe, this war is not Vietnam. JFK stumbled into Southeast Asia and LBJ got elected in 1964 before any serious escalation tool place. By the time Johnson was up for reelection four years later, the war had destroyed his presidency.

About 30 years later, Americans rehired a president who let them know he is going to use all powers available to hunt down and kill every last terrorist on the face of the earth. So just as that cowboy Reagan getting elected in 1980 and 1984 cast a pall over the Kremlin, Bush's victory made bin Laden's cave-for-the-night seem a bit more damp and cold than usual.

OBL always believed America was a paper tiger that would cut and run at the first sign of trouble. He used Bill Clinton's speedy retreat from Somalia as exhibit #1. But over the past three years, America's president, its brave troops, and its stubborn voters have ignored the same liberal elites Reagan brushed off twenty years ago to prove bin Laden wrong time and again.

That determination gives America— and more importantly Iraq— its best chance at establishing the first liberal democracy in Middle East history. As Tom Friedman wrote in his column yesterday, we are throwing seeds on rocky soil. But those seeds will grow because we have no other choice but to keep tilling and planting until freedom trumps terror from Palestine to Pakistan.

Ahh. But what about the Palestinians? We are continually reminded by our European allies that Israel will continue feeding bin Laden's terror network while breeding resentment across the Middle East.

I have long said that it was worthless to negotiate with Arafat or any elected Palestinian leader. Why? Because after Arafat walked away from the Oslo peace talks in 2000, he became a lame duck tyrant.  Clinton, Barak, and the world finally figured out that Arafat couldn't take the best deal the Palestinian people would ever get because he knew Hamas leaders would order his killing the next day.

But with the Godfather of modern terror six feet under, Hamas leaders are suggesting they may consider laying down their guns and become part of the Palestinian political process. (See yesterday's post on MSNBC.com.)

At the same time, Israelis repulsed by the sight of their solders gunning down a young girl and then firing a flurry of bullets into her dead body may be more willing to follow Sharon's move to transfer Gaza and other territory to the Palestinian authority.

Only Nixon could have gone to China, and perhaps only Sharon can go to his own people and explain why it is time to make peace with their most hated enemy.

If Sharon can make that sell, then the future of the Middle East will rest in the hands of a group of terrorists who have spent the past few years blowing up little children at bus stops and slaughtering students and grandmothers on buses.

Will Hamas choose peace and change history or continue deluding itself by believing Israel will wilt under continued terror attacks?

Let's pray they choose peace, because just like George Bush and America, Mr. Sharon and his people will get peace with security or they will keep hunting down and killing terrorists until the last one is dead.

And God knows we will all be dead before that day comes.

IMF Sponsored "Democracy" in The Ukraine
by Michel Chossudovsky
www.globalresearch.ca 28 November 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411D.html


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

Opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukrainian presidential elections is firmly backed by the Washington Consensus.

He is not only supported by the IMF and the international financial community, he also has the endorsement of The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) ,  the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace , Freedom House and George Soros' Open Society Institute , which played a behind the scenes role last year in helping "topple Georgia's president Eduard Shevardnadze by putting financial muscle and organizational metal behind his opponents." (New Statesman, 29 November 2004).

The NED has four affiliate institutes: The International Republican Institute (IRI) , the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) , and the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS). These organizations are said to be "uniquely qualified to provide technical assistance to aspiring democrats worldwide." See IRI, http://www.iri.org/history.asp )

In the Ukraine, the NED and its constituent organizations fund Yushchenko's party Nasha Ukraina (Our Ukraine), it also finances the Kiev Press Club. In turn, Freedom House, together with The Independent Republican Institute (IRI) are involved in assessing the "fairness of elections and their results". IRI has staff present in "poll watching" in 9 oblasts (districts), and local staff in all 25 oblasts:

"There are professional outside election monitors from bodies such as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, but the Ukrainian poll, like its predecessors, also featured thousands of local election monitors trained and paid by western groups. ... They also organised exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for much of what has followed." (Ian Traynor 26 November 2004, the Guardian, http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TRA411A.html )

