Stories from Alternative News

Thanks to Mick Gallagher.

thepeoplesvoice.org Newsletter
092107

A Fed Panic and a Massive Bailout of American Banks Paid For by the Entire World - Rodrigue Tremblay

"Manias, panics, and crashes are the consequence of an economic environment that cultivates cupidity, chicanery, and rapaciousness rather than a devout belief in the Golden Rule." - Peter L. Bernstein, Foreword to Manias, Panics, and Crashes (4th ed.) by C. P. Kindleberger

"In a crisis, discount and discount heavily." - Walter Bagehot (1826-1877), British economist

AMERICA, THE ONCE FREE - Peter Fisk

I have grown sick, embarrassed and, ultimately disillusioned with what
has happened to my country. The United States of America- at one time
those five magical words mesmerized both citizens and foreigners alike.

ORB Survey And 1.2 Million Iraq Deaths Ignored By Australian And Anglo-American Media - Dr Gideon Polya, Countercurrents

In February 2007, as we approached the Fourth Anniversary of the US-UK-Australian invasion of Iraq, I published an article in Countercurrents entitled "US Iraqi Holocaust and 1 million Excess Deaths". I detailed and documented the following horrendous circumstances in Occupied Iraq:

"as of February 2007:
(a) the accrual cost has been $2.3 trillion;
(b) there are 3.7 million Iraqi refugees;
(c) the post-invasion excess deaths (avoidable deaths, deaths that did not have to happen) total 1.0 million (ONE MILLION);
(d) post-invasion under-5 infant deaths total .6 million;
(e) there were 1.7 million excess Iraqi deaths associated with the Western-imposed 1990-2003 Sanctions War;
(f) there were 1.2 million under-5 year old infant deaths in the 1990-2003 Sanctions War; and
(g) Coalition deaths total about 3,360."

It is now September 2007. And after a further SEVEN months of US-UK-Australian war and occupation, the horrendous human and economic cost has inevitably increased.

George W. Bush's Thug Nation - Robert Parry, Consortium News

It's said that over time, Presidents-- especially two-termers-- imbue the nation with their personalities and priorities, for good or ill. If that's true, it could help explain the small-minded, mean-spiritedness that seems to be pervading the behavior of the United States these days, both at home and abroad. On a global level, the world reads about trigger-happy Blackwater Security contractors mowing down civilians in Baghdad, the U.S. military killing unarmed people under loose rules of engagement in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and the CIA rendering suspected Islamists to secret prisons or to third-country dungeons where torture is practiced. Inside the United States, too, a police-state mentality is taking hold.

ACTION ALERT: Stop the Unconstitutional 'Protect America' Act - Michael Boldin

The single largest anti-Constitutional contribution to the Bush Regime by the Protect America Act (PAA) is its effective cancellation of legislative and judicial oversight on warrantless wiretapping. It authorizes open-ended surveillance of Americans' overseas phone calls and emails without a warrant. When this bill was signed into law on 08-05-07, legislative and judicial power in the executive branch instantly grew by several orders of magnitude. The Constitution's separation-of-powers principle had its arms ripped off.

09/20/07

Condoleezza Rice: saleswoman of lies - Palestinian Information Centre, From Khalid Amayreh in occupied East Jerusalem

Condoleezza Rice, the unglamorous American Secretary of State, arrived in Occupied Palestine on Wednesday to promote the putative American-proposed peace conference, slated to take place in November. Rice will meet with Zionist political and military leaders in an effort to convince them to show some flexibility vis--vis the so-called core issues that define the Palestinian question. These include, inter alia, ending the Israeli occupation that began in 1967 as well as finding a solution to the plight of nearly five million Palestinian refugees brutally uprooted from their homes by Zionist terror when Israel was created six decades ago.

Bush Speech on Iraq and Democrats on Impeachment - Stephen Crockett

Since George W. Bush is completely ignoring the views of both the vast majority of American citizens and the majority of the members of Congress concerning the ending of the Iraq War, impeachment hearings should be started. Bush will not conform to democratic norms. He will not respect public opinion or democracy. There are plenty of reasons to hold immediate joint impeachment hearings for both bush and cheney.

