Big Bank Bailout Payback Bamboozle

The Big Bank Bailout Payback Bamboozle

June 14, 2009

Mother Jones - Last week was a milestone for US treasury secretary Tim Geithner. He finally got to play the hero. The morning of June 9, Treasury notified 10 financial institutions, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, US Bancorp, and Capital One Financial, that they were "eligible to complete the repayment process" for the capital they received under the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP).

In other words, they would be allowed to pay back $68.3 billion. Even though they really owe $229.7 billion. That we know of.

But Geithner didn't mention that last bit.

Instead, he professed that "these repayments are an encouraging sign of financial repair," with the caveat that "we still have work to do."

The "we" he refers to is himself and Wall Street, both of whom are getting a good deal out of this fractional payback scheme. The agreement frees the banks from restrictions on executive pay or, worse, their general practices, but it still allows them to keep the cash they've received through non-TARP venues like the FDIC Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program— or the massive sums the banks recovered from AIG (thanks to its own federal bailout) to cover their losses on credit derivatives. Not to mention any cash provided by the mother of all cheap loan programs—the Federal Reserve.

Geithner, for his part, gets to convey the message that things are looking up.

"These repayments follow a period in which many banks have successfully raised equity capital from private investors," stated the press release. "Also, for the first time in many months, these banks have issued long-term debt that is not guaranteed by the government."

Well, of course certain banks have raised some money on their own: Firms have a tendency to look a whole lot better when they're backed by government capital and have cheap federal loans sitting on their books. Private investors notice that sort of thing. But more troubling than the misplaced praise is the fine print that accompanied the announcement:

"These repayments," the department noted, "help to reduce Treasury's borrowing and national debt. The repayments also increase Treasury's cushion to respond to any future financial instability that might otherwise jeopardize economic recovery."

This statement belies some accounting sleight of hand.

First off, it conveniently ignores the fact that TARP accounts for a fraction—about $700 billion—of the government's $13 trillion banking stabilization scheme. At some point, investors are going to balk at buying up federal debt (Treasury bonds), thereby forcing the government to pay higher interest rates, which will wipe out much of the TARP payback benefit. The second sentence is more ominous: It suggests that if banks need that money back, it'll be waiting for them right there at the Treasury Department.

On the day of his announcement, Geithner acknowledged to the Senate Appropriations Committee that "while we see some initial signs of economic improvement and the financial system is beginning to heal, our country faces very substantial economic and financial challenges." Indeed, the banking sector has not gotten substantially better lately. According to a report compiled by the Investigative Reporting Workshop and MSNBC, the number of delinquent or defaulting bank loans grew by 22 percent during the first quarter of 2009—six out of ten banks were, in fact, even less prepared to absorb further losses than they had been during the last, abysmal quarter of 2008.

While the treasury secretary conveyed to the senators some understanding of the plight of the rest of us, this show was all about Treasury and the banking sector. Geithner praised the government for pulling off stress tests of the 19 largest financial institutions last month.

"The clarity and transparency provided by the tests," he said, "has helped improve market confidence in the banks, making it possible for them to collectively raise nearly $90 billion through private equity offerings, bond issuances without government guarantees and sales of business units."

But Tim's not playing it straight. The fact that most of these banks passed their stress tests would only have mattered if the tests had any value. As I discussed when the tests were first unveiled, these tests were designed in tandem with the banks, the evaluations were provided by the banks, and some of the assumptions they were based upon—such as where unemployment would be—had been exceeded before the test results were released.

In fact, the stress tests have little to do with anything, but two other sources of capital for banks do. The main one is the Fed, which loans money to banks at stupidly low rates through a variety of facilities and loan-guarantee programs that total $7.9 trillion. In return, the banks can post as collateral an assortment of complex assets that no one but the Fed has any record of.

Banks can also borrow cheaply if they have an FDIC guarantee—and then use that cheap money to do things like pay TARP back, which explains why their stocks have gone up. The government opened this door on October 14, 2008, with the FDIC's Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program. The idea was that it would prompt banks to start lending to their customers again. But that didn't happen. Instead, cunning institutions used the new program to raise cheap capital for their own needs. By changing its status to a bank holding company, Goldman Sachs was able to secure $29 billion of that FDIC-backed debt; Morgan Stanley raised nearly $24 billion.

The banks paying back the TARP funds aren't doing any better than their peers. In the first quarter of 2009, JPMorgan Chase's troubled asset ratio—the ratio of bad loans to the cash a bank has set aside to cover them—increased by nearly 16 percent, US Bancorp's by 21 percent, and Capital One's by 17 percent, numbers that put them in the same ballpark as many banks that are holding their TARP money.

In the meantime, average Americans, who don't have a $13 trillion federal insurance policy to fall back upon, have fared poorly. Over the past three months, unemployment has hopped a full point, to 9.4 percent—nearly double what it was one year earlier. For the third straight month, home foreclosures have broken the 300,000 mark, with the defaults reaching well into the prime loan turf, and home prices are still falling.

Considering the true size of the bailout, the continued loan deterioration, and the weakness in the overall economy and job market, the economic signs simply aren't that positive. For Geithner to pretend that a few banks paying back federal money with other federal money is an encouraging sign is to miss all of them.

The Bailout Propaganda Begins

September 1, 2009

Matt Taibbi - It was inevitable that the same people who pushed through the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street would come out later on and tell us what a great idea theirs turned out to be, in retrospect and under the light of evidentiary examination. And we’re getting that now, with a pair of reports, the above one in the New York Times and another in the Financial Times, telling us the bailout is working because the government has made some money on TARP. They came to this conclusion by quoting Fed officials, who apparently calculated how much interest the Fed earned on TARP investments above what it would have earned on T-bills. The amount so far, according to these worthy gentlemen: $14 billion.

This is sort of like calculating the returns on a mutual fund by only counting the stocks in the fund that have gone up. Forgetting for a moment that TARP is only slightly relevant in the entire bailout scheme — more on that in a moment — the TARP calculations are a joke, apparently leaving out huge future losses from AIG and Citigroup and others in the red. Since only a small portion of the debt has been put down by the best borrowers, and since the borrowers in the worst shape haven’t retired their obligations yet, it’s crazy to make any conclusions about TARP, pure sophistry. Moreover, a think tank set up to analyze TARP, Ethisphere, calculated in June that TARP was still $148 billion down overall, a debt of over $1200 per American. To start talking about what a success TARP is now is beyond meaningless.

The other reason for that is that it’s only a tiny sliver of the whole bailout picture. The real burden carried by the government and the Fed comes from the various anonymous bailout facilities — the TALF, the PPIP, the Maiden Lanes, and so on. The losses from the Fed’s purchase of distressed/crap Bear Stearns assets (Maiden Lane I) and AIG assets (MaidenLanes II and III) alone were as recently as late July calculated in the $8.6 billion range, and even that number is very conservative. Then there’s the trillion or so dollars that the Fed used on buying up mortgage-backed securities and Treasuries; we don’t know what their market value is now. And there are untold trillions more the Fed has loaned out in the last 18 months and which we are not likely to find out much about, unless the recent court ruling green-lighting Bloomberg’s FOIA request for those records actually goes through.

In light of all this, the Fed’s decision to brag publicly about a few loans that are actually performing is sort of scary — it speaks to a level of intellectual desperation and magical-thinking unusual even for a banker in the subprime/MBS era. Don’t be surprised if you hear more of this sort of thing in the coming years.

More Bogus Bailout Reporting: “As Big Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit”

August 31, 2009

Naked Capitalism - CClearly, the spin is in. As a post earlier today discusses, the Financial Times is running a story that claims that the Fed made money on its rescue programs, then slips in all the tidbits in the body of the article to let discerning readers know that the reporter understands that the analysis is utter rubbish while looking like it is not crossing the Fed.

In a simply remarkable coincidence of timing, the New York Times running a story with the very same message, namely that bailouts are good for taxpayers because the Treasury has made money on the TARP.

If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. The fact that we have such patent garbage running as a front page New York Times story says either the reporter and his editors lack the ability to think critically (or find sources who could do that for them) or that we have a controlled press. Given that subscriber-driven Bloomberg has even fallen in line, I am inclined to the latter view, but I am still curious as to how this has been achieved. Is this the price of access journalism, or is something more pernicious at work?

Now to the intellectually bankrupt New York Times story. Here is how it determined the TARP was making money:

The profits, collected from eight of the biggest banks that have fully repaid their obligations to the government, come to about $4 billion, or the equivalent of about 15 percent annually, according to calculations compiled for The New York Times.