Needless to say these various foundations are committed to "Freedom of the Press". Their activities consist not only in organizing exit polls and feeding disinformation into the Western news chain, they are also involved in the creation and funding of "pro-Western", "pro-reform" student groups, capable of organizing mass displays of civil disobedience. (For details, see Traynor, op cit) In the Ukraine, the Pora Youth movement ("Its Time") funded by the Soros Open Society Institute is part of that process with more than 10,000 activists. Supported by the Freedom of Choice Coalition of Ukrainian NGOs , Pora is modeled on Serbia's Otpor and Georgia's Kmara.

The Freedom of Choice Coalition acts as an Umbrella organization. It is directly supported by the US and British embassies in Kiev as well as by Germany, through the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (a foundation linked to the ruling Social Democrats). Among its main "partners" (funding agencies) it lists USAID, the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), Freedom House, The World Bank and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation.

(Complete list at http://coalition.org.ua/en/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=51 )

In turn, Freedom of Choice Coalition directly funds and collects donations for Pora (See http://pora.org.ua/en/content/view/83/95/ )

The National Endowment for Democracy

Among the numerous Western foundations, the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), although not officially part of the CIA, performs an important intelligence function in shaping party politics in the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and around the World.

NED was created in 1983, when the CIA was being accused of covertly bribing politicians and setting up phony civil society front organizations. According to Allen Weinstein, who was responsible for establishing the NED during the Reagan Administration: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." (Washington Post, Sept. 21, 1991).

In the former Soviet Union including the Ukraine, the NED constitutes, so to speak, the CIA's "civilian arm". CIA-NED interventions  are characterized by a consistent pattern. In Venezuela, the NED was also behind the failed CIA coup against President Hugo Chavez and in Haiti it funded the opposition parties and NGOs, in the US sponsored coup d'Etat and deportation of president Aristide in February 2004. (For details, see Michel Chossudovsky, 29 Feb 2004, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402D.html )

In the former Yugoslavia, the CIA channeled support to the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) (since 1995), a paramilitary group involved in terrorist attacks on the Yugoslav police and military. Meanwhile, the NED through the  "Center for International Private Enterprise" (CIPE) was backing the DOS opposition coalition in Serbia and Montenegro. More specifically, NED was financing the G-17, an opposition group of  economists responsible for formulating (in liaison with the IMF) the DOS coalition's  "free market" reform platform in the 2000 presidential election, which led to the downfall of Slobodan Milosevic.

Copy and Paste? The Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) has a very similar mandate in the Ukraine, where it directly funds research on "free market reforms" in several key "independent think tanks" and policy research institutes. The Kiev based International Center for Policy Studies (ICPS) is supported by CIPE. It has a similar function to that of the G-17 in Serbia and Montenegro:  A group of local economists hired by ICPS was put in charge of drafting, with the support of the World Bank, a comprehensive blueprint of post-election macro-economic reform.

Who is Viktor Yushchenko? IMF Sponsored Candidate

In 1993, Viktor Yushchenko was appointed head of the newly-formed National Bank of Ukraine. Hailed as a "daring reformer", he was among the main architects of the IMF's deadly economic medicine which served to impoverish The Ukraine and destroy its economy.

Following his appointment, the Ukraine reached a historical agreement with the IMF. Mr Yushchenko played a key role in negotiating the 1994 agreement as well as creating a new Ukrainian national currency, which resulted in a dramatic plunge in real wages.

The 1994 IMF package was finalized behind closed doors at the Madrid 50 years anniversary Summit of the Bretton Woods institutions. It required the Ukrainian authorities to abandon State controls over the exchange rate leading to an impressive collapse of the currency.

