- Please send as far and wide as possible.
Editor, The Konformist
War On Terrorism Or Police State?
By Rep. Cynthia McKinney
The attacks of September 11th, 2001 caused significant changes
throughout our society. For our military services, this included
increased force protection, greater security, and of course the
deployment to and prosecution of the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan
and elsewhere. Sadly, one of the first acts of our President was to
waive the high deployment overtime pay of our servicemen and women
who are serving on the front lines of our new War. The Navy estimates
that the first year costs of this pay would equal about 40 cruise
missiles. The total cost of this overtime pay may only equal about
300 cruise missiles, yet this Administration said it would cost too
much to pay our young men and women what the Congress and the
previous Administration had promised them.
In another ironic twist, the War on Terrorism has the potential to
bring the US military into American life as never before. A Northern
Command has been created to manage the military's activity within the
continental United States. Operation Noble Eagle saw combat aircraft
patrolling the air above major metropolitan areas, and our airports
are only now being relieved of National Guard security forces.
Moreover, there is a growing concern that the military will be used
domestically, within our borders, with intelligence and law
enforcement mandates as some now call for a review of the Posse
Comitatus Act prohibitions on military activity within our country.
In the 1960s, the lines between illegal intelligence, law enforcement
and military practices became blurred as Americans wanting to make
America a better place for all were targeted and attacked for
political beliefs and political behavior. Under the cloak of the Cold
War, military intelligence was used for domestic purposes to conduct
surveillance on civil rights, social equity, antiwar, and other
activists. In the case of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Operation
Lantern Spike involved military intelligence covertly operating a
surveillance operation of the civil rights leader up to the time of
his assassination. In a period of two months, recently declassified
documents on Operation Lantern Spike indicate that 240 military
personnel were assigned in the two months of March and April to
conduct surveillance on Dr. King. The documents further reveal that
16,900 man-hours were spent on this assignment. Dr. King had done
nothing more than call for black suffrage, an end to black poverty,
and an end to the Vietnam War. Dr. King was the lantern of justice
for America: spreading light on issues the Administration should have
been addressing. On April 4, 1968, Dr. King's valuable point of light
was snuffed out. The documents I have submitted for the record
outline the illegal activities of the FBI and its CoIntelPro program.
A 1967 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to 22 FBI field offices outlined the
COINTELPRO program well: "The purpose of this new counterintelligence
endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, or otherwise neutralize"
black activist leaders and organizations.
As a result of the Church Committee hearings, we later learned that
the FBI and other government authorities were conducting black bag
operations that included illegally breaking and entering private
homes to collect information on individuals. FBI activities
included "bad jacketing," or falsely accusing individuals of
collaboration with the authorities. It included the use of paid
informants to set up on false charges targeted individuals. And it
resulted in the murder of some individuals. Geronimo Pratt Ji Jaga
spent 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. And in
COINTELPRO documents subsequently released, we learn that Fred
Hampton was murdered in his bed while his pregnant wife slept next to
him after a paid informant slipped drugs in his drink.
Needless to say, such operations were well outside the bounds of what
normal citizens would believe to be the role of the military, and the
Senate investigations conducted by Senator Frank Church found that to
be true. Though the United States was fighting the spread of
communism in the face of the Cold War, the domestic use of
intelligence and military assets against its own civilians was
unfortunately reminiscent of the police state built up by the
Communists we were fighting.
We must be certain that the War on Terrorism does not threaten our
liberties again. Amendments to H.R. 4547, the Costs of War Against
Terrorism Act, that would increase the role of drug interdiction task
forces to include counter intelligence, and that would increase the
military intelligence's ability to conduct electronic and financial
investigations, can be the first steps towards a return to the abuses
of constitutional rights during the Cold War. Further, this bill
includes nearly $2 billion in additional funds for intelligence
accounts. When taken into account with the extra-judicial
incarceration of thousands of immigration violators, the transfer of
prisoners from law enforcement custody to military custody, and the
consideration of a 'volunteer' terrorism tip program, America must
stand up and protect itself from the threat not only of terrorism,
but of a police state of its own.
There does exist a need to increase personnel pay accounts, replenish
operations and maintenance accounts and replace lost equipment. The
military has an appropriate role in protecting the United States from
foreign threats, and should remain dedicated to preparing for those
threats. Domestic uses of the military have long been prohibited for
good reason, and the same should continue to apply to all military
functions, especially any and all military intelligence and
surveillance. Congress and the Administration must be increasingly
vigilant towards the protection of and adherence to our
constitutional rights and privileges. For, if we win the war on
terrorism, but create a police state in the process, what have we
Cynthia McKinney represents Georgia's Fourth Congressional District.
