konane's Blog

"Chinese to destroy Feds by refusing to honor fraudulent derivatives contracts

If this opinion is correct we may have China .... not Obama .... to thank profulely for saving our economy once again.

_______________

"Chinese to destroy Feds by refusing to honor fraudulent derivatives contracts

  The Chinese government has told Chinese companies they do not have to honor derivates and commodity futures contracts made with Western financial institutions.

"This is one of the most important of many nails in the coffin for the soon to implode Federal Reserve Board. The Chinese have every right to renege on those contracts because they were fraudulent. First of all the Feds manipulated the commodities markets to their benefit and to the detriment of the Chinese. They also allowed 100 times leverage thus allowing for astronomical ponzi schemes to be set up. Furthermore, they almost certainly did not properly explain the risks when they made their deals with the Chinese. Now that their attempt to rip off the Chinese is blowing up in their faces, these financial institutions will implode. This will set off a chain of events that will make the Lehman Brothers implosion seem like a storm in a tea cup. The total amount of derivates contracts outstanding is now over $5000 trillion or 100 times world GDP. In other words it is just a giant illusion waiting to vanish along with the institutions that peddled it."

http://benjaminfulford.typepad.com/benjaminfulford/

Entry #1,367

"Health care reform means more power for the IRS

I received an email with a petition link for those opposing government health care.  In that email was an interesting conclusion drawn that socialized medicine is not about health care that it is about  "control .... by taking a huge percentage of GDP and placing it under government control."

You decide.

______________

"Health care reform means more power for the IRS
By: Byron York Chief Political Correspondent September 2, 2009
Source WashingtonExaminer

"There's been a lot of discussion about the new and powerful federal agencies that would be created by the passage of a national health care bill. The Health Choices Administration, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, the Health Insurance Exchange — there are dozens in all.

But if the plan envisioned by President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats is enacted, the primary federal bureaucracy responsible for implementing and enforcing national health care will be an old and familiar one: the Internal Revenue Service. Under the Democrats' health care proposals, the already powerful — and already feared — IRS would wield even more power and extend its reach even farther into the lives of ordinary Americans, and the presidentially-appointed head of the new health care bureaucracy would have access to confidential IRS information about millions of individual taxpayers.

In short, health care reform, as currently envisioned by Democratic leaders, would be built on the foundation of an expanded and more intrusive IRS.

Under the various proposals now on the table, the IRS would become the main agency for determining who has an "acceptable" health insurance plan; for finding and punishing those who don't have such a plan; for subsidizing individual health insurance costs through the issuance of a tax credits; and for enforcing the rules on those who attempt to opt out, abuse, or game the system. A substantial portion of H.R. 3200, the House health care bill, is devoted to amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 in order to give the IRS the authority to perform these new duties.

The Democrats' plan would require all Americans to have "acceptable" insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of "acceptable") and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have "acceptable" coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you're fine. If it doesn't, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don't have "acceptable" coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Under some versions of health reform now circulating on Capitol Hill, the IRS would also be intimately involved in how you pay for insurance. Everyone would be required to buy coverage. The millions of Americans who can't afford it would receive a subsidy to pay for it. Under the version of the plan currently under negotiation in the Senate Finance Committee, that subsidy would come through the IRS in the form of a refundable tax credit. Under the House plan, the subsidy would come directly from the Health Choices Administration.

In either scenario, the IRS would be the key to making the system work. Before you could receive any subsidy, whether through the IRS or not, the Health Choices Administration would have to determine whether you are eligible for it. To do so, the bills under consideration would give the Health Choices Commissioner the authority to demand sensitive, confidential information from the IRS about individual taxpayers. The IRS would have to provide it.

Under current law, it is a felony for a government official to release taxpayer information in all but the most limited of circumstances. One such exception is for law enforcement; the IRS is allowed to give taxpayer information to prosecutors in criminal cases. The information can also, in some instances, be released to the Social Security Administration and the Veterans' Administration for the determination of benefits. The health care bills would change the Internal Revenue Code to permit the IRS to give similar information to the vast, new health care bureaucracy.

That means the personal tax information of millions of Americans would enter the system whether they want it to or not. "There's a mandate to buy insurance," says one Republican House aide. "You have to buy it. You have millions of people who can't buy it without a subsidy, so they will have no choice but to accept the subsidy in order to buy insurance, and then the Health Choices Commissioner will have access to their tax records."

"How many hands would this information go through?" asks a GOP source in the Senate. "What are the quality controls? This increases the risk of misusing this information."

Some versions of the bill even permit the release of confidential taxpayer information for decidedly less pressing reasons. In H.R. 3200, the IRS would be required to provide taxpayer information to the Social Security Administration for the purpose of helping Social Security officials find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the prescription drug program. "There is no precedent for using taxpayer information for the purpose of identifying people to go out and advertise to them," says the House expert.

So far, there has been little substantive public debate about the integral role of the IRS in nearly every aspect of the various national health care proposals. But people who are closely involved with the process are deeply concerned about what they view as a massive, and in some senses unprecedented, expansion of the Internal Revenue Service.

First, they wonder whether the IRS can handle the new demands. "There is a sense at the IRS that their purpose is to collect revenue and not to implement all sorts of other programs," says a second Senate GOP aide. "Also, the IRS isn't necessarily great at doing what it does already. How is it going to determine whether 300 million people have health insurance?"

Second, they are concerned about anticipated abuse of the system. "You're going to have lots of fraud," says the House source. "People claiming lots of affordability credits or refundable tax credits. The IRS is not going to have the resources and expertise to police this stuff."

Finally, there is a third concern, more fundamental than questions of whether the IRS can handle the job: Should the IRS be involved in health care enforcement in the first place? As seen in the town halls across the country in August, many Americans are concerned about the coercive nature of the proposed national health care system. Handing the IRS the power to monitor every American's place in the system worries them even more.