Yushchenko as Head of the Central Bank was responsible for deregulating the national currency under the October 1994 "shock treatment":

The price of bread increased overnight by 300 percent,
electricity prices by 600 percent,
public transportation by 900 percent.
the standard of living tumbled
According to the Ukrainian State Statistics Committee, quoted by the IMF, real wages in 1998 had fallen by more than 75 percent in relation to their 1991 level.( http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2003/cr03174.pdf )

Ironically, the IMF sponsored program was intended to alleviate inflationary pressures: it consisted in imposing "dollarised" prices on an impoverished population with earnings below ten dollars a month.

Combined with the abrupt hikes in fuel and energy prices, the lifting of subsidies and the freeze on credit contributed to destroying industry (both public and private) and undermining Ukraine's breadbasket economy.

In November 1994, World Bank negotiators were sent in to examine the overhaul of Ukraine's agriculture. With trade liberalization (which was part of the economic package), US grain surpluses and "food aid" were dumped on the domestic market, contributing to destabilizing one of the World's largest and most productive wheat economies, (e.g. comparable to that of the American Mid West).

By 1998, the deregulation of the grain market had resulted in a decline in the production of grain by 45 percent in relation to its 1986-90 level. The collapse in livestock production, poultry and dairy products was even more dramatic.

(See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2003/cr03174.pdf )

The cumulative decline in GDP resulting from the IMF sponsored reforms was in excess of 60 percent (from 1992 to 1995).

(article continued at link http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO411D.html)

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1129-28.htm

New Superpower Coalition
Challenge For Venezuela Oil
By Sudhir Chadda
India Daily Special Correspondent
11-29-4

After Iraq, it is oil rich Venezuela led by Hugo Chavez that has become the center for confrontation between America and the Euro Zone. Chavez is dead against America and Euro Zone needs him to keep the oil balance - the power symbol in 2005. But this time the equation is a little different. A new regional and super power coalition of India, China, Russia and Brazil is making a huge difference. Russian President is in the zone to pull Brazil in the coalition and influence on Chavez for mutual support.
 
While the whole world is focused on America and the Euro zone for the super power challenges, both these powers are looking small when you combine the strength of the new coalition Putin is building with India, China, Russia and Brazil. Add to that, Venezuelan oil that supplies America a substantial crude oil, and now you have the actual scenario of a confrontation.
 
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is leveraging his country's oil resources to build new geopolitical relationships with key regional powers like Russia, China, India and Brazil.
 
The Northern Andean region is where the new super coalition is planning to influence the most. It is in the corridor of America and rich with many natural resources. This is the region that America takes it for granted.
 
For Russian, Chinese and other non-US. oil companies, the Chavez government's oil-based foreign policy also will translate into profitable investment opportunities in Venezuela in coming years. Brazil, a member of the superpower coalition is a neighbor of Venezuela, And though Brazil has special relations with America, it has far more interest in Venezuela than any other countries. According to think tanks, it is not Iran but Venezuela will be the next epicenter of confrontation for oil supremacy. But this time both Euro zone and America will face a real formidable super power coalition - the combined resources of India, China, Russia and Brazil.

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/11-27b-04.asp

Neither Left Wing Nor Right -
It's The Bush Wing
By Chris Floyd
Global Eye - The Moscow Times
11-28-4

There has been much throwing about of brains on the subject of George W. Bush's further lurch to the Right since he limped over the election finish line with his tiny, 1 percent, fraud-marred majority. And to be sure, the wholesale purges he has instituted throughout his regime -- replacing a slew of merely cringing sycophants with cringing, drooling, groveling sycophants -- will indeed hasten the United States' degeneration into corpo-religious authoritarianism along the lines of Franco's Spain.
 
But all the earnest disquisitions about Bush's Franco-U.S. "ideology" entirely miss the point -- and increase the fog that the Regime deliberately spreads over its true interests. For the heart of this slouching beast is neither left-wing nor right-wing; it's strictly Bush-wing. Anyone even slightly acquainted with the history of the Bush dynasty knows what makes these preppy puppies run -- and it has nothing to do with conservative principles or moral values or national security or world freedom. It's not ideology, but investments -- the gobbling up of unearned, risk-free lucre on the grandest scale imaginable.
 