This is article is a reprint of her remarks before the House Armed
Services Committee on H.R. 4547, The Costs of War Against Terrorism
She can be reached at: cymck@...
Excerpt from 2002 Chemtrails Over America
********* U P D A T E ********** (7/28/02)
ONCE HEALTHY PLACES
In recent past years you were able to go to a natural area of high
negative ionization such as forests, mountains, beaches, and
waterfalls. These were considered healthy places. All of that has
changed. The government and military aerosol (chemtrail) activity in
the atmosphere, over our cities and world has damaged and negated the
ability of natural resources to produce healthy negative ions as
before. The total effect is a great increase in positive ions on and
around your body and in your total living environment.
All things, in the past, that had impact on natural environmental
production of negative ions, for the well being of all kinds of life
forms, is not of great consequence in today's military chemtrail
world. The military activity in the atmosphere ultimately has a
lethal, destructive effect on the production of negative ions - the
same negative ions humans and other life forms depend on for their
Weather and atmosphere is important in the production of negative
ions. The Navy RFMP/ VTRPE chemtrail program uses a barium salt
mixture aerosol in the atmosphere we breathe. The Navy program
started over four years ago and hundreds of tons of barium salt has
been sprayed into our air. You cannot make negative ions in a barium
salt atmosphere that is radiated and contains an electrolyte. There
are more factors making positive ions than there are factors making
We are coming into a time when all living life forms and our farm
soil will require negative ions to survive. Negative ions in the air
decay within a few seconds of being created.
Please visit http://ion_effects.tripod.com to learn more about the
effects of negative and positive ions. It is important that you do
Here is the Dummy's Guide to Current Stock Market.
Bull Market - A random market movement causing an investor to
mistake himself for a financial genius.
Bear Market - A 6 to 18-month period when the kids get no allowance,
the wife gets no jewelry and the husband gets no sex.
Momentum Investing - The fine art of buying high and selling low.
Value Investing - The art of buying low and selling lower.
P/E ratio - The percentage of investors wetting their pants as the
Market keeps crashing.
Broker - Poorer than you were last year.
"Buy, Buy" - A flight attendant making market recommendations as you
step off the plane.
Standard & Poor - Your life in a nutshell.
Stock Analyst - Idiot who just downgraded your stock.
Stock split - When your ex-wife and her lawyer split all your assets
equally between themselves.
Financial Planner - A guy who actually remembers his wallet when he
runs to the 7-11 for toilet paper and cigarettes.
Market Correction - The day after you buy stocks.
Cash Flow - The movement your money makes as it disappears down the
Call Option - Something people used to do with a telephone in ancient
times before e-mail.
Day Trader - Someone who is disloyal from 9-5.
Cisco - Sidekick of Pancho.
Yahoo - What you yell after selling it to some poor sucker for $240
Windows 2000 - What you jump out of when you're the sucker that
bought Yahoo for $240 per share.
Institutional Investor - Past year investor who's now locked up in a
Profit - Religious guy who talks to God.
Bill Gates - Where God goes for a loan.
Alan Greenspan - God.
Merrill Replaced Research Analyst Who Upset Enron
Tue Jul 30, 9:14 AM ET
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. The New York Times
WASHINGTON, July 29 In the summer of 1998, when it was eager to win
more investment banking business from Enron, Merrill Lynch replaced a
research analyst who had angered Enron executives by rating the
company's stock "neutral" with an analyst who soon upgraded the
rating, according to Congressional investigators.
The move by Merrill Lynch came after two Merrill executives wrote a
memo that April to the firm's president, Herbert Allison, saying that
Merrill had lost a lucrative stock underwriting deal because Enron
executives had a "visceral" dislike of the research analyst, John
Olson, and what he told investors about Enron stock, according to
documents obtained by investigators for a Senate panel looking into
the relationship among Enron and its banks.
Merrill vigorously disputes that there was any link between its
rating on Enron and its desire to win more business from Enron.
In the memo, the two investment bankers, Rick Gordon and Schuyler
Tilney, noted that "our research relationship with Enron has been
strained for a long period of time." Mr. Olson, they said, "has not
been a real supporter of the company, even though it is the largest,
most successful company in the industry." They also said that Enron
viewed his research as "flawed" and that Mr. Olson who left for
another firm in August 1998 "often makes snide and potentially
embarrassing remarks about the company in meetings with analysts
while in the presence" of Enron's top two executives, Jeffrey K.
Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay. They also pointed out that all of the
investment banks that had won a portion of the underwriting deal from
Enron had "buy" ratings on Enron stock.
In early 1999, after the new analyst took over, Mr. Tilney wrote Mr.