THE END OF AMERICA - THE POLICE STATE IS RIGHT HERE - RIGHT NOW - Carolyn Baker

As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air--however slight-- lest we become unwilling victims of the darkness. - Justice William O. Douglas

Wolf's just-published book, The End Of America: Letter Of Warning To A Young Patriot,... offers an even fuller picture-- a succinct and engaging explanation of how our civil liberties have been hijacked in the past decade. It is the most poignant, powerful, genuinely patriotic piece of literature I have encountered since Thomas Paine's Common Sense. No wonder then, that the book's cover greatly resembles that 46-page tract by Paine written in 1775-- as well it should.

Bush Nominates 9-11 Zionist Judge as Attorney General - Christopher Bollyn, Truth Seeker / Rumor Mill News

It is widely reported that george w. bush will nominate former Manhattan federal Judge Michael [Bernard] Mukasey to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. With the fraudulent "War on Terror" in full swing and with 9-11 cases in legal limbo, this is a critical appointment at a crucial time. As I had expected, bush has appointed a radical Zionist with close ties to the State of Israel. Mukasey, if confirmed as U.S. Attorney General, will protect the Zionist state and its agents who are suspected of involvement in the false-flag terror attacks of 9-11.

The Crushing of Fallujah - James Petras, Global Research

The mass propaganda media has taught the US public to believe that the extermination of thousands of Iraqi citizens is in their best interests: they can sleep sound, as long as 'our boys' kill them 'over there'. Almost the entire population of Iraq is opposed to the US military and its puppet regime--yet the media refer to the patriots defending their country from the imperial invaders as "insurgents," minimizing the significance of a nation-wide patriotic liberation movement.

I am reading William Shirer's Berlin Diary, a journalist's account of Nazi political propaganda during the 1930's, as I watch the US 'news' reports of the violent assault on Fallujah. The US mass media 'reports', the style, content, and especially the language, echo their Nazi predecessor of 70 years ago to an uncanny degree. Coincidence? Of course! In both instances, we have imperialist armies conquering
countries, leveling cities, and slaughtering civilians-- and the mass media, private in form, state appendages in practice, disseminate the most outrageous lies, in defense and praise of the conquering 'storm troopers. Call them SS or Marines. Both in Nazi Germany and the contemporary US, we are told by the mass media that the invading armies are "freeing the country" of "foreign fighters", "armed terrorists", who are preventing "the people" from going about their everyday lives. Yet we know that of the 1,000 prisoners there are only 4 foreigners (3 Iranians and 1 Arab); Iraqi hospitals report less than 10% of foreign fighters. In other words, over 90% of the fighters are Iraqis--most of whom were born, educated, and raised families in the cities in which they are fighting.

Bush, Iran, and Israel's hidden hand - Kathleen and Bill Christison, Redress Nuclear hypocrisy in the Middle East

Former CIA analysts Kathleen and Bill Christison argue that a US and/or Israeli attack on Iran to bring about regime change and strengthen US and Israeli dominion over the Middle East is likely to take place before the Bush administration leaves office unless a concerted effort is made to impeach bush and cheney. The internet is loaded these days with reports of the inevitability of a US, or a US-Israeli, attack on Iran. Some writers allege that the attack is imminent. Others, including the writers of this article, argue only that the attack will happen sometime before January 2009, when the bush administration leaves office. Many of these stories have by now been picked up by the mainstream media. In fact, it is probably safe to say that today, a majority of the traditionally cautious and so-called respectable foreign policy experts in the US think it is at least possible that bush will attack Iran before he leaves office.

Palestinian Propaganda Prize for Israel- Nicola Nasser

The inter-Palestinian war of words and the mutual violations of the freedom of press and expression by the Hamas - led government of Ismael Haniyyeh in the Gaza Strip and the Fatah-led government of Salam Fayyad in the West Bank have presented Israel with its biggest propaganda prize that is overshadowing the violations of human rights committed by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT).

Nablus Fierce Battle Killed & Injured Israeli State Terrorist Unit - Hiyam Noir, PalestineFreeVoice

Gaza City September 18 2007: Invading Israeli State Terrorist units launched wide scale attacks into the Al-'Ayn refugee camp in Nablus in two stages on Tuesday morning. In the first incursion, more than fifty Israeli armed vehicles stormed the camp just before dawn, and imposed a curfew. Members of the Israeli State Terrorists units seized four Palestinians and blasted through the walls in the alleys between the buildings, trespassed through Palestinian territorial land - and stationed themselves inside Palestinian homes.