Naturally, the pursuit of this kind of piratical wealth leads to certain kinds of policies that can at times be mistaken for a political philosophy. For example, the Bush Regime's devotion to Big Oil, the military, tax cuts, corporate deregulation and unbridled executive power could be seen as the expression of a coherent, if repellent, worldview: Social Darwinism -- survival of the fittest, might makes right, winner takes all. Likewise, the Regime's embrace of religious and cultural fundamentalism resembles an ideological stance of unbending zeal and moral certitude, encompassing the whole of reality.
 
 
Taken together, these traits present a formidable picture of a thoroughgoing ideological juggernaut, well-plated with philosophical, academic, legal and theological armor. But underneath all this bristling array there is nothing but a tiny white maggot of greed, wriggling and gorging on scraps of rotting meat. No deep beliefs or high ideals inform the Bushist ethos, which can be boiled down to one sentence: Grab your pile and screw anybody who gets in the way. War, energy and corporate finance just happen to be where the money is at. And raw, secretive political power -- unfettered by courts, laws, legislators or public scrutiny -- is the most effective way to safeguard and augment these investments.
 
That is not to say that the Bushist credo lacks all nuance. There is in fact a very important refinement to their wormy greed: Loot should always be obtained without the slightest risk to your own financial position. The "free market" must be shunned at all costs -- and manipulated by string-pulling, deceit and intimidation when competition is unavoidable. Thus the Bush model is to cozy up to governments -- preferably strongman regimes free to ladle out public money to their favorites with no questions asked.
 
That's why Bush patriarch Prescott, pa and grandpa to presidents, invested heavily in Nazi war industries throughout the 1930s -- and kept on investing even after the German war machine was grinding through Europe. That's why George I made his mogul bones by pumping oil with repressive royals in Kuwait. Later, when he had a government of his own to play with, George sent U.S. troops to bail out his Kuwaiti partners after another of his business clients, Saddam Hussein, got too frisky in a border dispute. George I would end his career as a corporate bagman, roaming the Earth in search of insider deals and choice "privatizations" from Saudi princes, Asian dictators, African tyrants, South American sleaze merchants and Europork peddlers.
 
George II's murky road to fortune was likewise paved with insider trading, no-risk loans and mysterious infusions of foreign cash, including a bailout from a firm embedded in the octopus of BCCI -- the renegade banking cartel that the U.S. Senate called the "largest criminal organization in world history," which cloaked drug deals, gun-running, nuke trafficking and "black ops" by the CIA and other intelligence services behind a protective wall of bribes that reached into nearly every government on Earth.
 
Of course, the best of all possible worlds is controlling the government yourself -- and Dubya has certainly raised crony capitalism to dizzy heights, tearing down whole countries just so his investor pals (and his family) can reap the profits of "reconstruction." But again, it is the maggoty hankering for easy money that truly drives Bushist militarism, not any kind of ideological or religious vision. For such crude minds, the surest way to guarantee that floods of public boodle keep pouring into your private pocket is to scare the hell out of people and keep them scared with war and rumors of war.
 
The decidedly un-butch Bushes are not really bloodthirsty. They don't sit in dark corners and cackle over the idea of children being chewed to pieces by American bombs. Nor do their nostrils flare with righteous rage at the thought of homosexuality or abortion or nipples on national television. It's just that war profiteering, corporate rapine and cynical pandering to the public's worst instincts are the easiest way to get the unearned riches they crave -- and the perks and power they feel are their birthright as an ancient branch of the American aristocracy.
 
Perhaps if they could obtain these same privileges as easily by other, less horrific means, they would. As it is, they take the world as they find it, and go about their business without fretting over the consequences -- the dead, the ruined, the spreading hate, the poisoned planet. Why should they care? As the maggot cannot see beyond the meat, so too these men of greed-stunted understanding can see nothing of worth outside their own bottomless appetites.  


http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/11/26/120.html

http://rense.com/general60/wef.htm

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1bfd7bcc-3e5d-11d9-a9d7-00000e2511c8.html

Top Yukos executives flee threat of arrest
By Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow
Published: November 24 2004 22:02 | Last updated: November 24 2004 22:02

"The senior executives of Yukos have left Russia, fearing for their safety amid a flurry of arrest and search warrants issued by Russian prosecutors for managers of the embattled oil company.