Help me. Credit 101 is that your best borrowers repay first (unless you gave them overly generous terms, of course, then they might hang on to the proceeds). A quick but not conclusive search suggests that only a small portion of the TARP has been retired, so it is wildly premature to declare victory.

In fact, another source looked at the TARP as of June and estimated that it had lost $148 billion, and had lowered loss total as a result of the repayments. Now bank stocks have rallied since then, but the biggest contributors to the red ink, namely AIG and Citigroup, are not in any better shape fundamentally than they were then. Indeed, the fact that new AIG CEO Robert Benmosche has in a remarkable show of hubris, effectively told the US taxpayer to stuff it, AIG has the dough and is in no particular hurry to return it, nor does it care what the public or Treasury wants, its demands are unreasonable. I wouldn’t hold my breath about having the loans repaid.

Moreover, the piece contains a huge canard:

But the real profit came as banks were permitted to buy back the so-called warrants, whose low fixed price provided a windfall for the government as the shares of the companies soared

Roger Ehrenberg already dispatched this goofy idea with admirable zeal:

The US taxpayer has been systematically looted out of hundreds of billions of dollars….Goldman Sachs is posting record earnings and will invariably be preparing to pay record bonuses, not nine months after the firm was in mortal danger? Whether anyone will admit it or not, without the AIG (read: Wall Street and European bank) bail-out and the FDIC issuance guarantees, neither Goldman nor any other bulge bracket firm lacking stable base of core deposits would be alive and breathing today.

Goldman is a great firm with a stellar culture, and in most circumstances it’s risk management and funding practices have been second to none. Except when the crisis hit. It stood with the rest of Wall Street as a firm with longer-dated, less liquid assets funded with extremely short-dated liabilities….In exchange for giving the firm life (TARP, FDIC guarantees, synthetic bail-out via AIG, etc.), the US Treasury (and the US taxpayer by extension) got some warrants on $10 billion of TARP capital injected into the firm….. Lloyd Blankfein smartly paid the full $1.1 billion requested. He looked like a hero for doing so, a true US patriot repaying the US Government in full for its lifeline, thanking the US taxpayer in the process. $1.1 billion… $1.1 billion…Hmm…something doesn’t seem right. You know why it doesn’t seem right? BECAUSE THE US TREASURY MIS-PRICED THE FREAKING OPTION.

There is not a Wall Street derivatives trader on the planet that would have done the US Government deal on an arms-length basis. Nothing remotely close. Goldman’s equity could have done a digital, dis-continuous move towards zero if it couldn’t finance its balance sheet overnight. Remember Bear Stearns? Lehman Brothers? These things happened. Goldman, though clearly a stronger institution, was facing a crisis of confidence that pervaded the market. Lenders weren’t discriminating back in November 2008. If you didn’t have term credit, you certainly weren’t getting any new lines or getting any rolls, either. So what is the cost of an option to insure a $1 trillion balance sheet and hundreds of billions in off-balance sheet liabilities teetering on the brink? Let’s just say that it is a tad north of $1.1 billion in premium. And the $10 billion TARP figure? It’s a joke. Take into account the AIG payments, the FDIC guarantees and the value of the markets knowing that the US Government won’t let you go down under any circumstances. $1.1 billion in option premium? How about 20x that, perhaps more. But no, this is not the way it went down….

But no, if you subscribe to the world according to the New York Times, you’d think we the long suffering taxpayer got a really good deal. By extension, we should be really happy if financial firms throw themselves off the cliff again en masse, since that will give us all the opportunity to make even more money by rescuing them!

• Tracking the Bailout
• Bailout: Follow the Money
• Bank of America to Get Billions More in Bailout Funds from Treasury
• GM Announces It Will Pay Back Gov’t Loan … With Gov’t Money
• GM's Phony Bailout Payback
• Why haven't Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citi paid U.S. back?
• Citigroup and Well Fargo to repay $45 billion in bailout money
• Where has the Bailout Money Gone? Good Billions After Bad
• Watchdog panel: US bailout money ended up in overseas banks
• The Bailout of Big American Banks Has Cost Trillions More Than We've Been Told
• Where Bailout Money Goes to Die - As of July 28, 2009, 34 companies have returned about $72 billion in TARP funds to the government, according to a bailout tracker maintained by journalism site ProPublica.
• Goldman and JP Morgan Poised to Pay Back Taxpayers - JP Morgan feels comfortable they have convinced both the Treasury and Fed that they should be allowed to repay the money along with the first group of banks. According to sources, Goldman appears to be furthest along in getting final approval to repay the $10 billion loan; JP Morgan would have to repay $25 billion.
• Wall Street's Bailout Hustle - Goldman Sachs and other big banks aren't just pocketing the trillions we gave them to rescue the economy -- they're re-creating the conditions for another crash

Collapse of the Global Economy

Looming Global Debt Crisis

September 17, 2009

The International Forecaster - What do you do after you have zero interest rates and you have flooded the world with money and credit?

The answer is you attempt to fight off higher interest rates and see if you can dodge the inflation bubble that follows. The commitment for this current fiasco to save the world’s Illuminist banks has already caused an official debt responsibility for the US of more than $23 trillion or about 40% of world GDP. That is staggering and it is official. We wonder what the real figure is? It is also wise to remember that the Federal Reserve, and other reserve banks worldwide, all international, are responsible for the carnage we are witnessing.

The public is now paying for their gambling and corruption as central banks, who started this scam, transfer the debt to the taxpayers by buying up toxic garbage, guaranteeing losses and making sure none of the key Illuminist banks don’t go under. The Fed, privately owned, won’t let us look at their books, so we can tell what they are paying for these almost worthless assets. We are told it is a state secret...

Federal Reserve Makes $14 Billion Profit Off Financial Crisis So Far; Banks 'Too Big to Fail' Have Grown Even Bigger

U.S. Discusses Selling Its 34% Stake in Citigroup to 'Investors'

September 15, 2009

Bloomberg - The U.S. Treasury Department and Citigroup Inc. have begun discussing how to sell the 34 percent stake that the government acquired in the rescue of the bank, people familiar with the matter said.

The Treasury, which owns 7.69 billion common shares after a recent preferred-stock conversion designed to shore up the bank’s capital, may start unloading the stake as soon as October, one of the people said. It aims to sell the holdings over the next six to eight months, the person said.

A sale, a year after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. filed for bankruptcy, would bring Citigroup Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit closer to extricating the company from the bailout program while allowing the government to claim a profit. Because the New York-based bank’s stock price has gained since $25 billion of bailout funds were exchanged for common shares, the Treasury is sitting on a paper profit of $9.77 billion.

“Given the conversion and what’s happened to the stock price, it is likely that the government would make money on it,” said Moshe Orenbuch, an analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG who rates the shares “neutral.”

Citigroup’s stock closed at $4.52 a share yesterday, a 39 percent premium over the Treasury’s conversion price of $3.25. The shares slipped to $4.42 in German trading today.

The planning is in the early stages, and some transactions may need regulatory approvals, the people familiar with the matter said. Under one scenario, the shares would be sold to public investors in blocks over six to eight months. In another, the government may sell a small amount of stock daily or weekly, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks are private. Under a third option, the shares would be sold at once in a managed offering.

Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams and Molly Meiners, a spokeswoman for Citigroup, declined to comment.

Citigroup, the third-biggest U.S. bank, received $52 billion in bailout aid; a sale of the common stock [for $25 billion] would leave the Treasury with a $27 billion investment [editor's note: this is a loss to U.S. taxpayers of $25 billion]. That stake is in trust-preferred shares -- a class of securities that ranks senior to common stock and junior to most debt.

If the Treasury sells its common shares through a managed offering, the bank may piggyback on the effort by simultaneously issuing new shares to help pay off the remaining bailout funds, one person familiar with the matter said...

Other bailed-out banks, including Bank of America Corp., based in Charlotte, North Carolina, and San Francisco-based Wells Fargo & Co., have pledged to repay TARP money.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, all based in New York, repaid TARP funds in June. In a speech yesterday, President Barack Obama said taxpayers have earned a 17 percent return so far on stakes repaid by banks.

Richard Parsons, chairman of Citigroup’s board, said in an interview yesterday in New York with Bloomberg Television that he had “every confidence that Citi will be able to exit the TARP program, and actually be able to give the American taxpayer a decent return.” He declined to provide a time frame...