George W. Bush: The Quiet Dictator - Irregular Times

As of this week, the bush administration's descent into totalitarian depravity has reached a new low so despicable that even a few Republicans are beginning to criticize it. It was revealed this week that the bush administration is planning to keep people as prisoners for their entire lives, even though there is no evidence that those people have committed any crime against the United States. The lack of evidence against these people is so striking that the American government does not even have enough grounds to bring them before a form of military tribunal that has been set up by George W. Bush precisely for the purpose of evading the standards of justice set by the United States Constitution.

Scooter Libby

I’m outraged. President Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s prison sentence wiping away two and half years of jail time with the stroke of a pen. President Bush ignored Libby’s felony conviction for lying to investigators, ignored the jury’s guilty verdict, and ignored the rule of law that governs our nation.

We expect more from our President. We expect honor and integrity, we expect moral leadership. We expect our President and his staff to be held to a higher standard.

Tell President Bush that you are appalled by his actions. Sign our petition today letting President Bush know that this outrageous conduct won’t be tolerated by the American people.

Sincerely,

Chuck Schumer

P.S. It’s at times like these that I realize just how important a strong Democratic Senate is to our nation. Democrats are fighting the Republican’s abuse of power but we can’t do it without your help. Tell President Bush that you are appalled by his actions. Sign our petition today letting President Bush know that this outrageous conduct won’t be tolerated by the American people.

President Bush has commuted the sentence of Scooter Libby and we need to show Bush his actions just aren't acceptable.

http://www.dscc.org/

Who supports hate?

Send a letter to Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson, condemning their campaign of hate.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that promises to extend protection from violent or discriminatory acts of hate to gay and lesbian Americans.

In a shocking turn of events, even for this administration, President Bush has threatened to veto this anti-hate bill. With the overwhelming congressional and public support for this legislation, many are asking who the President could possibly be serving with such a commitment; the answer unfortunately is the religious right.

Over the last few months the religious right has waged a deceptive campaign opposing this pro-equality legislation. They have employed a range of excuses; Chuck Colson compared the law to something out of George Orwell's famous novel 1984(1), Tony Perkins has stated that the legislation is “contrary to our heritage and our values,”(2) and just this week James Dobson told listeners of Focus on the Family Radio, “there’s a vote coming up on some insidious legislation in the United States Congress that could silence and punish Christians for their moral beliefs. That means that as a Christian – if you read the Bible a certain way with regard to morality – you may be guilty of committing a ‘thought crime.”(3)

Such sentiments beg the question: does the religious right truly believe that hate speech is an integral component of their faith?

This notion is preposterous and simply goes to show just how out of touch the religious right is, not only with real American values, but with mainstream Christian values as well.

While most Americans see the religious right’s campaign for what it is -- an attempt to make gay and lesbian Americans second class citizens -- their bigoted views have found audience with at least one man, President Bush.

Click here to send Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson a letter condemning their campaign of hate. These men aren’t simply opposing core American values of equality, they’re perverting faith.

Let them know they should be ashamed of themselves.

Clark and the rest of the DefCon Team

P.S. Learn more at the DefCon Blog.

1 http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ChuckColson/2007/05/01/what_the_hate_c
rimes_law_would_do
2 http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?c=THOUGHT_CRIMES&f=PG07C04
3 http://citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000004525.cfm

© 2007 DefCon: Campaign to Defend the Constitution

Mission Not Accomplished

It's hard to believe that it's been four long years since President Bush declared that it was "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. Of course, nothing could have been further from the truth. The insurgency in Iraq had already begun in the spring of 2003, and it would only get worse.

But George Bush remained stuck in time. Month after month, year after year, he fed us platitudes and happy talk. He utterly refused to face reality.

And now, as deluded as ever, the president is going to veto a war spending bill that would finally bring accountability to the U.S. mission in Iraq and create a framework for bringing our troops home.

President Bush is thumbing his nose at the American people and the only reason he is still getting away with it is because Republican senators are enabling his reckless policies.

Against all evidence on the ground, they've told us how America is on the "road to victory," making "tremendous progress," and that George Bush has done an "excellent job...outlining his strategy for Iraq."