Backers of the Democratic bills are betting that the handouts involved — giving people money to buy health insurance — will outweigh concerns about privacy and coercive government. Perhaps. But before Congress makes any decision on national health care, voters should know just what it will involve."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Health-care-reform-means-more-power-for-the-IRS-56781377.html

Entry #1,366

People In Egypt Suspected Of Being Infected With H1N1 Swine Flu And H5N1 Bird Flu

"3 People In Egypt Suspected Of Being Infected With H1N1 Swine Flu And H5N1 Bird Flu

Source TheBirdFluPandemic.com 

Three people in Egypt are believed to have been infected with the H1N1 swine flu virus as well as the H5N1 bird flu virus.  These are the first ever reported cases of both strains of the flu showing up in a human at the same time.  If these two viruses recombine to form a "super flu", could this be the beginning of the "worst case scenario" that top virologists have been warning about? 

Reportedly, the three patients are recovering in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Hurghada.  The source article linked to above also mentions a 28 year old man who tested positive for both viruses after arriving at the port of Safaga in Egypt after a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.  It is unclear from the article if this 28 year old man is part of the other three patients or if he represents a separate case.  In any event, the article does say that tests did confirm that the 28 year old man DID have both the swine flu and the bird flu.

So what does this mean?

Well, this could be really, really, really bad news for all of us.

Just a few days ago, we reported that swine flu had been found in a flock of turkeys in Chile.  We speculated on what might happen if H1N1 and H5N1 found a way to recombine in birds.

Now there is something much worse to be concerned about.  If more cases emerge of the H1N1 swine flu and the H5N1 bird flu showing up in humans at the same time, then it will probably be only a matter of time before those two viruses start borrowing genetic material from one another.

The result of such a recombination could be a "super flu" that spreads as rapidly among humans as the swine flu does, but that also has the incredibly high death rates that the bird flu does.

Take a moment and let that sink in.

Yi Guan, the world renowned virologist at Hong Kong University that isolated the SARS virus in 2003,  told Science Insider that if the quickly spreading H1N1 virus recombines with the highly lethal H5N1 virus and a new strain with both of those qualities develops it would be an absolute nightmare for the world: "If that happens, I will retire immediately and lock myself in the P3 lab. H5N1 kills half the people it infects."

Do you understand what one of the top virologists in the world is saying?

H1N1 + H5N1 could equal a "super flu" that could kill millions.

Or tens of millions.

Or worse.

Please share this information with your family and friends and make sure to check back with us often because you can be certain that we will stay on top of this story."

http://thebirdflupandemic.com/archives/3-people-in-egypt-suspected-of-being-infected-with-h1n1-swine-flu-and-h5n1-bird-flu

Entry #1,365

"...Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help e

"Sentenced to death on the NHS

Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.

By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Published: 10:00PM BST 02 Sep 2009

Source Telegraph.co.uk

"In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.

Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.

But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.

As a result the scheme is causing a “national crisis” in patient care, the letter states. It has been signed palliative care experts including Professor Peter Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics, University of London, Dr Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in Palliative Medicine at St Luke’s cancer centre in Guildford, and four others.

“Forecasting death is an inexact science,”they say. Patients are being diagnosed as being close to death “without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong.

“As a result a national wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients."

The warning comes just a week after a report by the Patients Association estimated that up to one million patients had received poor or cruel care on the NHS.

The scheme, called the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP), was designed to reduce patient suffering in their final hours.

Developed by Marie Curie, the cancer charity, in a Liverpool hospice it was initially developed for cancer patients but now includes other life threatening conditions.

It was recommended as a model by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice), the Government’s health scrutiny body, in 2004.

It has been gradually adopted nationwide and more than 300 hospitals, 130 hospices and 560 care homes in England currently use the system.

Under the guidelines the decision to diagnose that a patient is close to death is made by the entire medical team treating them, including a senior doctor.

They look for signs that a patient is approaching their final hours, which can include if patients have lost consciousness or whether they are having difficulty swallowing medication.

However, doctors warn that these signs can point to other medical problems.

Patients can become semi-conscious and confused as a side effect of pain-killing drugs such as morphine if they are also dehydrated, for instance.

When a decision has been made to place a patient on the pathway doctors are then recommended to consider removing medication or invasive procedures, such as intravenous drips, which are no longer of benefit.

If a patient is judged to still be able to eat or drink food and water will still be offered to them, as this is considered nursing care rather than medical intervention.

Dr Hargreaves said that this depended, however, on constant assessment of a patient’s condition.

He added that some patients were being “wrongly” put on the pathway, which created a “self-fulfilling prophecy” that they would die.

He said: “I have been practising palliative medicine for more than 20 years and I am getting more concerned about this “death pathway” that is coming in.

“It is supposed to let people die with dignity but it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

“Patients who are allowed to become dehydrated and then become confused can be wrongly put on this pathway.”

He added: “What they are trying to do is stop people being overtreated as they are dying.

“It is a very laudable idea. But the concern is that it is tick box medicine that stops people thinking.”

He said that he had personally taken patients off the pathway who went on to live for “significant” amounts of time and warned that many doctors were not checking the progress of patients enough to notice improvement in their condition.

Prof Millard said that it was “worrying” that patients were being “terminally” sedated, using syringe drivers, which continually empty their contents into a patient over the course of 24 hours.

In 2007-08 16.5 per cent of deaths in Britain came about after continuous deep sedation, according to researchers at the Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, twice as many as in Belgium and the Netherlands.

“If they are sedated it is much harder to see that a patient is getting better,” Prof Millard said.

Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: “Even the tiniest things that happen towards the end of a patient’s life can have a huge and lasting affect on patients and their families feelings about their care.

“Guidelines like the LCP can be very helpful but healthcare professionals always need to keep in mind the individual needs of patients.

“There is no one size fits all approach.”

A spokesman for Marie Curie said: “The letter highlights some complex issues related to care of the dying.

“The Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying Patient was developed in response to a societal need to transfer best practice of care of the dying from the hospice to other care settings.

“The LCP is not the answer to all the complex elements of this area of health care but we believe it is a step in the right direction.”

The pathway also includes advice on the spiritual care of the patient and their family both before and after the death.

It has also been used in 800 instances outside care homes, hospices and hospitals, including for people who have died in their own homes.

The letter has also been signed by Dr Anthony Cole, the chairman of the Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr David Hill, an anaesthetist, Dowager Lady Salisbury, chairman of the Choose Life campaign and Dr Elizabeth Negus a lecturer in English at Barking University.

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: “People coming to the end of their lives should have a right to high quality, compassionate and dignified care.