Banks 'Too Big to Fail' Have Grown Even Bigger

August 28, 2009

Behemoths Born of the Bailout Reduce Consumer Choice, Tempt Corporate Moral Hazard

Washington Post - When the credit crisis struck last year, federal regulators pumped tens of billions of dollars into the nation's leading financial institutions because the banks were so big that officials feared their failure would ruin the entire financial system.

Today, the biggest of those banks are even bigger.

The crisis may be turning out very well for many of the behemoths that dominate U.S. finance. A series of federally arranged mergers safely landed troubled banks on the decks of more stable firms. And it allowed the survivors to emerge from the turmoil with strengthened market positions, giving them even greater control over consumer lending and more potential to profit.

J.P. Morgan Chase, an amalgam of some of Wall Street's most storied institutions, now holds more than $1 of every $10 on deposit in this country. So does Bank of America, scarred by its acquisition of Merrill Lynch and partly government-owned as a result of the crisis, as does Wells Fargo, the biggest West Coast bank. Those three banks, plus government-rescued and -owned Citigroup, now issue one of every two mortgages and about two of every three credit cards, federal data show...

Federal Reserve Makes $14 Billion Profit Off Financial Crisis So Far

August 30, 2009

Financial Times - The Federal Reserve has made a $14 billion profit on loan programmes that have provided hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity to the financial system since the start of the crisis two years ago, according to Fed officials.

The internal estimate is based on the difference between the fees and interest on the lending facilities and the interest the Fed would have earned had it invested the funds in three-month Treasury bills.

The central bank earned about $19 billion in income from charging interest and fees to financial institutions and investors that tapped the new facilities to obtain much-needed funds during the turmoil. The interest the Fed would have earned by investing the same amount in T-bills was an estimated $5 billion, leaving a $14 billion gain since August 2007.

The Fed assessment underlines the possibility that other central banks could make a profit on their crisis-fighting measures – at least before adjusting for the risk they assumed...

The Fed declined to comment.

Critics have warned the central bank might lose money on its vast efforts to avoid financial collapse and ease financing conditions for the economy as a whole.

But the internal estimates suggest that the Fed might well make a cash profit on the crisis. They show that the fees earned on the loans were high enough to more than cover defaults to date – leaving a sizeable cushion against future losses on these loans and other parts of the Fed portfolio.

Some politicians have criticised the Fed for using billions of dollars of public funds to support the market and stricken groups such as AIG and Bear Stearns. The Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned from $800 billion in 2007 to about $2,000 billion. A recent Gallup Poll found the Fed had the worst public approval rating of nine government agencies, even lower than the tax authorities.

RFID, GPS Technology and Electronic Surveillance

Uncle Sam Eyes Vehicle Tracking Tax

September 14, 2009

The Newspaper - A member of Congress proposes to use taxpayer money to fund the development of technology to track motorists as part of a new form of taxation.

US Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) introduced H.R. 3311 earlier this year to appropriate $154,500,000 for research and study into the transition to a per-mile vehicle tax system. The “Road User Fee Pilot Project” would be administered by the US Treasury Department. This agency in turn would issue millions in taxpayer-backed grants to well-connected commercial manufacturers of tolling equipment to help develop the required technology. Within eighteen months of the measure’s passage, the department would file an initial report outlining the best methods for adopting the new federal transportation tax.

“Oregon has successfully tested a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee, and it is time to expand and test the VMT program across the country,” Blumenauer said in a statement on the bill’s introduction. “A VMT system can better assess fees based on use of our roads and bridges, as well as during times of peak congestion, than a fee based on fuel consumption. It is time to get creative and find smart ways to rebuild and renew America’s deteriorating infrastructure.”

In 2006, the Oregon Department of Transportation completed its own study of how to collect revenue from motorists with a new form of tax that, like the existing fuel excise tax, imposes a greater charge on drivers the more that they drive. The pilot project’s final report summed up the need for a VMT tax.

“Unfortunately, there is a growing perception among members of the public and legislators that fuel taxes have little to do with road programs and therefore should be considered ‘just another form of taxation,’” the March 2006 report stated. “By itself, this situation appears to be preventing any increases in fuel tax rates from being put into effect.”

The money diverted from the fuel excise tax on non-road related projects must be made up for with a brand new VMT tax, the report argued. Merely indexing the gas tax to inflation or improvements in fleet gas mileage was rejected as “imprecise.” Instead, the report urged a mandate for all drivers to install GPS tracking devices that would report driving habits to roadside Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) scanning devices.

Blumenauer is a long-time advocate of bicycling and mass transit in Congress. Many of his largest campaign donors stand to benefit from his newly introduced legislation. Honeywell International, for example, is a major manufacturer RFID equipment. The company also happens to be the second biggest contributor in the current cycle to Blumenauer’s Political Action Committee (PAC), the Committee for a Livable Future. Another top-ten donor, Accenture, is a specialist in the video tolling field.

H.R. 3311 awaits a hearing in the House Ways and Means Committee.

Augmented Reality Soon to Change Our View of the World

September 4, 2009

digitaljournal.com - Augmented reality is heading our way, and this new generation of software has the potential to change our lives and how we view the world around us.

Computer graphics have become much more sophisticated since Pong entered the arcades and our homes in the early 1970’s. Since then, computer graphics have steadily improved and have become very realistic and soon they will become very real.

Imagine computer generated graphics being integrated and applied to the real world as you are walking down the street. For instance, you might be on vacation in Halifax, Nova Scotia and while on a walking tour you stop in front of Government House. You want to know more about it, such as what it is used for and it’s history.

Today we would use our guide book that we picked up at a local tourist information center. With augmented reality applications you wouldn’t need these soon to be relics. Instead, you would use your cell phone. By focusing your camera phone on Government House you would see all of this information on screen, clicking on links for more information, or quickly accessing a map.

The idea isn’t new, but with the latest generation of mobile phones, many of which have a compass and GPS, 3G mobile internet access and a growing range of mobile applications, there is nothing to stop augmented reality from entering the mainstream.

Google’s Android phones can already use some of the best augmented reality applications. One of those now available is Wikitude, which overlays what you are looking at with information about points of interest based on where the user points the phone’s camera. Simply by activating the phone’s camera mode and then panning it across buildings and locations, Wikitude pulls in information based on where you are located.
The technology even works with people. A Swedish company is working on an application called Augmented ID, which puts facial recognition and photo tagging together to provide personal information. You could use your phone’s camera to frame someone’s face in order to bring up details of their social networking profiles, their business card, or even a criminal record such as a sex offender reports the Telegraph.

Augmented reality displays, one of which is a cell phone, will eventually look like a normal pair of glasses,or even contact lenses, where informative graphics will appear in your field of view, and audio will coincide with whatever you see. Graphics, audio and other sense enhancements would, in fact be superimposed over what you are looking at in the real world, in real time reports HowStuffWorks.

‘Telepathic’ Microchip Could Help Paraplegics Control Computers

September 3, 2009

Telegraph - While paraplegics may be unable to move their limbs, their brains still produce an electronic signal when they try. A ‘telepathic’ microchip implanted onto the surface of the brain, where it monitors electronic ‘thought’ pulses, could help paraplegics control computers. It means paraplegics, amputees, or those with motor neurone disease could be able to operate light switches, PCs and even cars by the power of thought alone.

The technology is the idea of British engineer Dr Spratley, who developed it while studying for a PhD at Birmingham University. Dr Spratley, 28, from Stevenage, Herts., said the main aim of his research is to “help patients communicate.”

“We are just trying to help people with severe communication problems or motor neurone disease – like Dr Stephen Hawking or Christopher Reeve,” he said.

“What we have designed would allow them to control a computer with their thoughts – if they imagine their muscles moving that could flick a light switch, for example.”

Dr Spratley works for specialist engineering company 42 Technology, based in St Ives, Cornwall.

Using his micro-engineering and nano-technology skills he developed a tiny sensor which could be implanted onto the surface of the brain. The device picks up neural signals from the brain’s motor cortex, and captures the moment a paralysed patient tries to move their limbs. This impulse is then transmitted to a relay station implanted in the skull, which in turn sends the signal to a receiver housed in simple computers.

Tests have shown the technology to work in the laboratory, but trials are yet to begin on humans.

Dr Spratley, who was awarded the MediMaton prize by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, claims implanting the chips will require minimal invasive surgery.

