How close are we to 'Sudden Disorderly Adjustment'?
What are we to make of the growing chorus of fears about the possible collapse of the dollar? Is it a case of crying wolf again?
Those fears link four elements: Iran’s stated intention soon to open its own electronic International Oil Bourse; its resolve to sell oil there in euros, not dollars; the expectation that the price of oil will rise to over $100 a barrel, triggering world recession; and the demand for gold, rather than dollars, as a store of value.
Since the US is deep in debt, nationally and internationally, the dollar’s value depends entirely on the fact that it is a reserve currency for other nations. We all have to keep reserves in dollars for two reasons. First, by an agreement made in the 1940’s, the oil producing countries of OPEC agreed to sell oil only in dollars. That meant everyone had to hold dollars if they wanted to buy oil, resulting in two-thirds of all central bank reserves being in dollars.
That in turn means that the Americans have the privilege of producing the international currency. Creating money is nice work if you can get it. It is the equivalent of having a mint in your backyard. You can buy what you want with the new money, without having to supply the equivalent value of goods. America has been financing its annual deficit with the rest of the world – it borrows over $2 trillion a day - by simply making new money and spending it into circulation.
They will not be able to do that if we no longer have to buy our oil in dollars. Its value would fall as nations switch to other currencies to buy oil or to gold as a reliable store of value. The creation of dollars would not be available as a mechanism to cover the huge international debt. If that process began, there could be the kind of flight from the currency that has wrecked the economy of many nations within the past decade.
Even more alarming are suggestions that to avoid this possibility the American government is planning to invade Iran. The fact that the invasion of Iraq was preceded by unwarranted accusations of weapons of mass destruction, and that Hussein had threatened to switch sales of oil from dollars to euros, gives credence to such fears. The fact that Iraq’s current chaos makes it a net importer of oil seems not to deflect American resolve.
What is the evidence for the possible imminence of this scenario? Associated Press on May 5 quoted top Wall Street analyst Bill O’Grady of A.G. Commodities: ‘If one day the world’s largest oil producers allowed, or worse demanded, euros for their barrels, it would be the financial equivalent of a nuclear strike.”
On May 8, an editorial in right-wing Forbes Magazine, written by Bush supporter Jerome Corsi, predicts: “If Iran wants also to seriously threaten the dollar’s position as a dominant foreign reserve currency, a war becomes almost certain. The Iranian oil bourse may never be mentioned by US policy-makers as an official reason the US decides to go to war with Iran, but it may end up being the straw that broke the camel’s back.’
‘Sudden disorderly adjustment’ is the current bankers’ euphemism for the consequences of a dollar collapse. Others, including Morgan Stanley economist Stephen Roach, as well as financiers Soros and Warren Buffet, refer to it as ‘economic Armageddon’. How close are we to that?

Never Mind - Go Back To
Sleep
Why was molten steel observed at Ground Zero for 2 months after 911. What explosives/accelerants were used? Thermite? Jet fuel does NOT burn for 2 months.

Should We Remove Our Criminal Media Yet?
What will it take before the American people turn on the members of the press in this nation? When will the American people take to the streets and place under citizen arrest the members of the press who actively shield criminals who are assaulting our Constitution and our democracy? Where are all the patriots? Where are all the Americans? Where the hell are all the journalists? Think about it!

Bush Is Now A Lame Duck
Short of another disaster on the scale of 9/11, George Bush no longer has the power, credibility or ability to effectively govern for the rest of his term in office.
"I can't tell you how much anger there is at the Republican leadership," Richard Viguerie, a veteran conservative consultant and activist told The New York Times. "I have never seen anything like it."
Will all this lead to a Democratic field day in November? Who knows; and not to be flip, but who cares? Polls show Congress is held in low esteem similar to the president's. Democratic gains would simply lead to continued do-nothingism. And the ramifications for 2008, I believe, are nil. 2008 will be about two people, not the performance of congressional Democrats in 2007 and 2008.
But what is apparent, is that George Bush has at his disposal none — none — of the tools presidents have used to turn bad situations around: public support, party support or skilled statecraft. He's a lame duck less than two years in to his second term. You are not being governed.