"The Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is an established and recommended tool that provides clinicians with an evidence-based framework to help delivery of high quality care for people at the end of their lives.

"Many people receive excellent care at the end of their lives. We are investing £286 million over the two years to 2011 to support implementation of the End of Life Care Strategy to help improve end of life care for all adults, regardless of where they live.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html

Entry #1,364

"The $531 Trillion Dollar Derivatives Time Bomb

Great article, via SteveQuayle.com, Q news.

BTW, for those who loathed 'corporate welfare' blamed on Rupublicans .... how's Wal Street and bankers welfare working out for you under Hope and Change???? 

_________

 

"The $531 Trillion Dollar Derivatives Time Bomb

By Gabriel O’Hara
Source Information Liberation
"Titanic Derivatives

"What are derivatives? Some investors describe them as "dormant economic weapons of mass destruction". They essentially are large leveraged bets on top of stocks, bonds and commodities. Money can be made within months or seconds by betting if a stock will go up, down or even remain the same. With no credit rating you can place a bet worth double your account balance. Big time investors get greater leverage with these instantaneous loans.

The New York Times, Oct 8th 2008: “The derivatives market is $531 trillion, up from $106 trillion in 2002″. This market is setup with odds similar to a racetrack. Trillions are won and lost (transferred) every second. But unlike a racetrack the big players have ultimate control. Their trillions can make stocks move. A 4% up swing in a stock can cause a derivative bet to rise more than 100% in value or vice versa. A low performing stock that rises only 6% a year could actually have many 3, 6 or 9 percent swings weekly or monthly (some stocks daily). There are billions to be made over and over again by the people that control billions and trillions thus the markets. A grand game approved by the top.  

The globe's GDP is at $60.1 trillion. The globe's total financial assets were reported as $167 trillion in 2006. A few trillion lower today no doubt. The highly volatile derivatives market is worth noting because it dwarfs the entire world’s GDP and total financial assets combined.

Alan Greenspan, the former long-term chairman of the central bank of the United States, constantly double-spoke over his career. He made statements that the current unchanged derivatives market is the best thing since sliced-money and occasionally he gave dire warnings. On May 9th 2003 the New York Times published the following: “Mr. Greenspan, as he has done in the past, praised derivatives, saying their benefits materially outweighed the risks and had insulated the financial system from the stock market crash and economic downturn.” New York Times, Oct 8th 2008: “Mr. Greenspan warned that derivatives could amplify crises because they tied together the fortunes of many seemingly independent institutions. ‘The very efficiency that is involved here means that if a crisis were to occur, that that crisis is transmitted at a far faster pace and with some greater virulence,’ he said.” With double-speak Greenspan can always be "right"? in his autobiography. Historians can choose if he was one of the "experts"? giving warnings or they can put the blame on him. Quite often the qualified “experts” that helped crash a system are the ones in charge of building the next system.

The $531 trillion dollars derivatives market contains a mind-boggling amount of high-risk credit in the hands of a small few that could completely finish off the collapse of the current global economy (for a new global replacement). New York Times, May 9th 2003: “he detailed the potential dangers to financial markets if a big derivatives dealer had to exit the market. In his speech, delivered to the conference by satellite, Mr. Greenspan said that a single dealer accounts for about a third of the global market in both interest rate and credit derivatives, and a few dealers account for more than two-thirds.”

Playing with people’s lives

The span between the green-cash haves and have-nots grew larger under Greenspan. The majority of people around the world rely on the economy for their livelihoods. But what runs the integrated global economy? Credit!

Greenspan is not one of the minority with trillions of dollars, and trillions more in credit, tied in derivatives. His work was benefiting the dominant minority of the market. Those who own the gold get others to make their rules. If everything runs on money and you own the money, it's easy to run things.

The new financial system is currently being openly discussed, if not already fully constructed on paper. Have no doubt that the paid “experts” will be given plenty of corporate and government media time sprouting how wonderful the new system will be for the ordinary man while saying enough bad things about the old system to keep us happy or they might even put the blame on the “greedy public”. A few bank employees (bank managers) have already been scarified in the media. Of course, the real economic managers, the top bank owners, will create the new system. The same people that profited from the sheering of the current system. The trillion dollar banking families of the globe don't want to end their river of wealth, making easy money from the public, which means the World Bank and the European Central Bank don’t what that either. The current system would be updated with desired regulations (a better game for a few) and new banking language that the general public don’t understand, like with any good con. However, not until after some turmoil as turmoil is needed for large-scale changes to be accepted. As the EU Commission President, Manuel Barroso, said, "the kind of occasion where the crisis calls in to question all certainties and minds are more open to change, these are very special moments."? A spokesperson for the upcoming system, Gordon Brown, said all that the nation bankrupting bailouts and social chaos are “the difficult birth pangs of a new global order” and the expert’s “task now is nothing less than making the transition to a new internationalism,” reported by the Daily Mail on Jan 27th 2008. This is what happens when people desire to be managed.

Who runs what?

What did Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, have to say about the track record of the central bank in the United States? He said, “the Federal Reserve definitely caused the Great depression by contracting the amount of currency in circulation by one-third from 1929 to 1933.” Contracting or inflating the money supply are only two tools among many utilised by central banks to direct economies.

No individual running the European Central Bank are elected by the public, they are hand picked, and no EU institution has authority over the decisions of the ECB. The ECB is an independent corporate entity. Article 106.2 of the EU’s 1992 Maastricht treaty states, “the ECB shall have legal personality”. Article 107 says the ECB and national central banks are totally independent from member state governments and “any other body” including the EU. It even forbids “the community of institutions and bodies” and  “any government of a Member State or from any other body” from instructing or advising the ECB and national central banks. Article 108.2 allows the ECB to publish or withhold any or all information on decision-making. As we all know, the ECB have the "EXCLUSIVE right to AUTHORIZE the issue of bank notes within the Community.”

Although acquitted, the European Central Bank President, Jean-Claude Trichet, was on trial with eight others for his part in signing off official accounts during a time of fraud at one of France’s biggest banks (Credit Lyonnais) which resulted in a €31 billion Euro bailout. The "right" kind of people always seems to get picked for the top.