He said it could change the life of a quadriplegic or motor neurone disease sufferer.

“It began as an investigation into what signals paralysed people can generate,” he said.

“If they can imagine using a limb, even if they can’t move it, you can tap into that signal.

“Then you just have to imagine moving the muscle and the leg will move, the brain will train itself.”

Legality of Red Light Cameras Disputed

August 28, 2009

Hernando Today – For the first time in 77 years, Warren Stevenson held a traffic ticket with his name on it. He was surprised, actually, because it came in his mailbox.

At first examination, Stevenson thought the document was a public announcement about the red light traffic cameras recently installed in Brooksville. A closer look revealed he was being fined $125 for running the light at Broad Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.

“I thought ‘Oh my gosh, $125, are they out of their mind?’” Stevenson said. “It really irritated me.”

On Tuesday, he went before a hearing officer to plead his case. Stevenson said his right turn on red at that intersection seemed to be everyone else’s violation, too. Records show there were 14 people who contested their ticket; four were dismissed. Stevenson’s ticket wasn’t.

It’s cases like Stevenson’s that attract the attention of West Palm Beach attorney Jason Weisser. Weisser and his firm, Schuler, Halvorson & Weisser, are advertising their services in the cities across the state that use cameras to catch red light runners. Their ad showed up in Hernando Today this week.

Brooksville began installing cameras in March and expect the fifth camera to go online soon. Police Chief George Turner champions the cameras as a public safety measure that deters motorists from running red lights. The projected annual revenue from the cameras is $1 million. Turner would like to convert that into a full-time traffic unit for the police department as a further safeguard against traffic crashes.

The cameras are not without their controversy, however. Critics argue they reek of Big Brother.

Weisser has several arguments he’s using in an attempt to declare the cameras unconstitutional. From the outset, Weisser said, a driver is considered guilty unless they can prove their innocence. He also finds fault with the fact that the owner of the vehicle, not the driver, is ticketed. He also cites a sentence in the introduction to state traffic laws that he believes is clear-cut evidence of the illegality of red light cameras.

Specifically: “It is unlawful for any local authority to pass or to attempt to enforce any ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this chapter.”

But it’s not a black and white matter. Florida Statute 316 also allows cities to pass traffic ordinances that “regulate municipal traffic.” They are also authorized to use “official traffic control devices” and monitor traffic with “security devices,” whether by “public or private parties.”

The cameras’ operators are a private Arizona-based company called American Traffic Solutions.

The differing opinions came to a head in a 2005 opinion by then-Attorney General Charlie Crist. He decided that municipalities could not issue criminal citations using the cameras, but civil ordinances were legal. That formula remains in effect.

Back in Brooksville, Stevenson will avoid the Broad Street intersection on his near daily trips into town.

“I feel like it’s entrapment,” he said.

Biometric Scanners to Keep Indian Bureaucrats on Time

September 2, 2009

AFP — The Indian government on Tuesday launched a campaign to end notoriously slack time-keeping among its millions of civil servants by introducing biometric scanners at offices in the capital New Delhi.

Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram arrived punctually at work to kick off the drive to improve efficiency within India’s vast bureaucracy, which has a reputation for endless delays and reams of duplicated paperwork.

India’s central government employs about three million civil servants — including all railway workers — while federal states employ about another seven million.

“This is a message to the whole country that everyone must do his work for the allotted hours,” Chidambaram told reporters.

“I understand flexi time, we will introduce some flexibility. Flexibility is if you come 10 or 15 minutes late, you have to work for another 10 or 15 minutes.”

In the first stage of the scheme, 5,000 home ministry employees — regardless of rank — will have their index fingers scanned to register the time they arrive and leave work. Any employee who is late three times in a month will have to give up a day-off.

A home ministry official said that Chidambaram, a veteran politician, had always been punctual and was “very particular about officials arriving on time.”

Government Takeover of Health Care

Democrats May Use Procedural Tactic to Ram Through Health-Care Bill

August 23, 2009

CNSNews.com – Conservative leader Gary Bauer warned Wednesday that Democratic leaders in Congress will try to ram through their unpopular health-care reform plan later this fall, employing a little-used tactic first conceived as a way to maneuver around the budget deficit battles of the 1980s.

“I’m afraid that they (Democratic leaders) will do it because I’m convinced that the people running America are intent on changing America in ways that will not be reversible,” Bauer told CNSNews.com.

The tactic, known as “reconciliation,” is designed to get around the filibuster, a Senate procedure used to prevent the majority from running roughshod over the minority.

“When you have a filibuster, it takes 60 Senate votes to pass something,” Bauer said. “The Democrats don’t have 60 votes that they can count on for the health-care bill, making reconciliation all the more likely,” Bauer said.

“It’s a little esoteric, but the bottom line is that they will be able to ram this through with just 51 votes,” Bauer added.

The controversial 1,000-page bill overhauling the nation's health-care system is currently before Congress, which remains in recess until September.

If liberal Democrats do force through the legislation over the significant objections of conservatives, the former Republican presidential candidate says the minority party should be prepared to shut down the Senate.

“The only remedy for this, is for the minority in Congress...to make it clear that if this is used on such a major piece of legislation, that the minority Republicans will literally shut down the Senate by using parliamentary maneuvers, and so forth--so that literally nothing else will pass this year and next, until there is another election,” Bauer, who is president of the group American Values, said.

“That would turn Washington into an even more partisan battleground, but it may be the only solution to the threat that’s being rumored right now,” Bauer added.

Reconciliation is an option that was created in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act to allow Congress a way out of intractable budget battles.

Wesleyan University government professor Elvin Lim said it was invented as a way to achieve a balanced budget--not to force through highly controversial legislation.

“It wasn’t passed to allow Congress to go ahead and do anything it wants, but as it turns out, that’s the way it’s been used, quite frankly, by both sides of the aisle,” Lim told CNSNews.com.

In fact, he said, President George W. Bush was the last to utilize the tactic--getting Congress to pass tax cuts three times in ‘01, ‘03 and ’05--because he wanted to bypass a Senate filibuster by Democrats.

The budget reconciliation process is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation “directives” must be included in the annual budget resolution. In fact, directives for the health-care reform bill were placed in the 2010 budget resolution, which was passed April 29.

If utilized for the health-care bill, House and Senate committees would be ordered to develop a final version of the legislation by a specific date (in this case, Oct. 15) to meet certain spending or revenue targets. The committees would then send their legislative recommendations to their respective budget committees, who would be tasked with packaging all recommendations into one omnibus reconciliation bill.

The resulting bill would be fast-tracked and sent to the floor of both chambers of Congress for debate. A 20-hour limit is placed on debate of any measure considered under the reconciliation process, which effectively strips the minority party of the filibustering option in the Senate.

“The bottom line here is that this reconciliation procedure allows the Senate to bypass its normal filibuster procedure of 60 votes--and instead only requires 51 votes for passage of bills,” Lim said.

That means the Democrats could pass health-care reform in the Senate with a simple majority.

Lim, however, said the procedure has a downside. Any measure passed under the reconciliation procedure will be “sunsetted”--meaning, it would automatically expire when it reaches a cutoff date.

“They may get what they want, but it’s only going to last 10 years, if they go the reconciliation route,” Lim said.

In fact, Lim said Democrats are counting on having the 10 years to sell the public that their health-care reform doesn’t mean that the system is going to fall apart.

“If Americans are happy with the health care, and health-care costs go down, as Democrats promised, then there may be room for an extension of the sunset provision,” Lim told CNSNews.com. “If things go awry, then obviously Republicans would be able to say ‘I told you so.’”

House and Senate Democratic leaders are being pushed towards reconciliation from two directions, Lim said.

“They know they cannot get many Republicans on the public option, but they also know they are going to lose their liberal base if they don’t go for a public option, they are forced into rather narrow band of being not too far to the left while not offending the right,” Lim added.

Ironically, the White House is even thinking of bringing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in for behind-the-scenes politicking on the health bill, Lim said.

“I don’t think they (Democrats) fathomed the depth of antipathy to the possibility of a public option in health care, I honestly don’t think they foresaw this. They thought that it was going to be relatively easy because they had this grand mandate from the 2008 elections,” Lim said.

But Lim warned Democratic leaders not to underestimate the extent of opposition to the public option. Townhall outrage and tea parties have not been ginned up by the opposition, he said, but reflect a huge subterranean split in America that goes all the way back to the founding of the country.