“There is not a single member of the management board left in Russia at the moment,” a person familiar with the situation said on Wednesday. Yukos, which has been crippled by tax claims of over $20bn (€15bn) and faces the forced sale of its main production asset, is now managed by remote control, according to the person.

This week, the senior management held a board meeting in London, it is understood.

Bruce Misamore, chief financial officer of Yukos and a US citizen, said from London: “I am not going to sacrifice my life for [Russia's] political purposes.” He said he would not return until he was certain that his “freedom and security were not in danger”. . . "

article continued at link

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1bfd7bcc-3e5d-11d9-a9d7-00000e2511c8.html

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/22/215244.shtml

Congress Funds Mandatory Psychological Tests for Kids

Newsmax | November 23 2004

One of the nation's leading medical groups, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), decried a move by the U.S. Senate to join with the House in funding a federal program AAPS says will lead to mandatory psychological testing of every child in America – without the consent of parents.

When the Senate considered an omnibus appropriations bill last week that included funding for grants to implement universal mental health screening for almost 60 million children, pregnant women and adults through schools and pre-schools, it approved $20 million of the $44 million sought, Kathryn Serkes, public affairs counsel for AAPS, told NewsMax.

This $20 million matches a like amount already approved by the House, Serkes advised.

While the funding cut of some $24 million was a little good news, suggested Serkes, whose organization has zealously opposed the the measure, she said the organization was most worried about the failure of Congress to include “parental consent” language sought by the AAPS.

Last September, AAPS lifetime member Rep. Ron Paul, M.D., R-Texas, tried to stop the plan in its tracks by offering an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005. The amendment received 95 “yes” votes, but it failed to pass.

According to Serkes, Paul is now mulling offering stand-alone legislation in the next session to once again try and get a provision for parental consent.

The federal bill on its face does not require mandatory mental health testing to be imposed upon states or local schools, explained Serkes.

However, the HHS appropriations bill contains block grant money that will likely be used – as is often the case with block funding – by the various states to implement mandatory psychological testing programs for all students in the school system.


The spending bill has its roots in the recommendations of the New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, created by President Bush in 2002 to propose ways of eliminating waste and improve efficiency and effectiveness of the mental health care delivery system.

Although the report does not specifically recommend screening all students, it does suggest that “schools are in a key position to identify the mental health problems early and to provide a link to appropriate services.”

The bottom line, explained Serkes, is that a state receiving money under this appropriation will likely make its mental testing of kids mandatory – and not be out of synch with the federal enactment.

The other telling point, said Serkes, is that although the relatively minimal funding at this point is certainly not enough to fund mandatory mental testing for kids countrywide, it’s an ominous start:

“Once it’s established and has funding, a program exhibits the nettlesome property of being self-sustaining – it gets a life of its own. More funding follows.”

Officials of the AAPS decry in the measure what they see as “a dangerous scheme that will heap even more coercive pressure on parents to medicate children with potentially dangerous side effects.”

One of the most “dangerous side effects” from antidepressants commonly prescribed to children is suicide, regarding which AAPS added, “Further, even the government’s own task force has concluded that mental health screening does little to prevent suicide.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Paul says the mental testing scheme is a looming feature of "Big Brother" that if unchecked will push parental rights out of the picture:

“At issue is the fundamental right of parents to decide what medical treatment is appropriate for their children. The notion of federal bureaucrats ordering potentially millions of youngsters to take psychotropic drugs like Ritalin strikes an emotional chord with American parents, who are sick of relinquishing more and more parental control to government.