On June 25th 2007 while everyone was happy with the booming economy the Telegraph published that the Bank for International Settlements', the ultimate bank of all central banks, 77th annual report talked of a coming global depression. The people behind this bank don’t have crystal balls. They are the movers and shakers that make things happen. Great depressions (great for some) create fantastic discounts for those with credit and bust those “nasty" competitors, especially the many small family run competitors. Since Sept 2007 billions of national emergency funds have been injected in to the global financial markets keeping buyers for the large sellers. Bank stocks lost almost 50% of their value by Dec 2007. The 6 o'clock news did not tell people about the credit crash until late 2008. Wait until the derivatives bubble - in the hands of a small few - pops, then we’ll have a brand new global financial architecture and it certainly won’t be good for the people if we allow the crisis creators to build it.

Removal of control over people’s livelihoods and lives is needed for once."

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=27260

Entry #1,363

"China Invokes A "Stop Loss" On OTC Derivatives

Been wondering when China would put a stop to buying our worthless paper, looks like it just happened. 

Caveat:  Both articles are pertinent but both contain plain language so if you're easily offended by graphically stated facts then don't click the links.

___________

"ROFL! China Tells IBs: Stuff It!
_______

"China Invokes A “Stop Loss” On OTC Derivatives


http://jsmineset.com/2009/08/31/china-invokes-a-stop-loss-on-otc-derivatives/
Entry #1,362

"RFID Chip to Detect Swine Flu Virus?

"RFID Chip to Detect Swine Flu Virus?

Source Steve Quayle News Alerts

August 25, 2009
RFID Weblog

"I have seen swine flu or H1N1 virus snuff life out of a young person known to me and he was just one of the several hundred persons in whose case the virus was detected at a late stage making it nearly impossible for any sort of recovery.

Realizing the seriousness of the situation, VeriChip, the only company in the world which has been federally approved for producing radio microchips for implanting in humans has now started working towards creating an RFID chip which can detect the presence of deadly swine flu and other viruses which are being deemed as bio threat.

VeriChip is working along with Receptors to create an implant which would give a warning if the host is infected with H5N1 bird flu virus, H1N1 swine flu virus or other pandemic agents which are termed as bio threat.

I hope it happens soon as the virus has already spread its fangs worldwide claiming as many lives as it could and still continues to spread terror.

http://www.rfid-weblog.com/50226711/rfid_chip_to_detect_swine_flu_virus.php


Comments from Listener

September 1, 2009
John H.

Steve,

Do you think they're lining up these RFID 'swine flu' / 'any flu' chips to work in conjunction with the DNA vaccines I discussed with you?

I can assure you. THEY are lining this up.

See for yourself below.

Realizing the seriousness of the situation, VeriChip, the only company in the world which has been federally approved for producing radio microchips for implanting in humans has now started working towards creating an RFID chip which can detect the presence of deadly swine flu and other viruses which are being deemed as bio threat.

VeriChip is working along with Receptors to create an implant which would give a warning if the host is infected with H5N1 bird flu virus, H1N1 swine flu virus or other pandemic agents which are termed as bio threat.

I hope it happens soon as the virus has already spread its fangs worldwide claiming as many lives as it could and still continues to spread terror.

...and

Avian flu chips go commercial  
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196801208


EE Times
(01/04/2007 5:23 PM EST)

PORTLAND, Ore. — Avian flu chips validated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could soon be showing up at U.S. medical clinics.

The "MChip," a microarray which can quickly identify avian flu, will be used to monitor a possible pandemic. It could also be used to streamline clinical laboratory testing. Quidel Corp. (San Diego) holds an exclusive license to manufacture and distribute avian influenza test kits using the patented MChip.

"Quidel's test kits will use a new and improved version of our original flu chip, which we call the MChip," said Kathy Rowlen, project leader for a University of Colorado research team. "The MChip uses very clever bioinformatics to require only a single gene, making it is a substantial improvement over our first version of the chip."

University of Colorado professor Kathy Rowlen shows its flu chip jointly patented with the CDC.
Flu chips use microarrays containing thousands of DNA protein sequences, each with a fluorescent marker that glows when a match is found. By exposing the entire chip to a patient sample, the microarray can simultaneously test for matches with all its sequences, reducing testing time from days to minutes. The National Instittutes of Health is making a conventional microarray for influenza testing under its Consortium for Functional Glycomics project.

Developers claim the MChip is an improvement over traditional influenza microarrays by requiring a match with only a single avian flu gene. Rival mircoarrays require matching sequences from all three influenza genes—hemagglutinin, neuraminidase and the matrix.

The MChip requires only matching sequences from the matrix gene, which mutates more slowly than hemagglutinin and neuraminidase genes, thereby improving reliability as well as shortening testing time.

Conventional influenza microarrays "require literally thousands of sequences, making them comparitively expensive," said Rowlen. "But the MChip is substantially smaller than a conventional microarray since it only needs 15 sequences from a single gene to reliably identify avian flu."

The MChip was jointly developed by the University of Colorado and the CDC, which are co-owners of the original patent. The CDC validated the MChip by testing it with samples of avian flu (called H5N1) collected from both humans and animals over three years. The CDC said the MChip achieved 100 percent specificity, with no reported false positives and a 97 percent sensitivity in identifying avian flu.

Quidel will use its exclusive license to integrate the MChip into its existing line of immunoassay tests for flu, which are used both in clinical laboratories and at doctors' offices.

When I said I attended a COR symposium and THIS is what they discussed in 88, I wasn't fooling around.

John H."

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/09_Disease/090901.chip-flu.html

Entry #1,361

"Car Dealers Still Waiting On 'Clunkers' Cash

Can we say dealers left twisting in the wind over the long haul? 

_________

"Car Dealers Still Waiting On 'Clunkers' Cash
 Mai Martinez
CHICAGO (CBS) ?

"Here's the figure: $2.878 billion. That's how much money the government owes car dealers for the "Cash for Clunkers" program.

More than $200 million of that is owed to dealers in Illinois and Indiana, so CBS 2's Mai Martinez checked with some of  them to see how much money they've collected from Uncle Sam.

Now that the popular program has ended, many dealerships are asking the federal government to "show me the money."