“It’s a fundamental divide,” Lim said. “I think it goes to the heart of America. Think about it – what was the first political debate Americans ever had? It was about the state – how are we going to trust a federal government and how much power are we going to give to it. The health-care debate sits exactly on that tectonic.”

If the Democratic leadership uses the reconciliation process about such a major bill, what then?

“It’s only going to reinforce the conservatives’ and Blue Dog Democrats’ belief that (liberal) Democrats insist on having their way – they are intolerant of alternate conceptions of what the state should look like,” Lim said.

Bauer, meanwhile, predicts that the Obama administration will insist upon using reconciliation.

“These are Chicago machine politicians -- people who are used to playing incredible hardball, of ramming through what they want, no matter the cost.”

Obama Sets Stage for Using Budget Maneuver to Pass Health Reform

September 11, 2009

The Hill - President Barack Obama this week has been laying the foundation for Senate Democrats to use a controversial budget maneuver to pass healthcare reform.

By offering Republicans olive branches during his address to Congress on Wednesday, Obama has set up a win-win situation. If GOP lawmakers embrace compromise, a healthcare bill would pass Congress easily. But the more likely scenario is that Republicans will continue to oppose Obama’s plan, and the president later this fall will be able to note he tried to strike a deal with the GOP but could not.

That will set up a Democratic argument that Senate leaders have been forced to use a partisan budget tool known as reconciliation to pass a health bill through the Senate by a simple majority, instead of 60 votes. Under the budget plan they passed earlier this year, Democrats could invoke the reconciliation process on Oct. 15...

Democrats Pledge More Cuts in Medicare to Fund Obama’s Health Care Overhaul

September 12, 2009

WSWS - Democratic leaders in the House and Senate expressed their support for the Obama administration’s plans for the overhaul of health care, as outlined in the president’s speech Wednesday. The ongoing talks outside of public view center on finding more ways to cut costs through amendments to the existing proposals.

On all the policy aspects of his speech, Obama came down in favor of the more right-wing bill being drafted by the Senate Finance Committee under Democratic Chairman Max Baucus. Baucus hopes to reach an agreement that would lead to a vote in the Senate by early October.

“Our health care problem is our deficit problem,” Obama said on Wednesday, making clear that the administration sees changes in health care as the principle means to cut government spending. “Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid” was at the center of the plan, Obama said. While Obama denied it, this in fact will mean significant cuts in services for the poor and the elderly.

How these cuts will be made and additional steps that may be taken are now subject to discussion.

“Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process,” White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said on Thursday. “From Day One, we have laid out several very specific options from within the system and to raise revenue to pay for health care … What should be crystal clear is that the president is 100 percent committed to signing a health reform bill that does not add a dime to the deficit.”

As New York Times columnist David Brooks explained on Friday, the principles outlined in Obama’s speech mean that:

“There will be a seller’s market for any member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, who has a credible amendment to cut costs. It also means the Democrats will have to scale back coverage and subsidy levels to reach the fiscal targets.” (See, “Times columnist David Brooks exposes ‘left’ supporters of Obama health plan”)

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi proclaimed her support for this cost-cutting agenda on Thursday:

“Half the bill will be paid for by squeezing excesses out of the [Medicare and Medicaid] system,” she said, “and there is $500 billion dollars to do that and we’re looking for more. That can be achieved—waste, fraud, redundancy, obsolescence, whatever it is.”

Reference to fraud and waste is the form in which a sweeping attack on these entitlement programs is being prepared. Similar denunciations of “welfare fraud” were promoted in the run-up to the gutting of welfare programs under the Clinton administration.

An article in the Washington Post on Friday (“Details Still Lacking on Obama Proposal”) referred to a report from the White House proposing to set up “a new commission to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare.” The author noted that “some aides said the proposal would give the panel authority to advance much broader changes in coverage and reimbursement rates.”

Discussions about “these broader changes in coverage and reimbursement rates” are taking place entirely behind the backs of the American people.

Some media commentators have been more explicit in pointing out that the cuts Obama is demanding will mean real reductions in care. Clive Crook, the right-wing columnist for the Financial Times, wrote in a blog posted Thursday,

“The idea that cuts of the necessary size can be found, as [Obama] says, entirely by cutting ‘waste and inefficiency’ is implausible. Obama tried hard to reassure Medicare beneficiaries that they have nothing to fear from this reform. I doubt that he succeeded, but we will see.”

The main criticism of Obama’s proposal is now coming from some Democrats and Republicans who want to see more explicit measures for cutting costs. On Thursday, Obama met with a group of “moderate” Democrats. While the content of the discussion was not officially released, media reports indicate that it was focused on finding ways to more aggressively pare spending.

Democratic Senator Herb Kohl of Wisconsin said after the meeting, “I don’t think we’re focusing enough on costs.”

Leading Democrats also indicated Thursday that they were willing to accept a bill that does not include a “public option.” House Democrats in particular have urged Obama to include a government-run plan, in part to make it easier to sell the measure as some sort of progressive reform.

In fact, as Obama indicated on Wednesday, the public option would be very weak and would not challenge the profit interests of insurance companies. Nevertheless, he said he would accept a bill without the option, or one which kept such a plan in reserve, to be “triggered” only if markets were deemed insufficiently “competitive.”

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs repeated on Thursday that Obama’s speech “reiterated the public option is not the be-all, end-all of health care reform.”

When asked about whether the public option is non-negotiable, Pelosi said,

“I don’t think you ever go into a negotiation saying something is non-negotiable.” On the day before Obama’s speech, Pelosi had insisted, “A public option is essential to our passing a bill.”

With or without a marginal public option, the central purpose of the health care bill—setting the stage for major cuts in health care benefits for the working class—will remain.

Personal Notes and Thoughts Written by Brannon Howse During President Obama's Speech on Health Care to the U.S. Congress

September 9, 2009

Brannon House, WorldViewTimes - Obama says his plan will not include illegal immigrants, but the 47 million he always declares as being uninsured includes illegal aliens. The President was booed when he said this and a congressman yelled, "You lie." Did you see the look on the face of Pelosi when this was going on?

I think we can all agree the system needs to be reformed, but we do not need the federal government taking over the system. That is not reform that is a revolution…it is a power-grab that puts the government in control of your life from cradle to grave. The National Center has just released a compilation of 100 stories of victims of government-run health care, "Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care."

He says no death panels. What do you call paying doctors to talk with senior citizens about their end of life decisions? Why has his man, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel), who was appointed to two important government boards to assist in drafting and passing socialized medicine, declared that healthcare should be saved for people the State deems are productive human resources, and that it should not be given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens… An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." What do you call that?

Obama said, "No government bureaucrat will get between you and the care that you need." That is a flat out lie. That is exactly what will happen. Obama seems to be telling the left that he will not demand a 100% pubic option when he said:

"The public option is only a means to that end, and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have."

Bloomberg news reported that in the early 2009 stimulus bill a new bureaucracy was created:

…the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and "guide" your doctor's decisions… Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effect. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effective standards set by the Federal Council. The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K board… This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for young patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly...

I think Obama is using the Hegelian Dialectic Process, which I predicted week ago is what he was doing. Obama is saying we need to merge the ideas of the left and the right for a better third option or Third Way. I have predicted that if Obama could not get what he wanted then he would allow the left and right to fight it out and then offer the third option, which makes both sides feel like they won something. In fact, Obama may have begun by wanting his plan but knowing that option C was his end game goal for now. Once he gets the option C that he is proposing, he will then start over with two views conflicting and then move again to a third option, allowing him to kick the can further down the road each time. Obama set up the conflict to bring the change just as Saul Alinksy calls for in Rules for Radicals. However, I think he will push to get 100% of what he wants but fall back on the third option.

Obama says he will not sign a bill that adds a dime to the deficit. That is not possible. He is lying again, or will he ration healthcare to the elderly to have the billions needed to fund his plan?

As Obama said there are significant things to still work out. The devil is in the details. Notice a percentage of the room laughed at him… not with him.

Obama is all about fear and creating a crisis, collapsing the economy, destroying capitalism, and making things so bad that he can merge government with business in a capitalist-welfare state, also known as Fabian Socialism or Corporate Fascism.

Obama said people were peddling fear, but about 20 minutes later he said:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

Obama May Need Sense of Crisis to Revive Health-Care Overhaul

September 6, 2009

Bloomberg - President Barack Obama returns to Washington next week in search of one thing that can revive his health-care overhaul: a sense of crisis.