Click here to see how Republican senators have served as an echo chamber for George Bush's bogus claims about progress in Iraq.

It's clear that too many Republican senators are still more than willing to put their party and their president ahead of our country.

And that is just not acceptable.

Sincerely,

J.B. Poersch
Executive Director, DSCC

Hope: Impeach the President

Thanks to Chris Finer
*******

Hope for this Country: Vermont Senate: Impeach the President
Friday, April 20, 2007 11:32 AM EDT
The Associated Press
By ROSS SNEYD

MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) — Vermont senators voted Friday to call for the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, saying their actions have raised "serious questions of constitutionality." The non-binding resolution was approved 16-9 without debate — all six Republicans in the chamber at the time and three Democrats voted against it.

The resolution says that bush's and cheney's actions in the U.S. and abroad, including in Iraq, "raise serious questions of constitutionality, statutory legality, and abuse of the public trust." "I think it's going to have a tremendous political effect-- a tremendous political effect on public discourse about what to do about this president," said James Leas, a vocal advocate of withdrawing troops from Iraq and impeaching Bush and Cheney.

Vermont lawmakers earlier voted to demand an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq in another non-binding resolution. Democratic House Speaker Gaye Symington has kept a similar resolution from reaching the floor in her chamber. She argued that an impeachment resolution would be partisan and divisive and that it would distract Washington from efforts to get the United States out of Iraq, which she says is more important.

In the Senate, Republican Lt. Gov. Brian Dubie had opposed the resolution, but he was absent Friday. That left Democratic Senate President Pro Tem Peter Shumlin in charge, and he immediately took up the measure.

More than three dozen towns voted in favor of similar nonbinding impeachment resolutions at their annual town meetings in March.

*******

Fairness for Israel and Palestine

Thanks to Mick Gallagher and please read the article at the url.

Kristof: US should stop biting tongue on Israel

A new World with New Fuel

In this year's "State of the Union" address, bush told us that it was time to get serious about America's addiction to foreign oil. The next day, we found out that his idea didn't sit too well with the Saudi Royal Family. A few hours later, Energy Secretary Bodman backtracked and assured the world that even though the President said he planned to reduce the amount of oil we import from the Middle East, he actually didn't mean that literally.

If there's a single example out there that encapsulates the ability of unstable, undemocratic governments to wield undue influence over America's national security (just because of our dependence on oil), this is it.

Now, I could stand up here and give you all plenty of reasons why it's a good idea for this country to move away from an oil-based economy. I could cite studies from scientists and experts and even our own State Department detailing the dangers of global warming-- how it can destroy our coastal areas and generate more deadly storms. I could talk forever about the economic consequences of dependence-- how it's decimating our auto industry, costing us jobs, and emptying our wallets at the pump. And I could talk about the millions of new jobs and entire new industries we could create by transitioning to an alternative-fuel economy.

But all we really need to know about the danger of our oil addiction comes directly from the mouths of our enemies:

"[Oil] is the umbilical cord and lifeline of the crusader community." These are the words of Al Qaeda.

"Focus your operations on oil, especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off [on their own]." These are the words of Osama bin Laden.

More than anything else, these comments represent a realization of American weakness shared by the rest of the world. It's a realization that for all of our military might and economic dominance, the Achilles heel of the most powerful country on Earth is the oil we cannot live without.

Oil single-handedly fuels 96% of our transportation needs, and it's also critical to the manufacture of millions of goods and products in this country. As we saw during Hurricane Katrina, this kind of dependency means that the loss of even a small amount of oil and refining capacity for just a few days can cause economic panic and soaring prices. A serious embargo or permanent loss could cause untold disaster.

It would be nice if we could produce our way out of this problem, but it's just not possible. We have only three percent of the world's oil reserves. We could start drilling in ANWR today, and at its peak, which would be more than a decade from now, it would give us enough oil to take care of our transportation needs for about a month.

As a result, every single hour we spend $18 million on foreign oil. It doesn't matter if these countries are budding democracies, despotic regimes, or havens for the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds; they get our money because we need their oil.

One need only glance at headlines around the world to understand how dangerous this addictive arrangement truly is.