Season of the Wolf
Is there a case for conspiracy theories about 9/11 and the Iraq war? For Washington's opponents, the truth is less important than the image of an America gone mad.
American military spending, said Putin, “is 25 times” that of Russia's. “In defense parlance, their house is their fortress, and good for them,” he went on, but “we have to build our home, our house, to be strong and safe—because we can see what is happening in the world. We can see it! As they say, Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat. He is eating and listening to no one. And it would seem he has no intention of listening.”

American Dominatrix

We're scaring the world – and they hate us for it.
Anti-Americanism is a big problem for U.S. business: if people turn against America because of the policies of our government, then that means lost profits. Our proclivity for alienating the citizens of practically every nation is costing us a pretty penny, and Business for Diplomatic Action Inc. (BDA), a non-profit organization founded by advertising executive Keith Reinhard, means to repair the damage. Although they don't come right out and say it, BDA is all too aware of the source of this hostility: American foreign policy. That's the major reason BDA is issuing a "World Citizen's Guide" for corporate travelers, which gives Americans a few pointers on how to deal with the dirty looks and muttered imprecations, and includes among its 16 suggestions:
"Think as big as you like but talk and act smaller. In many countries, any form of boasting is considered rude. Talking about wealth, power or status – corporate or personal – can create resentment."
Good advice for the ordinary private citizen, but what about all those "public intellectuals" whose voices have far more reach than the average businessman on a trip to Bali?
This Washington Post piece on Condi's unique sense of style speaks volumes:
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine's dress uniform or the 'save humanity' ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in The Matrix.
"As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy. …
"Rice looked as though she was prepared to talk tough, knock heads, and do a freeze-frame Matrix jump kick if necessary. Who wouldn't give her ensemble a double take – all the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?
"Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power – such a volatile combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix!"
That the U.S. secretary of state is parading around the world in dominatrix drag tells us everything we need to know about the country she is representing – and why the image of the "ugly American" is making an unwelcome comeback.
Americans may or may not need a "World Citizens Guide" to advise them on how to dress, talk, and act when traveling abroad and otherwise dealing with foreigners, but surely one specifically written for U.S. government officials is long overdue. It might start by advising Condi to lose the knee-high black leather boots, ditch the dominatrix drag, and then go into the finer points of international etiquette, starting with these three:
* Stop lecturing foreign governments on their alleged shortcomings in the "democracy" department – especially when, like Russia, they are armed with nuclear weapons, barely emerged out of totalitarian rule, and are bound to resent being labeled as "backsliders."
* Give up the idea that the U.S. has the "right" to "preempt" alleged threats before they coalesce – otherwise we might be inadvertently encouraging another Pearl Harbor (or, more likely, another 9/11).
* Start seeing ourselves as others see us. I know it's hard: narcissism has been the leitmotif of American culture in the modern era. But if we take a long hard honest look in the mirror, it might be possible to see how, say, the Iraqis, or the Iranians, might not take too kindly to being involuntarily "liberated."