Facing polls showing a drop in his approval, diminished support from independents, factions within his Democratic Party and a united Republican opposition, Obama must recapture the sense of urgency that led to passage of the economic rescue package in February, analysts said.

“At the moment, except for the people without insurance, we’re not in a health-care crisis,” said Stephen Wayne, a professor of government at Georgetown University in Washington. “You do need a crisis to generate movement in Congress and to help build a consensus”...

Health Care Reform Means More Power for the IRS

September 3, 2009

Washington Examiner - 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...

Internet Censorship

Obama Official: Gag Free Speech on the Internet

July 13, 2009

New York Post - When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a “chilling effect” on speech that might hurt someone’s feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.

Advance copies of Sunstein’s new book, “On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done,” have gone out to reviewers ahead of its September publication date, but considering the prominence with which Sunstein is about to be endowed, his worrying views are fair game now. Sunstein is President Obama’s choice to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It’s the bland titles that should scare you the most...

Consumer Privacy Jeopardized by DPI Technology

September 13, 2009

Osgoode Hall Law School - In response to the complaint against Bell Sympatico (Bell) by the Canadian Internet policy and Public Interest Clinic, based at the University of Ottawa, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner produced a report of findings dated August 13, 2009. The complaint launched under the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) alleged:

1) that the Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology used by Bell during Internet transmission collects customers’ personal information without their consent;
2) this practice collects more personal information than is necessary to ensure quality of service and network integrity; and
3) Bell has failed to adequately inform its customers of its policies and practices with respect to personal information collection during Internet transmissions.

DPI technology is a tool which provides ISPs the ability to view information transmitted on Internet, such as e-mail exchanges, any uploads and downloads. The merits of this technology are in dispute since on one hand, it enables networks to manage traffic, but on the other, it is often used to help target advertisements on these networks. DPI has traditionally been used as an intrusion prevention system, an intrusion detection system or with traditional firewall technology. While the technology itself is old, it is being applied in new and creative ways. Bell uses DPI in traffic management by identifying peer-to-peer file sharing so that it can be slowed down. According to Bell, the congestion problems peak between 4:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.

While potentially the DPI technology can be used to re-create from Internet traffic a readable record of e-mails, web browsing activity, Voice-over-Internet protocol (VoIP) calls and passwords, Bell emphasizes that its use of DPI does not extend to other applications, such as streaming applications via Internet radio or You Tube. Bell had earlier also represented that the network does not use any personal identification information of an individual user or have any specific knowledge of a user’s real identity or browsing history. This has been accepted by the privacy commissioner, despite the fact that with a simple change in the design, by a simple installation of a filter, the ISPs can inspect content.

Essentially, of the initial complaints, the only one seen as a problem was the lack of openness about the DPI technology. The assistant privacy commissioner instructed the company to change its service agreement and the frequently asked questions section to notify customers of the fact that it collects and retains personal information through the use of its DPI. What is problematic about this finding is the assumption that by merely updating the privacy information on Bell’s website, the consumers will have a true choice- whether to be a part of Bell network or not.

However, the inequality of bargaining power and the reluctance of people to shop for new ISPs may prevent such information to be of any use to the end consumer. It is almost certain that no customer would even contemplate negotiating contracts with network giants, such as Bell. Although it is commendable that the privacy commissioner acknowledged this complaint and invested time and effort to reach its findings, what remains to be seen is whether accepting Bell’s word as evidence for its non-involvement in inspecting content and recording private information is right in the long run.

Cybersecurity Act Returns With a Fresh Coat of Paint

September 3, 2009

The Electronic Frontier Foundation - In April, we voiced serious concerns about the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, a bill by Senators Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME), that sought to give the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. For months, the bill has been redrafted behind closed doors and has recently been circulated, but by all accounts, the changes are cosmetic and it’s sadly more of the same.

Like the original bill, the new version appears to give the President carte blanche to decide which networks and systems, private or public, count as “critical infrastructure information systems or networks.” And alongside that authority, there still appears to be murky language that would permit the President to shut down the Internet. Note the troubling provision in the original bill, which said:

The President [...] may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security...

The new bill says:

The President [...] in the event of an immediate threat [...] may declare a cybersecurity emergency; and may, if the President finds it necessary for the national defense and security, and in coordination with relevant industry sectors, direct the national response to the cyber threat and the timely restoration of the affected critical infrastructure information system or network...

In other words, they appear to have packaged Presidential authority to shut down the Internet and other private networks behind a ribbon of red tape, and the words “national response.”

In addition, a CNET article by Declan McCullagh indicates that many of the early concerns about privacy, authority, and security effectiveness have gone unsolved: there is vague language about mapping federal and private networks; there is an unexplained scheme to certify cybersecurity professionals at the federal level; and the mandated implementation of a “cybersecurity strategy” before the completion of a legal review that could protect against inadvertent privacy violations or inefficiency.

Despite the many questionable provisions, the bill may snake its way through the lawmaking process by virtue of having been produced in large part by Sen. Rockefeller, who is chairman of the committee in charge of reviewing and approving the bill. Stay tuned to EFF Deeplinks for news as the bill progresses — we’ll be watching it carefully.

A Day's Wages for a Loaf of Bread

Cooler Weather May Slow Harvest

September 12, 2009

Omaha.com (Grand Island, Neb.) — Below-normal temperatures have slowed crop development across Nebraska. That could pose some problems for Husker Harvest Days next week in Grand Island.

In early April, Roger Luebbe, who manages the grounds at the show site, planted 600 acres of corn. Everything was going smoothly, Luebbe said, until the last couple of weeks, when the weather turned cooler than seasonal norms.

“We got it in early enough,” Luebbe said. “We had that corn in by April 14, and we were plenty early there. Up until two weeks ago, I had no concerns whatsoever. We could have probably harvested the entire show site. But just these last two weeks, it just came to a standstill.”

For the week that ended Sunday, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nebraska Field Office, reported that another cool week slowed crop maturation and high humidity hampered producers trying to put up hay. Temperatures averaged 4 degrees below normal across the state, according to the report.

September is continuing the cool growing conditions, with the National Weather Service in Hasting reporting the high temperature in Grand Island so far this month 2.1 degrees below normal.

Of the 600 acres of corn planted at the Husker Harvest Days site, Luebbe said, 300 is harvested during the show.

“We would like it (corn moisture) to be in the mid- to low 20-percent range so it’s nice harvesting that early in the year,” he said. “It gives the combines a little bit more of a challenge than when that corn drops down to that 17 to 18 percent moisture level.”

But the corn moisture level may be higher than what Husker Harvest Days officials would expect come show time.

The state weather and crop report said corn conditions rated 2 percent very poor, 6 percent poor, 15 percent fair, 50 percent good, and 27 percent excellent, above last year’s 75 percent good or excellent rating.

Irrigated fields rated 80 percent good or excellent, while dry-land fields rated 72 percent, both above year-ago levels.

Luebbe said because of the slow maturity, a lot of producers are nervous that there could be an early frost. For Grand Island, the National Weather Service said there’s a 10 percent chance of a frost on Sept. 14, 50 percent chance on Sept. 26 and a 90 percent chance on Oct. 9.

H1N1 Swine Flu Virus Patented by Medimmune Back in 2008

Medimmune Patented H1N1 Swine Flu Virus Back in 2008

September 11, 2009

fightbackh1n1.com - According to Dr. T Ott, the Swine Flu patent is owned by none other than Medimmune who stands to profit around $151 million dollars from US taxpayers.

MedImmun, LLC, headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, became a wholly owned subsidiary of AstraZeneca in 2007. Since being acquired, MedImmune has remained a Maryland-based biotechnology development enterprise.

It produces Synagis, a drug for the prevention of respiratory infections in infants, which accounted for $1.06 billion of its $1.2 billion in revenue for 2005, and FluMist, a nasal spray influenza vaccine introduced in 2004.

FluMist was approved for children two years of age and older in 2007, but initially was approved only for healthy people ages 5 to 49, a significant limitation because it eliminated a significant market -- the millions of young children who find injections objectionable. Sales of FluMist fell short of analysts' expectations for the first two years the drug was sold. FluMist was initially sold in a frozen form, which was difficult for doctors to store

According to MedImmune website they are making a signficant, rapid response with a vaccine to the H1N1 variant of influenza, known as Swine flu. In early June 2009 it won a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) contract, worth $90m.