In Iran, Islamic fundamentalists are forging ahead with their nuclear program, knowing full well that the world's response to their actions will be influenced by our need for their oil. In fact, reports of a $100 billion oil deal between Iran and China were soon followed by China's refusal to press for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear intentions.

In Nigeria, militant rebels have been attacking the country's oil pipelines in recent weeks, sending prices soaring and calling into question the political stability of a country that represents America's fifth-largest source of oil imports.

In Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on that country's poorly defended oil refineries for years. On Friday, they almost succeeded as a truck full of explosives was detonated by the shots of security guards just before it entered the refinery. Even this minor damage caused oil prices to jump $2 in a single day. But a former CIA agent tells us that if terrorists ever succeeded in destroying an entire oil complex, it could take enough oil off the market to cause economic catastrophe in the United States.

Our enemies are fully aware that they can use oil as a weapon against America. And if we don't take this threat as seriously as the bombs they build or the guns they buy, we will be fighting the War on Terror with one hand tied behind our backs.

Now, the good news about the president's decision-- finally to focus on energy independence after five years: It helps build bipartisan consensus. Our reliance on foreign oil is a problem....

The bad news is that the president's energy policy treats our dependence on oil as more of a nuisance than a serious threat.

Just one day after he told us in the State of the Union that renewable fuels were the key to an energy independent future, we learned that the president's budget cuts would force layoffs at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Last week, this made for a rather awkward situation when the president wanted to use the lab for a photo-op - so awkward that the White House actually re-hired the laid-off researchers just to avoid the embarrassment.

This is only one example, but it tells the story of a larger weakness in the president's energy policy: it's simply not commensurate to the challenge.

There's a reason that some have compared the quest for energy independence to the Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing. Like those historic efforts, moving away from an oil economy is a major challenge that will require a sustained national commitment.

During World War II, we had an entire country working around the clock to produce enough planes and tanks to beat the Axis powers. In the middle of the Cold War, we built a national highway system so we had a quick way to transport military equipment across the country. When we wanted to beat the Russians into space, we poured millions into a national education initiative that graduated thousands of new scientists and engineers.

If we hope to strengthen our security, and control our own foreign policy, we can offer no less of a commitment to energy independence.

But so far, bush seems as if he is offering less-- much less.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office.

He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

His latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law-- leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

And while he cannot seem to find the funding for any of these energy proposals, he has no problem allowing the oil companies to stiff taxpayers $7 billion in royalties that they owe us for drilling on public lands. These are the same oil companies that are currently enjoying the highest profits on record.

Again, this is just not a serious commitment to energy independence. The solutions are too timid, and the reforms too small. America's dependence on oil is a major threat to our national security, and the American people deserve a bold commitment that has the full force of their government behind it.

...This is an issue that politicians from both parties clamor about when gas prices are the headline of the month, only to fall back into a trance of inaction once things calm down. And so we all need to get serious here. Automakers need to get serious about shifting their technology to greater fuel-efficiency; consumers need to get serious about buying hybrid cars; and Washington needs to get serious about working together to find a real solution to our energy crisis.

This solution is not only possible; it's already being implemented in other places around the world. Countries such as Japan are creating jobs and slowing oil consumption by churning out and buying millions of fuel-efficient cars. Brazil, a nation that once relied on foreign countries to import 80% of its crude oil, will now be entirely self-sufficient (in a few years) thanks to its investment in biofuels.

So, why can't we do this? Why can't we make energy security one of the great American projects of the twenty-first century?

The answer is, we can. The president's energy proposal would reduce our oil imports by 4.5 million barrels per day by 2025. Not only can we do better than that, we must do better than that if we hope to make a real dent in our oil dependency. With technology we have on the shelves right now and fuels we can grow right here in America, by 2025 we can reduce our oil imports by over 7.5. million barrels per day - an amount greater than all the oil we are expected to import from the entire Middle East.

We can do this by focusing on two things: the cars we drive and the fuels we use.

First, the cars. For years, we've hesitated to raise fuel economy standards as a nation in part because of a very legitimate concern - the impact it would have on Detroit. The auto industry is right when it argues that transitioning to more hybrid and fuel-efficient cars would require massive investment at a time when they're struggling under the weight of rising health care costs, sagging profits, and stiff
competition.

But it's precisely because of that competition that they don't have a choice. China now has a higher fuel economy standard than we do, and Japan's Toyota is doubling production of the popular Prius to sell 100,000 in the U.S. this year.