"Out of 142 deals they owe us for, we've gotten paid on seven," Lou Tornabeni of Ettleson Hyundai said.

"We had 102 cash for clunkers," Carm Scarpace of Westfield Ford said. "We've been paid for one."

With each Cash for Clunkers deal worth between $3,500 and $4,500, many dealerships are anxiously awaiting their government payday.

Some, like Advantage Chevrolet, which sold cars up until the last minute, have more than half a million dollars on the line.

"It was chaotic towards the end," Jason Roberts said.

Roberts says his dealership sold 142 cars under the program -- for a total of about $568,000 in government rebates. So far, the dealership has only been paid about $68,000 for about 17 of the deals, which means Uncle Sam still owes them roughly $500,000.

"It's not crippling, but it definitely affects the cash flow on a regular basis," Roberts said.

Roberts says his dealership can handle the cash crunch, but others may not be as lucky, especially if they didn't follow the government's strict guidelines for the program.

"We know of one dealer that sold 40 cars under the Cash for Clunkers programs, and out of those 40 cars, he's expecting to get paid on eight," Roberts said.

But even those who did follow the guidelines say they won't rest easy until they have the cash in hand. For Westfield Ford, that's about $400,000.

"You're always nervous when the money's out there, but you've got to believe in the government," Scarpace said. "It should come back to us."

The million-dollar – or should we say, billion-dollar -- question now is when? Dealers say they don't know, but it can't come soon enough.

One of the dealers told us, originally, the government was supposed to pay them within 10 days of receiving their paperwork. But with more than 690,000 cars sold under the program, that dealer says he's not expecting payment for another 30 to 45 days."

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/Cash.for.clunkers.2.1155470.html

_______

08/31/2009 4:59 PM
Dealers Still Waiting For Clunker Cash
 
Don Jorgensen
Source KELOLAND TV
 
"Auto makers will release their monthly sales reports Tuesday and they're expected to show the first year-to-year increase since 2007.  While the Cash for Clunkers program is getting all the credit, local car dealers are still waiting for their cash.

During the month long program, Billion Automotive sold close to a thousand vehicles but has only been reimbursed for 272 of them.  Vern Eide sold over 200 cars and has only been paid for 27 of them, and that's fueling lots of concerns in the auto industry.

Billion Automotive cashed in during Cash for Clunkers, but owner Dave Billion is still waiting for the rest of his money from the government run program, $3.2 million.

"I wonder how long they'd wait if I owed them $3.2 million.  I think they'd be at my door or at least my banker's door," Billion said.

Even though Billion is beginning to get some of his reimbursement money, he's still concerned because he says there doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the program.

When Cash for Clunkers was first announced, dealers were supposed to be reimbursed within 10 days of a sale. Billion says that hasn't happened.

"The program started in July and we haven't gotten paid for cars we sold back then, but then on the other hand we got paid for a car we sold last week.  They don't have an accurate format.  It's not like they're taking the first deals that were submitted and working those.  I don't know how they're doing it, no idea.  I know it's very random" Billion said.

Plus, he's had problems getting some vehicles qualified.

"We had a situation where we had a submission, they rejected it for multiple reasons.  We didn't see anything wrong with it, so we resubmitted it.  They rejected, we resubmitted it.  They rejected it, seven times and finally they paid it, and we never changed a single thing on it," Billion said.

But Billion thinks he'll get his money eventually, it just may take longer than what the government first said."

http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=89419

Entry #1,360

"... Forget the recession and the "uninsured." Obama has bigger fish to fry.

August 26, 2009 4:00 AM

"Obama and ‘Redistributive Change’

Forget the recession and the “uninsured.” Obama has bigger fish to fry.

By Victor Davis Hanson
Source National Review Online

"The first seven months of the Obama administration seemingly make no sense. Why squander public approval by running up astronomical deficits in a time of pre-existing staggering national debt?

Why polarize opponents after promising bipartisan transcendence?

Why create vast new programs when the efficacy of big government is already seen as dubious?

But that is exactly the wrong way to look at these first seven months of Obamist policy-making.

Take increased federal spending and the growing government absorption of GDP. Given the resiliency of the U.S. economy, it would have been easy to ride out the recession. In that case we would still have had to deal with a burgeoning and unsustainable annual federal deficit that would have approached $1 trillion.

Instead, Obama may nearly double that amount of annual indebtedness with more federal stimuli and bailouts, newly envisioned cap-and-trade legislation, and a variety of fresh entitlements. Was that fiscally irresponsible? Yes, of course.

But I think the key was not so much the spending excess or new entitlements. The point instead was the consequence of the resulting deficits, which will require radically new taxation for generations. If on April 15 the federal and state governments, local entities, the Social Security system, and the new health-care programs can claim 70 percent of the income of the top 5 percent of taxpayers, then that is considered a public good — every bit as valuable as funding new programs, and one worth risking insolvency.

Individual compensation is now seen as arbitrary and, by extension, inherently unfair. A high income is now rationalized as having less to do with market-driven needs, acquired skills, a higher level of education, innate intelligence, inheritance, hard work, or accepting risk. Rather income is seen more as luck-driven, cruelly capricious, unfair — even immoral, in that some are rewarded arbitrarily on the basis of race, class, and gender advantages, others for their overweening greed and ambition, and still more for their quasi-criminality.

“Patriotic” federal healers must then step in to “spread the wealth.” Through redistributive tax rates, they can “treat” the illness that the private sector has caused. After all, there is no intrinsic reason why an auto fabricator makes $60 in hourly wages and benefits, while a young investment banker finagles $500.

Or, in the president’s own language, the government must equalize the circumstances of the “waitress” with those of the “lucky.” It is thus a fitting and proper role of the new federal government to rectify imbalances of compensation — at least for those outside the anointed Guardian class. In a 2001 interview Obama in fact outlined the desirable political circumstances that would lead government to enforce equality of results when he elaborated on what he called an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

Still, why would intelligent politicians try to ram through, in mere weeks, a thousand pages of health-care gibberish — its details outsourced to far-left elements in the Congress (and their staffers) — that few in the cabinet had ever read or even knew much about?

Once again, I don’t think health care per se was ever really the issue. When pressed, no one in the administration seemed to know whether illegal aliens were covered. Few cared why young people do not divert some of their entertainment expenditures to a modest investment in private catastrophic coverage.