Under the contract with HHS, MedImmune will continue to make its seasonal FluMist vaccine, and it also will develop a vaccine targeted specifically at the H1N1 virus. MedImmune then won a second contract to test its nasal spray flu technology as a viable treatment for the H1N1.

And now according to Dr T Ott investigation Medimmune applied for and received the patient for Swine Flu Virus back in 2008.

But according to WHO, "OFFICIALLY" H1N1 is created naturally, and it's a new strain of influenza virus first identified in April 2009. If so how could Medimmune get the patent for the same back in 2008 ?

In past we reported about how Baxter Files H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Patent a Year Ahead of Outbreak.


According to Dr. Ott Medimmune Patent it is not for a vaccine, it is for the creation of the specific strain as well as a set of substrains and any splice of cells in the same regions.

Down below is Medimmune Patent Document please read Page 36 - Paragraph - 33 and last page of patent.
Medimmune H1N1 Swine Flu Virus - PATENT - 2008

Update:

The following link is the most important. It shows that the original application was filed on August 28, 2007.

Start off from here http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair and when you get to the search page make sure "application number" is checked off and in the search field put in the application number of: 60/966,724

When it opens the page click on the tab "Image File Wrapper" then select "Specifications" and go to page "13" of the specifications. Here you will see the virus references to the viruses as noted above, and it did so on "08/28/07" long before the virus was promoted as a "New and Deadly Strain" morphed out of a pig farm in Mexico.

We emailed the above Patent document to expert, and very soon publishing the brief summery about the same.

Government Corruption and Treason

Former High-Ranking Intelligence Officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11

September 3, 2009

Washington’s Blog - David Steele is a former 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer.

Steele has previously written that “9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war.”

This month, Steele went further, writing:

Pakistan briefed Cheney [about the plans for the terrorist attacks ahead of time] …nations also got wind of this and warned the CIA. We also had two walk-ins to the FBI, one in Orlando, one in Newark, that were dismissed by the FBI because the names were all virgins and not in the FBI data base—the arrogance of stupid bureaucracy.

Cheney saw an opportunity for what Bush called his trifecta, and gave it to him by giving the go-ahead to ISI and Al Qaeda, and ordering up a terrorism exercise that allowed him to send all relevant close-in air defense strip alert craft away from the target areas, and to disable the NORTHCOM normal response to flight path diversion.

While the details might be open to debate, many other very high-level intelligence officers have said the “official” explanation for 9/11 makes no sense. And see this and this.

Massachusetts Bill Imposes a Virtual Police State in the Event of a Flu Pandemic

Massachusetts Senate Passes Draconian Flu Pandemic Bill

September 2, 2009

Infowars - The corporate media is ignoring S. 2028, the flu pandemic bill that was unanimously passed by the Massachusetts Senate. The draconian bill was covered extensively by the alternative news sites, but not a word from the New York Times or the Washington Post.

S. 2028 will be used as a template for legislation in other states. The bill imposes a virtual police state and martial law on Massachusetts at the behest of the governor in the event of a flu pandemic this autumn.

It gives the state health commissioner, law enforcement, and medical personnel wide authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will in violation of the Constitution. The bill allows the state to enter property without a search warrant and destroy the property without a court order. It would force in-state health care providers to assist in the performance of vaccination.

Law enforcement authorities are authorized to “arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order for isolation or quarantine and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. Any person who knowingly violates an order for isolation or quarantine shall be punished by imprisonment of not more than 30 days and may be subject to a civil fine of not more than $1,000 per day that the violation continues.”

Other states are in the process of implementing legal actions in response to the H1N1 virus hyped by the government and the corporate media.

Florida has distributed blank quarantine order forms (unverified), including a voluntary home quarantine agreement, a quarantine to residence order, a quarantine to residence order (non-compliance), a quarantine to facility order, quarantine detention order, quarantine of facility order, building quarantine closure order and area quarantine closure order.

North Carolina released a draft isolation order that would provide for imprisonment for up to two years and pretrial detention without bail for any citizen who fails to comply with an isolation order.

Washington has granted authority to local health officers to issue emergency detention orders forcing citizens to be immediately and involuntarily isolated or quarantined for up to 10 days.

A form released by the state of Iowa (unverified) for voluntary home confinement, home quarantine and home isolation recently made the rounds on the internet. “Rumors started swirling after a quarantine form was found by someone on the internet,” KIMT 3 reported. “Health leaders in Iowa are reassuring people that there are no H1N1 related quarantines being ordered.” The form calls quarantine of all individuals suspected of coming in contact with the virus.

S.2028 is now in Massachusetts House Ways and Means Committee. The Liberty Preservation Association of Massachusetts has vowed to kill the legislation before it can reach the House (see MassLPA video above). The organization plans to lobby lawmakers at the capital on Beacon Hill on September 9 and convince them not to vote for and pass the bill.

Florida Gov. Named in Lawsuit Over Forced Vaccines and Quarantines
 

Massachusetts Health Bill Would Allow Warrantless Arrests, Quarantines

September 1, 2009

New American - A pandemic and disaster preparation bill (S. 2028) passed unanimously by the Massachusetts Senate earlier this year is receiving wide-spread criticism as citizens mobilize to oppose its passage in the commonwealth’s House of Representatives.

“Under this bill, Massachusetts becomes a medical police state. There is no debating it,” wrote Natural News editor Michael Adams in an August 28 article entitled "Wake Up, America: Forced vaccinations, quarantine camps, health care interrogations and mandatory 'decontaminations,'" where he suggested America was delving into medical fascism. “The citizens of Massachusetts will have no rights, period. The Constitution is ancient history. You are now the property of the State.”

The bill contains a number of controversial, alarming, and blatantly unconstitutional provisions. Under an emergency declared by the governor, the statute purports to give the health commissioner, and law enforcement and medical personnel broad authority to mobilize forces, vaccinate the population, enter private property with no warrants, and even quarantine people against their will.

The legislation provides severe penalties — $1,000 fine per day and possible jail time — for not complying with state orders, while also claiming to shield everyone involved from liability. It gives local health authorities the power “to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons” and gives government agents the authority to “arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order” while using “reasonable diligence to enforce such order.” Also, law-enforcement authorities “shall assist” medical personnel in the “involuntary transportation” of people to “treatment centers.”

The provision on vaccines does give citizens the authority to refuse the vaccination, but people who do can be “isolated or quarantined.” The same fate awaits those are “unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or procedures necessary for diagnosis.” One part of the legislation requires that owners or occupiers of a property “permit entry into and investigation of the premises,” and another section creates price controls.

Draconian measures like this to supposedly deal with pandemics and outbreaks of disease are getting a boost with the hysteria surrounding swine flu, but critics are warning of the dangers of such tactics and fighting back.

“In this time of fear, we can’t let that fear take away our freedom to make voluntary health decisions,” said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center. She offered a chilling analysis of the legislation in Massachusetts and the national situation, saying “it looks like few choices will be allowed.” But she encouraged people to find out what their rights are.

Though it breezed past the Senate with a 36 to 0 vote, the Massachusetts bill is still languishing in the House after being referred to the committee on health care financing. “One of the reasons the bill is stalled in the house is because those house reps are being bombarded with phone calls from constituents saying, ‘I will refuse the vaccine,’” explained writer Devvy Kidd in a piece about important bills to defeat where she said the reaction to this legislation may have been blown out of proportion.

But while opposition to the plan may be mounting, there are many in power who believe — like Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel — that the government shouldn’t let “crises” go to “waste.” This bill has been debated in the Massachusetts legislature before, but the House and Senate could never agree on a final version. So some lawmakers are using concern over the swine flu outbreak as a tool for pushing their agenda and getting it passed this time around.

“It’s too bad that we have to have something like that pending to get us to finally act,” said Democratic Massachusetts Senator Richard Moore in a televised interview, referring to the spread of the H1N1 virus. “This was actually on the calendar before that became a news story,” he explained, but “it does give us another reason why it’s a good idea to have this one the books.” If the House passes it, a veto by the governor will likely be the last thing that could stop it.

Unfortunately, people hoping that the judicial branch will step in an restore some sanity may be left wanting.

“Judges will not stand in the way of emergency actions taken to protect the public from a clear and present danger, and if they do, the state appeals court will over turn their rulings in a matter of hours,” explained a piece written by Louisiana State University director of the program in law, science and public health Edward Richards and Dr. Katherine Rathbun. “The history of judicial restraint on emergency powers is one of blind obedience to civil and military authority.”