Media hide truth: 9/11 was inside job
Last Saturday, former Bush administration official Morgan Reynolds drew an enthusiastic capacity crowd to the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium. It is probably the first time in Historical Society history that a political talk has drawn a full house on a Saturday afternoon at the beginning of final exams.
Normally, if a prestigious UW alumnus and ex-Bush administration official were to come to the Wisconsin Historical Society to spill the beans about a Bush administration scandal, it would make the news. The local TV stations would cover it, and it would merit front page headlines in The Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal.
Reynolds' indictment of the administration he worked for was a stunning, life-changing event for many of those who witnessed it. As the event's organizer, I have received dozens of e-mails about it from people who were deeply affected.
Despite the prestigious speaker and venue, and the gravity of the charges aired, for most Americans indeed most Madisonians the event never happened. Why? Because it was censored, subjected to a total media blackout. Not a word in the State Journal. Not a word in The Capital Times. Not a word on the local TV news. Not a word on local radio news. And, of course, not a word in the national media.
Why the blackout? Because Reynolds violated the ultimate U.S. media taboo. He charges the Bush administration with orchestrating the 9/11 attacks as a pretext for launching a preplanned "long war" in the Middle East, rolling back our civil liberties, and massively increasing military spending.
When a former Bush administration insider makes such charges, how can the media ignore them? Is Reynolds a lone crank? Hardly. A long list of prominent Americans have spoken out for 9/11 truth: Rev. William Sloane Coffin, Sen. Barbara Boxer, former head of the Star Wars program Col. Robert Bowman, ex-Reagan administration economics guru Paul Craig Roberts, progressive Jewish author-activist Rabbi Michael Lerner, former CIA official Ray McGovern, author-essayist Gore Vidal, and many other respected names from across the political spectrum have gone on the record for 9/11 truth.
Are the media ignoring all these people, and dozens more like them, because there is no evidence to support their charges? Hardly. Overwhelming evidence, from the obvious air defense stand-down, to the nonprotection of the president in Florida, to the blatant controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7, proves that 9/11 was an inside job. As noted philosopher-theologian and 9/11 revisionist historian David Griffin writes: "It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
A growing list of scientists has lined up behind BYU physicist Steven Jones and MIT engineer Jeff King in support of Griffin's position, as evidenced by the growth of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (st911.org) and Scientific Professionals Investigating 9/11 (physics911.net).
As a Watergate-era graduate of the University of Wisconsin School of Journalism, I was taught that exposing government lies and corruption is the supreme duty of the Fourth Estate. I simply cannot fathom the current situation. I do not understand the 9/11 truth blackout. I wish someone would explain it to me.
It is time to break the 9/11 truth blackout. Please put pressure on your local media through letters to the editor, call-ins to talk radio, and phone calls to local and national journalists.

New boss, same as the old boss
If you want to reform Congress, start by cleaning out the scum from both sides of the political aisle. It's the system that's corrupt and until we replace the system, nothing will change on Capitol Hill.
The Mafia has a saying: "New boss, same as the old boss."
Congress is just another crime syndicate and crime bosses -- be they Republican or Democrat -- don't give a damn about America or the people they are supposed to serve.

Bolten said to push Goss's exit
Intelligence insiders say that former CIA Director Porter Goss was given less than a day to pack his bags by new White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, who is moving swiftly to put a new and more aggressive face on the administration.
Some insiders view Bush's praise for Goss as part of an effort to offset stories that the director had been fired. Others say it was an attempt by the White House to make Goss look good so that his hiring less than two years ago isn't viewed as a mistake.

EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
President Bush signed a military spending bill in December that included a hard-fought amendment banning the cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of foreign prisoners. Then he put a statement in the Federal Register asserting his right to ignore the ban when necessary, in his judgment, to protect Americans from terrorism.
In March, Bush signed a renewal of search and surveillance provisions of the USA Patriot Act and said at a public ceremony that civil liberties would be protected by a series of new amendments. Then he quietly inserted another statement in the Federal Register that virtually nullified one of those amendments, a requirement that the administration report to Congress on the FBI's use of its powers under the Patriot Act to seize library, bookstore and business records.
Civics textbooks say presidents have two choices when Congress passes a bill that's not completely to their liking: They can sign it into law, or they can veto it and let Congress try to override them.
Bush, far more than any of his predecessors, is resorting to a third option: signing a bill while reserving the right to disregard any part of it that he considers an infringement on his executive authority or constitutional powers.
In more than five years in office, the president has never vetoed a bill. But while approving new laws, he has routinely issued signing statements interpreting the legislation in ways that amount to partial vetoes of provisions to which he objects.

US Dollar Gets Flushed Down World Toilet
The U.S. dollar has fallen to its lowest rate against the ruble in a year, 27.2424, with signs that further drops are likely, prompting analysts to propose that the time to save or speculate in rubles has come.
"In the short to mid-term, the choice has to be for the ruble," said Yaroslav Lissovolik, chief economist with investment bank Deutsche UFG.
The greenback can kiss global hegemony goodbye.

Juggler in video makes statement
A stand-up guy, Bliss has passion for Bill of Rights
"The country these days is like a couple in a bad marriage," he says. "Everyone is either shouting at one another or sulking. And when a marriage goes sour, you've got to return to your vows. And the Bill of Rights are this country's vows."

FACT CHECK: U.S. Government Commissioned Spanish-Language ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ in 1919
---in 1919, the U.S. Bureau of Education commissioned a Spanish-language version of “The Star Spangled Banner.” The State Department’s website also features four-separate versions of the anthem in Spanish.