Warnings that Canadians already have their health care rationed, wait in long lines, and are denied timely and critical procedures also did not seem to matter. And no attention was paid to statistics suggesting that, if we exclude homicides and auto accidents, Americans live as long on average as anyone in the industrial world, and have better chances of surviving longer with heart disease and cancer. That the average American did not wish to radically alter his existing plan, and that he understood that the uninsured really did have access to health care, albeit in a wasteful manner at the emergency room, was likewise of no concern.

The issue again was larger, and involved a vast reinterpretation of how America receives health care.  Whether more or fewer Americans would get better or worse access and cheaper or more expensive care, or whether the government can or cannot afford such new entitlements, oddly seemed largely secondary to the crux of the debate.

Instead, the notion that the state will assume control, in Canada-like fashion, and level the health-care playing field was the real concern. “They” (the few) will now have the same care as “we” (the many). Whether the result is worse or better for everyone involved is extraneous, since sameness is the overarching principle.

We can discern this same mandated egalitarianism beneath many of the administration’s recent policy initiatives. Obama is not a pragmatist, as he insisted, nor even a liberal, as charged.

Rather, he is a statist. The president believes that a select group of affluent, highly educated technocrats — cosmopolitan, noble-minded, and properly progressive — supported by a phalanx of whiz-kids fresh out of blue-chip universities with little or no experience in the marketplace, can direct our lives far better than we can ourselves. By “better” I do not mean in a fashion that, measured by disinterested criteria, makes us necessarily wealthier, happier, more productive, or freer.

Instead, “better” means “fairer,” or more “equal.” We may “make” different amounts of money, but we will end up with more or less similar net incomes. We may know friendly doctors, be aware of the latest procedures, and have the capital to buy blue-chip health insurance, but no matter. Now we will all alike queue up with our government-issued insurance cards to wait our turn at the ubiquitous corner clinic.

None of this equality-of-results thinking is new.

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

The modern versions of much of the above already seem to be guiding the Obama administration — evident each time we hear of another proposal to make it easier to renounce personal debt; federal action to curtail property or water rights; efforts to make voter registration and vote casting easier; radically higher taxes on the top 5 percent; takeover of private business; expansion of the federal government and an increase in government employees; or massive inflationary borrowing. The current class-warfare “them/us” rhetoric was predictable.

Usually such ideologies do not take hold in America, given its tradition of liberty, frontier self-reliance, and emphasis on personal freedom rather than mandated fraternity and egalitarianism. At times, however, the stars line up, when a national catastrophe, like war or depression, coincides with the appearance of an unusually gifted, highly polished, and eloquent populist. But the anointed one must be savvy enough to run first as a centrist in order later to govern as a statist.

Given the September 2008 financial meltdown, the unhappiness over the war, the ongoing recession, and Barack Obama’s postracial claims and singular hope-and-change rhetoric, we found ourselves in just such a situation. For one of the rare times in American history, statism could take hold, and the country could be pushed far to the left.

That goal is the touchstone that explains the seemingly inexplicable — and explains also why, when Obama is losing independents, conservative Democrats, and moderate Republicans, his anxious base nevertheless keeps pushing him to become even more partisan, more left-wing, angrier, and more in a hurry to rush things through. They understand the unpopularity of the agenda and the brief shelf life of the president’s charm. One term may be enough to establish lasting institutional change.

Obama and his supporters at times are quite candid about such a radical spread-the-wealth agenda, voiced best by Rahm Emanuel — “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid” — or more casually by Obama himself — “My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

So we move at breakneck speed in order not to miss this rare opportunity when the radical leadership of the Congress and the White House for a brief moment clinch the reins of power. By the time a shell-shocked public wakes up and realizes that the prescribed chemotherapy is far worse than the existing illness, it should be too late to revive the old-style American patient."

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWQ2NWJkN2M3ZmJjYWQwMDZlMWQyM2FjNWI4ZWJkNGI=

Entry #1,359

'Warshing Clothes'

Came in email, can't verify orign but have seen laundry done by that method long ago.  Modern appliances are a blessing often taken for granted unless we know otherwise.

______________

"WarshingClothes Recipe" -- imagine having a recipe for this ! ! ! Yearsago an Alabama grandmother gave the new bride the following recipe:this is an exact copy as written and found in an old scrapbook - withspellingerrorsand all.

WARSHING CLOTHES

Build fire in backyard to heat kettle of rain water.Set tubs so smoke wont blow in eyes if wind is pert. Shave one holecake of lie soap in boilin water.

Sort things, make 3piles

1 pile white,

1 pile colored,

1 pile work britches and rags.

To makestarch, stir flour in cool water to smooth, then thin down withboiling water.

Take white things, rub dirty spots onboard, scrub hard, and boil, then rub colored don't boil just wrenchand starch.

Take things out of kettle with broom stickhandle, then wrench, and starch.

Hang old rags onfence.

Spread tea towels on grass.

Porewrench water in flower bed. Scrub porch with hot soapy water.

Turn tubs upside down.

Go put on cleandress, smooth hair with hair combs.. Brew cup of tea, sit and rock aspell and count your blessings.

===============================================

Pastethis over your washer and dryer Next time when you think things arebleak, read it again, kiss that washing machine and dryer, and givethanks.. First thing each morning you should run and hug your washerand dryer.  ROFL

Foryou non-southerners - wrench means, rinse ;)

ANDWE THOUGHT WE HAVE IT ROUGH

Entry #1,358

"Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information

"Racketeering 101: Bailed Out Banks Threaten Systemic Collapse If Fed Discloses Information

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/27/2009 10:35 -0500
Source Zero Hedge
"And so the guns come out blazing. The Clearing House Association, another name for all the banks that were bailed out over the past year with the generous contributions from all of you, dear taxpayers, are now threatening with another instance of complete systemic collapse if Bloomberg's lawsuit is allowed to proceed unchallenged, let alone if any of the "Audit The Fed" measures are actually implemented.

As a reminder, The Clearing House Association consists of ABN Amro, Bank Of America, The Bank Of New York, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan Chase, US Bank and Wells Fargo.