There is now no doubt that fuel-efficient cars represent the future of the auto industry. If American car companies hope to be a part of that future-- if they hope to survive-- they must start building more of these cars.

But that's not to say we should leave the industry to face these costs on its own. Yes, we should raise fuel economy standards by 3% a year over the next fifteen years, starting in twenty-oh-eight. With the technology they already have, this should be an achievable goal for automakers. But we can help them get there.

Right now, one of the biggest costs facing auto manufacturers isn't the cars they make, it's the health care they provide. Health care costs make up $1,500 of the price of every GM car that's made-- more than the cost of steel. Retiree health care alone cost the Big 3 automakers nearly $6.7 billion just last year.

So here's the deal we can make with the auto companies: It's a piece of legislation I introduced called "Health Care for Hybrids," and it would allow the federal government to pick up part of the tab for the auto companies' retiree health care costs. In exchange, the auto companies would then use some of that savings to build and invest in more fuel-efficient cars. It's a win-win proposal for the industry: Their retirees will be taken care of, they'll save money on health care, and they'll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future.

Building cars that use less oil is only one side of the equation. The other involves replacing the oil we use with home-grown biofuels. The Governors in this room have long known about this potential, and all of you have been leading the way on ethanol in your own states.

This coalition also knows that corn-based ethanol is only the beginning. If we truly want to harness the power of these fuels and the promise of this market, we can and must generate more cellulosic ethanol from agricultural products like corn stocks, switch grass and other crops our farmers grow.

Already, there are hundreds of fueling stations that use a blend of ethanol and gasoline known as E85, and there are millions of cars on the road with the flexible-fuel tanks necessary to use this fuel, including my own.

But the challenge we face with these biofuels is getting them out of the labs, out of the farms, and onto the wider commercial market. Every scientific study in the world could sing the praises of biofuels, but you might still be hard-pressed to find an investor willing to take the risk on a cellulosic ethanol plant or a brand-name petroleum company willing to build an E85 fueling station.

The federal government can help in two ways here. First, we can reduce the risk of investing. We already do this in a number of ways by funding projects critical to our national security. Energy independence should be no different. By developing an Energy Technology Program at the Defense Department, we can provide loan guarantees and venture capital to those with the best plans to develop and sell biofuels on a commercial market. The Defense Department will also hold a competition where private corporations get funding to see who can build the best new alternative-fuel plant. The Department can then use these new technologies to improve the energy security of our own military.

Once we take the risk out of investing, the second thing the government can do is to let the private sector know that there will always be a market for renewable fuels. We can do this in a few ways.

First, we should ramp up the renewable fuel standard and create an alternative diesel standard in this country so that by 2025, 65 billion gallons of alternative fuels per year will be blended into the petroleum supply.

Second, Washington should lead the way on energy independence by making sure that every single automobile the government purchases is a flexible-fuel vehicle-- starting today. When it becomes possible in the coming years, we should make sure that every government car is a plug-in hybrid as well.

Third, I'm supporting legislation that would make sure every single new car in America is a flexible-fuel vehicle within a decade. Currently it costs manufacturers just $100 to add these tanks to each car. But we can do them one better. If they install flexible-fuel tanks in their cars before the decade's up, the government should provide them a $100 tax credit to do it-- so there's no excuse for delay.

Fourth, there are already millions of people driving flexible-fuel vehicles who don't know it. The auto companies shouldn't get CAF'E credit for making these cars if they don't let buyers know about them, so I'd like to ask the industry to follow GM's lead and put a yellow gas cap on all flexible fuel vehicles starting today. Also, they should send a letter to those people who already have flexible-fuel vehicles so they can start filling up their tank at the closest E85 station.

Finally, since there are only around 500 fueling stations that pump E85 in the country, we recently passed legislation that would provide tax credits of up to $30,000 for those who want to install E85 pumps at their station. But we should do even more-- we should make sure that in the coming years, E85 stations are as easy to find as your gas station is now.

Make no mistake! None of these reforms will come easy, and they won't happen overnight. But we can't continue to settle for piecemeal, bite-sized solutions to our energy crisis. We need a national commitment to energy security, and to emphasize that commitment, we should install a Director of Energy Security to oversee all of our efforts. Like the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the National Intelligence Director, this person would be an advisor to the National Security Council and have the full authority to coordinate America's energy policy across all levels of government. He or she would approve all major budget decisions and provide a full report to Congress and the country every year detailing the progress we're making toward our 2025 goal.