“Once created, federal programs are nearly impossible to eliminate. Anyone who understands bureaucracies knows they assume more and more power incrementally. A few scattered state programs over time will be replaced by a federal program implemented in a few select cities. Once the limited federal program is accepted, it will be expanded nationwide. Once in place throughout the country, the screening program will become mandatory.

“Soviet communists attempted to paint all opposition to the state as mental illness. It now seems our own federal government wants to create a therapeutic nanny state, beginning with schoolchildren. It’s not hard to imagine a time 20 or 30 years from now when government psychiatrists stigmatize children whose religious, social, or political values do not comport with those of the politically correct, secular state.

“American parents must do everything they can to remain responsible for their children’s well-being. If we allow government to become intimately involved with our children’s minds and bodies, we will have lost the final vestiges of parental authority. Strong families are the last line of defense against an overreaching bureaucratic state.”

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=105&sid=4781425

"Observers claim the probe that led to the arrest is a Kremlin-directed effort to punish Khodorkovsky - Russia's richest man -for funding opposition political parties . . . "

I am commenting on this article posted in the weblog:

11/24/2004:
"Ukraine in crisis as opposition leader declares himself president"
Tens of thousands of opposition supporters surrounded Ukraine's presidential offices after their pro-Western leader declared himself president, defying the government after a weekend election they believe was rigged in favour of the Russia-backed candidate.

With the political crisis threatening to spiral out of control, hundreds of riot police cordoned off the building in the capital Kiev, pushing back demonstrators who shouted slogans and called on security personnel to join the protest, as the government met in emergency session.

Opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko had earlier declared himself president during an emergency parliament session attended only by his supporters and which lacked a quorom.

Outgoing President Leonid Kuchma warned that the act could have unforeseeable consequences but he promised his government would not be the first to use force against the uprising, sparked by accusations of irregularities during the weekend presidential vote.

As criticism of the poll gathered momentum in the West, two members of Ukraine's central electoral commission were reported to have urged their 13 colleagues not to approve the results because of major ballot violations.

Yushchenko called on Ukrainian civil servants and police to cross over and join the mass protests that have gripped the nation since the vote . . . "
Full Article: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/041123/1/3or3z.html
The exit polls don't match the outcome? The people hit the streets. Another people, voting with their feet, against fear. The great purveyor of democracy seems the most unfree country in the world.

I believe there is a spin on what is actually trying to be accomplished in this contested election. American and European election observers say the election was fixed. If one takes a look at it, Russia is indeed in the way in the eyes of the U.S. plans for hegemony.

It would be just like the U.S.(and the E.U. for that matter) to forment a supposed "democratic" uprising - perhaps even civil war amongst a nation so near to the heart of a major thorn in their side.

from another article - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/11/24/ukraine/index.html:

"Yushchenko -- and U.S. and European election observers -- said the vote was fraudulent. Kiev, Lviv and several other cities announced they would not accept the results of the vote and would recognize only Yushchenko as the winner. . . Yushchenko, a pro-Western liberal, and Yanukovych, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, fought a bitterly contested runoff battle."


I really hate to say it, but it is true - Putin may be close to a dictator, but I think he knows how the game is played and he is reluctant to let "democratic market forces"(read pro-Western) play out in his vicinity with the same freedom they enjoy elsewhere - let us remember he threw the head of the Yukos oil company in prison and has targeted the billionaires in his country most likely because he knows how this rich cabal works. Mugabe has also clamped down on the "democratic" process in his country(Zimbabwe) as well, including the media for probably the same reasons. The cries for "democracy" are a trojan horse by the West looking for a justification for their intervention.

http://business.bostonherald.com/businessNews/view.bg?articleid=55356

no doubt we are in over our heads. keep in mind as well that there are ones who are fond of the strategy of creating maximum chaos to create a very out of control situation where there will be no choice but to resort to the plan for order - already pre-written of course.

think about this - perhaps the plan IS to bankrupt america(in its present form) and the people doing it are some of the same interests who we equate with america. who will bail "us" out? - answer - perhaps the ones who are running the economy on overdrive filling their private coffers with the loot from the chaos inflicted. find out who that is. having a fall guy like bin laden to blame when the sh* hits the fan is great too(many will remember his speech on bankrupting america when that time comes).

today is the day of private consortiums who hold more sway than "public" governments. it is time to re-assess our notion of the nation-state in the age of private corporate global dominance if one really wants to get to the core of what really in the hell is going on.