In a declaration filed in the Bloomberg Case (08-CV-9595, Southern District of New York), the banks demonstrate no shame in attempting to perpetuate the status quo with regard to the Federal Reserve and demand that the wool over the eyes of the general population remain firmly planted in perpetuity.

The Clearing House submits this declaration because the Court's Order threatens to impair the ability of our members to access emergency funds through the New York Fed's Discount Window without suffering the severe competitive harm that public disclosure of their identity will cause.

Our members have accessed the New York Fed's Discount Window with the understanding that the Fed will not publicly disclose information about their borrowing, especially their identity. Industry experience, including very recent and searing experience, has shown that negative rumors about a bank's financial condition - even completely unfounded rumors - have caused competitive harm, including bank runs and failures.

Surely transparency would facilitate rumor-mongering to an unprecedented degree. After all rumors spread much easier when everyone knows the true financial condition of banks.

And here, in plain written Times New Roman, you see what racketeering by a major bank consortium looks like:

If the names of our member banks who borrow emergency funds are publicly disclosed, the likelihood that a borrowing bank's customers, counterparties and other market participants will draw a negative inference is great. Public speculation that a financial institution is experiencing liquidity shortfalls - which would be a natural inference from having tapped emergency funds - has caused bank customers to withdraw deposits, counterparties to make collateral calls and lenders to accelerate loan repayment or refuse to make new loans. When an institution's customers flee and its credit dries up the institution may suffer severe capital and liquidity strains leaving it in a weakened competitive position.

Pardon me if I am a broken record here, but would rumors not spread much less if there was more transparency, if investors and other financial intermediaries were fully aware of the conditions of their counterparties, if banks did not have to cover their billions in reserve losses by pretending they are viable and essentially being constant wards of the state?

The Banks' racketeering has gone on for far too long.

And yet, it does not stop: the conclusion from the banks' letter:

In sum, our experience differs from the factual conclusions the Court appears to have reached about the nature of competition in the banking industry:

  • The competitive harm to institutions that are publicized as needing emergency funding is not "speculative," but demonstrated by the recent multiple failures of financial institutions whenever information about their funding difficulty has been disclosed.
  • The disclosure does not involve mere "embarassing publicity" but information that could result in the immediate demise of an institution.
  • The disclosure would not merely "stigmatize [ ]"the institution or make it "look [ ] weak," but goes to its very viability.
  • The disclosure of accessing emergency funding is not an "inherent risk" of market participation, but an extraordinary risk in extraordinary circumstances.
  • Competitors can use the disclosure to advertise or publicize that they are financial stronger because they don't need emergency funding.

In a nutshell - the banks want their complete opacity cake and eat it too, or else, the racket goes, the transparency that will somehow promote massive rumor mongering will again destroy capitalism. In the meantime, the Ken Lewises of the world can continue touting how stable their businesses are based on optimistic future projections, while implicitly, they continue to survive merely thanks to the cash granted them by you, taxpayers.

Full filing here: (live link) "

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/racketeering-101-bailed-out-banks-threaten-systemic-collapse-if-fed-discloses-information

Entry #1,357

"The Lost Mode of Prayer – From Intervention to Acceptance

On this Friday morning we're shifting gears to something inspirational for a refreshing change.  A particularly good article, great reminder.  Hope you enjoy!!!

_____________


"The Lost Mode of Prayer – From Intervention to Acceptance


By Gregg Braden   August 27th, 2009
Source Dream Manifesto

"Modern prayer researchers currently identify four modes of prayer used in the west today. Does an additional mode exist? Is there a fifth mode of prayer that allows us to participate in the outcome of the events within our bodies as well as the world around us?

Recent findings in remote temple sites where these traditions remain today, combined with new research into some of the most sacred and esoteric traditions of our past, lead me to believe that the answer is “Yes!”

Much of our conditioning in western traditions for the last one and one half millennia has invited us to “ask” that specific circumstances in our world change through divine intervention; that our prayers be answered. In our well-intentioned asking, however, we may unknowingly empower the very conditions that we are praying to change. For example, when we ask, “Dear God, please let there be peace in the world,” in effect we are stating that peace does not exist in the present.

Ancient traditions remind us that prayers of asking are one form of prayer, among other forms, that empower us to find peace in our world through the quality of thought, feeling and emotion that we create in our body. Once we allow the qualities of peace in our mind and fuel our prayer through feelings of peace in our body, the fifth mode of prayer states that the outcome has already happened.

Quantum science now takes this idea one step further, stating that it is precisely such conditions of feeling that creation responds to, by matching the feeling (prayer) of our inner world with like conditions in our outer world. Though the outcome of our prayer may not yet be apparent in our outer world, we are invited to acknowledge our communion with creation and live as if our prayer has already been answered.

Through the words of another time, the ancients invited us to embrace our lost mode of prayer as a consciousness that we become, rather than a prescribed form of action that we perform upon occasion. In words that are as simple as they are elegant, we are reminded to be “surrounded” by the answer to our prayers and “enveloped” by the conditions that we choose to experience. In the modern idiom, this description suggests to us that to effect change in our world, we are invited to first have the feelings of the change having happened.

As modern science continues to validate a relationship between our thoughts, feelings and dreams with the world that surrounds us, it becomes more likely that a forgotten bridge links our prayers with that of our experience. The beauty of such an inner technology is that it is based upon human qualities that we already possess. From the prophets who saw us in their dreams, we are reminded that in honoring all life, we accomplish nothing less than the survival of our species and the future of the only home we know.

Comparing Modes of Prayer Through the Example of Global Peace

Logic-based prayer: asking for intervention:


1. We Focus upon present conditions where we believe that peace does not exist.

2. We may feel helpless, powerless or angry at the events and conditions that we are witness to.

3. We employ our prayer of asking by inviting divine intervention from a higher power to bring peace to bear upon individuals, conditions and places where we believe that peace is absent.

4. Through our asking, we may unknowingly affirm the very conditions that we least desire. When we say “Please let there be peace,” for example, we are declaring that peace is not present in a particular situation. In doing so, we may actually fuel the condition that we have chosen to change.

5. We continue to ask for intervention until we see the change actually come to pass in our world.

Feeling-based prayer: knowing that our prayer is already answered


1. We witness all events, those of peace and those that we see as the absence of peace, as possibilities without judgement of right, wrong, bad or good.