In the days and months after September 11th, Americans were waiting to be called to something bigger than themselves. Just like their parents and grandparents of the Greatest Generation, they were willing to serve and defend their country-- not only on the fields of war, but on the homefront too.

This is our chance to step up and serve. The war against international terrorism has pitted us against a new kind of enemy that wages terror in new and unconventional ways. At home, fighting that enemy won't require us to build the massive war machine that Franklin Roosevelt called for so many years ago, but it will require us to harness our own renewable forms of energy so that oil can never be used as a weapon against America.

From farmers and scientists to entrepreneurs and governors, everyone has a role to play in this effort....

Now is the time for serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence. Now is the time for this call to arms.... I also hope that members of both parties and all levels of government can come together in the near future to launch this serious quest for energy independence....

(Thanks to Heather Wiggins)

Note: Source unknown but likely from a speech by Barack Obama, who has introduced the Health Care for Hybrids Act. Comment if you know the reference for this transcript.

Response to Nuclear Disaster for Profit

Thanks to Mick Gallegar, who sent this letter to the "Universal Love Digest" Efamily (in response to the previous post on nuclear disaster for profit). If you can "plow your way through," it's worth reading!--

editors
*******
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:44:08 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
Subject: Fw: The Universal Love Digest Digest Number 803

It's A Corpratocracy,and always has been. And I must say that bush wasn't the first stooge to carry the water for Wall Street, and lie us into immoral wars. Remember LBJ. The Tonkin Gulf Incident never happened. But they needed a catalyst to get it all started. The Industrial Military Complex was pushing really hard for that. It was the same with the Joint Chiefs wanting to bomb the hell out of Cuba. Years later, we learned what even most of them didn't know: They were loaded up with nuclear missiles. Also, we didn't know that Castro was more upset with Kruschev than with JFK for putting the weapons there. For he knew that Cuba would become a target for U.S. attack. Remember, Castro came to the US first--for help. The US rejected him; and then, he went to the USSR. ... Mobsters--and all their Gambling, prostitution, drug running, etc.,etc/{Myer Lansky(Zionist Mob), Traficanti, Gambino, etc}.

2nd one, if true, {Dem-stonewalling}--solidifies belief that both parties are complicite..in the corp warmongering(oil/gas), and the Likudniks, through Zionist Lobbyist groups...pushing us into eliminating Israels enemies,etc. Re-shaping the M.E., A New Jerusalem', etc Drive the Arabs out, and in the extreme--Armeggedon. The Christian Zionists mixed with the hard liners in the Likud party of the Knesset...have been gaining ground--and were the driving force, along with Fortune 1000 companies, bankers, Military Ind Complex in to this fiasco in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Iran next, then Syria, Lebanon, possibly Saudi Arabia...sometime in the future.

Nothing to do with a terrorism threat. That was the 'Manufactured Crisis'---to enable this insane Imperialist Hegemony--that began during Ford's time, with Kissinger, Cheney, Rumsfeld, who brought in Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan,etc., etc

Oh ya--Wm. Kristol...they all were protege~ of Leo Strauss (Univ Chicago) 1938...lineage of--'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Don't take my word for it--look it up, then pass the word, please.

It's all public record---including the collusion of the Bush Dynasty with these folks--including trading with the 3rd Reich right up to mid-1942....through Hamburg Steam Lines, Wall St. Bankers (Bush's, Walkers); Thysson-Krup Steel Companies. G.O.P. Strategist Kevin Phillips great book: "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush".

is but one of many great books that expose the true people's history of the U.S. mercantile madness...and great achievements as well. That's why Hitler really admired people like Henry Ford, etc.

One of the Bush brothers ya don't hear much about was Samuel Bush--who owned Buckeye Steel in Col., Ohio---and they all had connections, {esp Herbert Walker, who really carried the heavy change-back then}--with early oil companies in good old Oil City, Pa. Also--the big railroads based around Pittsburgh, PA.!!! Yeowzza!!

Have a splendidly Sunday--fellow time traveler's!!