A great deal of tyrannical federal statutes dealing with health emergencies already exist, and some other states are considering vast power grabs of their own. Maine recently had its National Guard engaging in swine flu vaccine scenario drills at a school while the military draws up plans to help FEMA with the swine flu situation across the country.

But it is past time for citizens to demand that their leaders respect the people’s medical freedom and individual rights. Massachusetts should kill this bill and other states should fight to preserve the liberty of their citizens. Government officials at all levels should finally obey their oaths to the Constitution and the bill of rights, especially in the life-and-death field of healthcare.

Wake Up, America: Forced Vaccinations, Quarantine Camps, Health Care Interrogations, and Mandatory 'Decontaminations'

August 28, 2009

NaturalNews - The United States of America is devolving into medical fascism and Massachusetts is leading the way with the passage of a new bill, the "Pandemic Response Bill" 2028, reportedly just passed by the MA state Senate and now awaiting approval in the House. This bill suspends virtually all Constitutional rights of Massachusetts citizens and forces anyone "suspected" of being infected to submit to interrogations, "decontaminations" and vaccines.

It's also sets fines up to $1,000 per day for anyone who refuses to submit to quarantines, vaccinations, decontamination efforts, or to follow any other verbal order by virtually any state-licensed law enforcement or medical personnel.

Here's some of the language contained in the bill:

(Violation of 4th Amendment: Illegal search and seizure)

During either type of declared emergency, a local public health authority... may exercise authority... to require the owner or occupier of premises to permit entry into and investigation of the premises; to close, direct, and compel the evacuation of, or to decontaminate or cause to be decontaminated any building or facility; to destroy any material; to restrict or prohibit assemblages of persons;

(Violation of 14th Amendment; illegal arrest without a warrant)

...an officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without a warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated an order given to effectuate the purposes of this subsection and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such order. [Gunpoint]

(Government price controls)

The attorney general, in consultation with the office of consumer affairs and business regulation, and upon the declaration by the governor that a supply emergency exists, shall take appropriate action to ensure that no person shall sell a product or service that is at a price that unreasonably exceeds the price charged before the emergency.

"Involuntary Transportation" (also known as kidnapping)

Law enforcement authorities, upon order of the commissioner or his agent or at the request of a local public health authority pursuant to such order, shall assist emergency medical technicians or other appropriate medical personnel in the involuntary transportation of such person to the tuberculosis treatment center.

$1,000 / day in fines

Any person who knowingly violates an order, as to which noncompliance poses a serious danger to public health as determined by the commissioner or the local public health authority, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 30 days or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars per day that the violation continues, or both.

Forced vaccinations

Furthermore, when the commissioner or a local public health authority within its jurisdiction determines that either or both of the following measures are necessary to prevent a serious danger to the public health the commissioner or local public health authority may exercise the following authority: (1) to vaccinate or provide precautionary prophylaxis to individuals as protection against communicable disease...

Forced quarantine for those who refuse (illegal imprisonment without charge)

An individual who is unable or unwilling to submit to vaccination or treatment shall not be required to submit to such procedures but may be isolated or quarantined pursuant to section 96 of chapter 111 if his or her refusal poses a serious danger to public health or results in uncertainty whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a disease or condition that poses a serious danger to public health, as determined by the commissioner, or a local public health authority operating within its jurisdiction.

Massachusetts Senate Approves Big Update of State Preparedness System

April 30, 2009

Massachusetts Medical Society - The state Senate this week approved S. 2028, a sweeping update of the state's emergency preparedness system. According to the State House News Service, the bill:

• Allows the state public health commissioner to take steps in public health emergencies, such as closing or evacuating buildings, entering private property for investigations, procuring and distributing anti-toxins and vaccines, and isolating or quarantining individuals.


• Requires the state Department of Public Health to create a registry of volunteer personnel, the Massachusetts System for Advance Registration, that would be activated during an emergency.


• Allows the governor to declare a "supply" emergency.


• Establishes fines off up to $1,000 for non-compliance with locally issued public health orders.


• Protects health care providers from liability for damages or sanctions resulting from their actions or inactions when performing duties during an emergency. (This section is part of legislation filed by the MMS earlier this year.)

$1000 Per Day Fine and 30 Days in Jail for Refusing the Swine Flu Vaccine in Massachusetts?

August 24, 2009

theBirdFluPandemic.com - A new law just passed in Massachusetts imposes fines of up to $1000 per day and up to a 30 day jail sentence for not obeying authorities during a public health emergency. So if you are instructed to take the swine flu vaccine in Massachusetts and you refuse, you could be facing fines that will bankrupt you and a prison sentence on top of that.

The YouTube video below is of a news report about this disturbing new law. In particular, pay attention at the 1:40 mark when the anchor and reporter discuss the new penalties for not obeying the health authorities during an emergency...



If you have not realized it yet, the controversy over swine flu vaccinations is about to get very, very real. The authorities know that a lot of people are extremely concerned about the safety of the swine flu vaccine, and they are putting the infrastructure in place to deal with those dissenters.

Let us hope that the worst case scenario with the swine flu does not take place, but the reality is that health authorities across the United States are gearing up for the biggest vaccination campaign in the nation's history. It looks like this fall could be very, very interesting.

Editor's Note: Below is an insightful comment on this story at theBirdFluPandemic.com as posted by Bunni on August 27, 2009:

What if it is a disease that will spread like wild fire and what if the vaccine works great and what if all the free thinkers and protectors of rights refuse to be forced to take it (as they should refuse) and what if that means that only the 'sheep' take it and what if all the sheep live and all the right thinkers die. Idiocracy.

Maine Governor Proclaims Civil Emergency Due to Swine Flu

September 2, 2009

Bangor Daily News — Gov. John Baldacci on Tuesday declared a statewide civil emergency because of the H1N1 influenza virus, paving the way for mass immunization of Maine schoolchildren and other residents.

The emergency designation protects schools and health care providers against liability claims related to their participation in school-based vaccine clinics this fall for both the seasonal flu and the H1N1 flu.

“Maine has been proactive in its response to this new flu,” Baldacci said in announcing the proclamation. “But as the school year begins, we must continue our vigilance, which will require a responsible and aggressive vaccination and public education campaign. It’s our goal that every person in the state has access to vaccines for the seasonal and H1N1 flu.”

In accordance with recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, officials in Maine are encouraging public schools to offer on-site immunization clinics for all children, including infants over 6 months and preschoolers as well as children who are home-schooled. Participating schools will offer the seasonal influenza vaccine as soon as possible, and many also will offer the new H1N1 vaccine when it becomes available.

A list of participating schools is not yet available. Dr. Dora Anne Mills, director of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention, said Tuesday that many schools will partner with area health care providers such as hospitals, visiting nursing organizations, and health clinics for the actual administration of the injectable vaccines. But those providers may not have enough clinical staff to devote to giving the vaccines and will be looking to recruit recently retired nurses and other clinicians who are not their regular employees.

The emergency proclamation allows for those clinicians, once their credentials have been approved, to become temporary employees of the state, relieving provider agencies from the administrative burden and legal liabilities associated with hiring them directly.

Mills said a similar process was employed in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita when Maine nurses and other providers worked with rescue and recovery teams on the Gulf Coast.

Schools are no more liable for injuries associated with the vaccine clinics than they would be for injuries incurred at a basketball game or other community event, Mills said. And while vaccine manufacturers are generally not liable for ill effects of the vaccines they produce, Mills said, the federal government does have a compensation fund for vaccine-related illnesses or injuries.

“The H1N1 vaccine is being manufactured using the identical process as the seasonal vaccine,” she added. “There is no reason to think it is any less safe than the seasonal vaccine.”

Hundreds of cases of H1N1 have been confirmed in Maine, with many times that number of cases presumed. The virus is linked to one death in Maine. Although symptoms in this country have been relatively mild in most cases, public health officials predict a surge in the number of cases and possibly in the severity of the symptoms beginning this fall.

Unlike the seasonal flu, H1N1 thus far has proved to be more dangerous to young people, including children, teens, pregnant women and young adults. School-age children, in particular, are seen as a primary source of transmission to other vulnerable populations. Public health officials advise these groups to be vaccinated against the seasonal flu to help maintain their general good health, and to get the H1N1 vaccine as soon as it becomes available.