2. We release our judgement of the situation by Blessing those conditions that have caused us pain. The Blessing does not condone or consent to the event or condition. Rather, it acknowledges that the event is part of the single source of all that is. (Please see the book, Walking Between the Worlds: The Science of Compassion, for details.)

3. By feeling the feelings of our prayer already answered, we demonstrate the ancient quantum principle stating that the conditions of peace within our bodies are mirrored in the world beyond our bodies.

4. We acknowledge the power of our prayer and know (feel) that the focus of our prayer has already come to pass.

5. Our prayer now consists of:

a. acknowledging the peace already is present in our world by living from the knowledge that such changes have occurred.

b. empowering our prayer by giving thanks for the opportunity to choose peace over suffering."

About the Author:
A former Senior Computer Systems Designer for Martin Marietta Aerospace, Computer geologist for Phillips Petroleum and a Technical Operations Manager for Cisco Systems, Braden is now considered a leading authority on bridging the wisdom of our past with the science and peace of our future. Through his journeys into the remote mountain villages, temples and monasteries of times past, Braden marries the wisdom of ancient traditions and modern science to benefit our lives today."

http://www.dreammanifesto.com/lost-mode-prayer.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-lost-mode-of-prayer-from-intervention-to-acceptance

Entry #1,356

"Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

"Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data

August 26, 2009 8:26 PM
Posted by Declan McCullagh
Source CBSnew.com 
 
"One of the problems with any proposed law that's over 1,000 pages long and constantly changing is that much deviltry can lie in the details. Take the Democrats' proposal to rewrite health care policy, better known as H.R. 3200 or by opponents as "Obamacare." (Here's our CBS News television coverage.)

Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and "other information as is prescribed by" regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for "affordability credits."

Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details -- there's no specified limit on what's available or unavailable -- to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify "affordability credits."

Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a "low-income prescription drug subsidy" but has not applied for it.

Over at the Institute for Policy Innovation (a free-market think tank and presumably no fan of Obamacare), Tom Giovanetti argues that: "How many thousands of federal employees will have access to your records? The privacy of your health records will be only as good as the most nosy, most dishonest and most malcontented federal employee.... So say good-bye to privacy from the federal government. It was fun while it lasted for 233 years."

I'm not as certain as Giovanetti that this represents privacy's Armageddon. (Though I do wonder where the usual suspects like the Electronic Privacy Information Center are. Presumably inserting limits on information that can be disclosed -- and adding strict penalties on misuse of the information kept on file about hundreds of millions of Americans -- is at least as important as fretting about Facebook's privacy policy in Canada.)

A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the "utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014," but included only limited privacy protections.

It's true that if the legislative branch chooses to create "affordability credits," it probably makes sense to ensure they're not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.

If we're going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats' current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn't. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.

Update August 27 11 a.m: Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center says in e-mail: "We would oppose section 431(a) of the bill because it violates the intent of the Privacy Act which generally requires agencies to obtain information directly from individuals and not from other agencies." EPIC still hasn't updated their Web site to reflect this sentiment, but it's good to know that other folks have concerns too."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/26/taking_liberties/entry5268079.shtml

Entry #1,355

"Geithner: Auditing the Fed is a "line that we don't want to cross"

"Geithner: Auditing the Fed is a "line that we don't want to cross"

James Corbett
Source The Corbett Report

25 August, 2009

"In an interview released today by Digg and the Wall Street Journal, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressured about the growing popular movement to Audit the Fed spearheaded by Texas Congressman Ron Paul. A visibly uncomfortable Geithner attempts to dismiss the question by stating "I'm sure people understand that you want to keep politics out of monetary policy." When Geithner is again pressed on the issue, he makes the stunning assertion that conducting an audit of the Federal Reserve—something never before done in its 96 year history—is a "line that we don't want to cross," proclaiming that such a move would be "problematic for the country." Watch the interview in the player below:

~~~~~~~ VIDEO ~~~~~~~

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090825_geithner_audit.htm

Geithner's response that auditing the Fed would give politicians dangerous control over American monetary policy is mistaken at best and a deliberate lie at worst. Allowing the public to know what happened to their $24 trillion in bailout money does not give undue control of monetary policy to the people's elected representatives. Instead, such an audit would finally allow the public to see how their money has been spent in the midst of the largest spending binge in the history of the world's economy, hardly an unreasonable demand given the well-documented revolving door between the Treasury and Goldman Sachs, the main recipient of bailout funds. Ultimately, the Treasury Secretary is left spewing the absurdity that "I think even the sponsor of that bill recognizes how important it is to us to have the Fed independent of politics," which can only be said to be true insofar as Ron Paul—the sponsor of House Resolution (HR) 1207— wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system altogether.

That the Wall Street Journal would even pressure the Treasury Secretary on serious issues like the Audit the Fed movement may be surprising, given that the Wall Street Journal is a mouthpiece of the financial oligarchy and that editor Paul Gigot, like Geithner himself, is a Bilderberg attendee. Needless to say, this was not a typical inside-the-beltway interview. Instead, questions were submitted and voted on by the Digg community, with the top 10 questions being posed to Mr. Geithner.

As a result, the Secretary was bombarded by pointed questions about his documented tax evasion from 2001-2004, the wisdom of spending trillions of dollars in the light of long-term dollar devaluation and even, in the words of one particularly irate questioner, "Why are you running the Treasury Department?" Despite presumably having had time to prepare responses to each question well in advance, Geithner is still visibly discomfited by the entire exchange, picking at his shirt cuff and coughing nervously throughout the interview.

In one particularly telling moment, Geithner even admits "We have been forced to do just extraordinary things and, frankly, offensive things to help save the economy."

That these questions are only being asked now, almost a year into the bailout and several months after the new administration has taken office, further highlights how the controlled corporate media is doing everything in its power to keep to well-trodden and uncontroversial areas in their interviewing of key administration officials. This interview is testimony to the power of the citizen journalism movement that is attempting to hold those in power accountable for their actions. We can only hope that the Obama Administration lives up to their promise to be the "cyber" administration by allowing more such question-and-answer sessions in the future."

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20090825_geithner_audit.htm

Entry #1,354