While I don't agree with everything here, I think he gets at some very good points that many other "progressives" are missing.
___________________________________________________
Why People Won't See
How Your Government
Gets Away With Murder
By John Kaminski
skylax@comcast.net
11-21-4

I receive 200-500 e-mails per day. Needless to say I can't read them all, never mind answer them all. But many of them are like this one, and these I always try to answer these even though I really don't have THE ANSWER when people ask me, "What can I do to stop this madness?"
 
"Hello, John. Thanks for the education. I am wondering, what is that makes most people "uneducable?" Fear? Denial? Upbringing?
 
"I have a friend who had opened up a bit to the idea that 9/11 was pure theatre, but now is sliding back to "I don't want to talk about it ... after saying to me, 'What are you trying to prove that the government is wrong? Why should people care?'
 
"I guess I must examine my own fears: the feeling I had when I first started e-mailing people - after learning just enough on 9/11 to be convinced it was an inside job. Maybe it's just the crowd mentality ....
 
"So I am asking you, what do you think is the main reason why people are uneducable?
 
"I'd appreciate your opinion.
 
"Craig R."
 
Craig, I think there is one overriding reason that prevents people from confronting the lies their government tells them, and it's the hardest one to realize. And by your phrasing, I can see you're already onto it.
 
Sure, you can blame a lot of the American public's indifferent and uninvolved behavior on a deliberately retarded school system that prioritizes regimentation as far more important than enlightenment, or our bozo media industry that reduces everything to lowest common denominator pandering to our baser instincts.
 
Or, you can suspect the mentally debilitating effects of fluoride, chemtrails, and food additives - not to mention the omnipresent radioactivity increasing in our atmosphere by the day, or the conscience-numbing aphasia of antidepressant drugs - as possible reasons for this detached malaise that causes many people to be completely disinterested in the vital processes that control and diminish their own lives.
 
But really, you hit it on the head when you speculated that you must examine your own fears.
 
I've said this before, and I'll never stop saying it.
 
The real opportunity for growth and learning when studying the events of 9/11 is this.
 
Once you realize that 9/11 was an inside job, conceived and carried out by members of the highest levels of the American government, a window opens in your mind that reveals the hypocritical and destructive nature of American behavior over time, and you begin to see that all these heroicized wars that have been conducted in the name of democracy and freedom were really something quite different.
 
At this point, it becomes a matter of do you have genuine integrity or don't you? As we all know, the first requirement of true integrity is admitting your own faults. I think there is no question in anyone's mind at this moment that America has no integrity (hell, you just need to look at the Indian treaties to realize that). Certainly the mainstream American media has absolutely no integrity, in that it's obvious to everyone the real stories about the Iraq war, depleted uranium, public corruption, fixed elections, and on and on ad infinitum are never mentioned by the hateful robots you see reading the "news" on TV).
 
But the larger question is: Do WE have integrity? I'm talking about you and me.
 
Are we willing to look at the truth as we perceive it and try to identify and admit our own complicity in all these atrocities, as the American government runs around the world shooting innocent women and children in the head over reasons we KNOW are lies. I mean, we're supposed to be fighting terrorists, right, but we KNOW these terrorists are not Muslim malcontents, and that most likely they are CIA/Mossad-contracted mercenaries assigned to kill Iraqi aid workers, behead innocents and blow up churches and mosques in order to inflame the situation to kindle support from the braindead public, who then mindlessly cheer the genocidal tactics of George W. Bush and pretend not to notice that not only did America CREATE the terrorists and start the war with phony evidence, we now continue the war as viciously as we can, continually murdering innocents and turning our own troops into raging psychopaths. Why? Increased profits for the military contractors, of course, which means increased under-the-table payments for our elected officials.
 
In a way, the easiest way to deal with that guilt is to pretend it's not really happening, which is what most Americans are doing right now.
 
But in the conversation between you and me, Craig, we both know that WE are partly responsible - not matter how small or unwilling a part - for the American mass murder in Iraq, because we know we are American citizens and as such have a responsibility for controlling what our government does, at least if we are to believe and endorse the fact that America is a participatory democracy in which the people are ultimately responsible for what their government does.
 
Of course on another level, we have absolutely no control over what our government does. The Congress and most elected officials throughout America are bought off by the financial powers-that-be, and they do what they want, ordinary people like you and me be damned. But again, if we have integrity, we can trace a small shard of responsibility back to ourselves, to some small event in our histories in which we did not stand for principle, but instead held back and let some innocuous hypocrisy pass us by unchallenged with the rationalization that "there's nothing we could have done about it" or "it didn't affect me that much."
 
Although these events seemed unimportant at the time, these small defeats, multiplied by the American population total - some 300 million - have combined to produce the situation we face today - an endless war aimed at stimulating hatred and conflicts for the ubiquitous and ever-present purpose of increasing profits for the goons who make and sell the weapons.
 
Why people try to hide in their own indifference is a very old question. So is why they are uneducable.
 
But beyond the political ramifications of this widespread indifference are the spiritual dimensions, the conversations each of us has with ourselves, either lying on a pillow in the dark late at night or taking that first hard glance in the mirror before shaving in the morning.
 
To a degree, you are right about the crowd mentality. Everybody wants to fit in. Our minds create and accept authority figures, and we try to live our lives according to these dictates we have accepted as legitimate to our own self-worth.
 
But a deeper reason exists with regard to what we choose to believe. And let me preface this by admitting I've been saying this for a long time, and haven't found all that many who agree with my opinion. But that doesn't stop me from repeating it.
 
I believe that religions are ultimately debilitating to the spirit, because they try to make us believe things that we know are not true, and in accepting the tenets of any religion, we leave ourselves open to a pattern of behavior that accepts things on faith, without examining them rationally. And this process habituates us to accepting lies as truth, as long as they emanate from an authority figure we have conditioned ourselves to respect.
 
Once you are willing to accept something that deep in your psyche you know goes against what you perceive to be rational truth - e.g., Jesus died for our sins and rose again from the dead - THEN YOU CAN BE MADE TO BELIEVE ANYTHING, whether it is true or not, as long as it comes from an authority figure to whom you have given credibility in your mind.
 
I believe this is a central component in the phenomenon of a majority of the American people believing the government's bogus story about 9/11, and in their willingness to accept the psychotic carnage in Iraq as being somehow relevant to their own well-being.
 
Thus, according to the tenets of the psychological process known as transference (in which we take the feelings of trust and dependence that we feel as children toward our parents and transfer them as adults to a relationship with an imaginary sky god to maintain our inner feelings of security), we want to accept what George W. Bush tells us because we have embedded ourselves in American society, and our whole meaning becomes challenged and distorted when we lose that focus by realizing that probably everything that has come out of Dubya's mouth in his whole life has been a cynical and sarcastic rich boy's lie.
 
Therefore, challenging his public statements can be disorienting to those who are not committed to their own integrity or trapped in the psychological prison of a fictitious belief system that can be proven false, should such believers suddenly develop the courage to confront the lies they are telling themselves.
 
In some cases, confronting these lies can totally shatter a person's sense of self, which is why the majority choose not to do that. Unfortunately, not confronting these lies is very likely to shatter our world into little radioactive bits, a profoundly ugly process we see happening - and accelerating - as we speak.
 
Thanks for writing, Craig.
 
John Kaminski is an Internet essayist whose writings can been seen on hundreds of websites around the world. They have been collected into two anthologies, the latest of which is titled "The Perfect Enemy." For information go to http://www.johnkaminski.com/

http://rense.com/general59/whypeoplewontsee.htm