Allison to say that Enron's anger with Merrill's research
had "dissipated" and that "to that end," Merrill had since won Enron
business that would generate at least $45 million in fees.
Mr. Tilney wrote to Mr. Allison in an e-mail message dated Jan. 15,
1999: "I wanted to update you on recent developments in our
relationship with Enron since you spoke to their C.E.O., Ken Lay,
last spring regarding our difficult relationship in research. It is
clear that your responsive message was appreciated by the company,
and any animosity in that regard seems to have dissipated in the
The exchanges among Merrill executives, captured in internal Merrill
documents and e-mail messages that have been subpoenaed by the Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, highlight the debate over
one of the most contentious issues on Wall Street: To what degree do
brokerage firms adjust their ratings on publicly traded companies to
try to win investment-banking business.
To investigators with the Senate panel, which is holding a hearing
Tuesday examining Merrill Lynch's relationship with Enron, the
episode suggests that Merrill executives hoped the firm would raise
the rating on Enron stock to obtain more business from the company.
At the very least, it shows that senior Merrill executives actively
discussed the way a less-than-positive rating on Enron's stock would
limit the business that Enron executives were willing to do with the
A Merrill spokesman, William Halldin, said investment bankers at the
firm never asked superiors to take action against Mr. Olson. "Our
research was not compromised," he said. Merrill also said it believed
its employees "behaved properly" in their dealings with Enron. A
lawyer for Mr. Tilney, Robert Trout, declined to comment.
Mr. Halldin said the memo simply showed that while Mr. Olson's
research prompted the phone call to Mr. Lay, the call had been
focused primarily on getting Merrill into the Enron underwriting on
the basis of the firm's long relationship with Enron and leadership
in the business. He added that Mr. Olson, after joining another firm,
had also increased his rating on Enron and that Mr. Allison's phone
call to Mr. Lay had resulted in Merrill's securing a role as co-
manager for the underwriting.
Donato J. Eassey, the analyst who upgraded Enron in 1998,
to "accumulate," angrily dismissed the idea that he had done so to
help Merrill win business, saying his decision had been based on
"It infuriates me," Mr. Eassey said. "When you go to bed at night as
an analyst, all you have is your integrity." Mr. Eassey added that in
August 2001, after the surprise resignation of Enron's chief
executive, Mr. Skilling, he downgraded Enron two notches,
to "neutral" months before other analysts did the same.
Mr. Eassey said Mr. Olson had had a difficult relationship with some
Merrill investment bankers before he left in 1998. "He left Merrill
because he and the bankers didn't get along," Mr. Eassey said. "John
was getting beaten up at Merrill Lynch." Mr. Eassey declined to
elaborate, but he said, "The fact of the matter is, we didn't get any
more business with John there or John gone."
In an interview this afternoon, Mr. Olson said he took early
retirement from Merrill in August 1998 "in lieu of other options" at
the firm. He declined to elaborate, saying he needed to review
whether terms of an agreement he signed with Merrill when he left
allow him to say anything more. He now works for Sanders Morris
Harris, an investment research firm in Houston.
Mr. Halldin, the Merrill spokesman, said Mr. Olson had left Merrill
because of a "consolidation in the research department." Mr. Olson's
rating on Enron or any other stock was not discussed by Merrill
officials who made the decisions about the consolidation, Mr. Halldin
The chairman of the Senate committee, Carl Levin, Democrat of
Michigan, said Merrill was part of several "troubling" deals with
Enron. The panel's ranking Republican, Susan M. Collins of Maine,
added that it appeared Merrill "knowingly participated in deals that
were used to make Enron's financial position appear more robust than
it actually was."
Last week, Merrill placed Mr. Tilney, now head of the firm's energy
investment-banking practice, on paid administrative leave for
refusing to testify to the Senate panel on Tuesday about the
company's dealings with Enron. A former Merrill banker, Robert Furst,
will also decline to testify, Merrill has said. Merrill said Mr.
Tilney opted not to testify after learning of a Justice Department (
news - web sites) inquiry into at least one transaction that involved
Merrill and Enron.
In addition to the episode involving Mr. Olson, the Senate committee
also plans to examine other deals by Enron with Merrill, including
the firm's role in raising money for LJM2, a partnership run by
Andrew S. Fastow, Enron's chief financial officer at the time, that
played a central role in Enron's collapse.
The panel will also examine Enron's December 1999 sale to a Merrill
entity of a part-interest in a Nigerian barge operation that
investigators say allowed Enron to book a $12 million profit.
Investigators say documents show that Enron intended to have Merrill
bought out the following summer, so the transaction was not a true
sale but instead a sham deal that allowed Enron to increase its
earnings for the previous year. One document obtained by
investigators quotes a Merrill official as saying that "it was our
understanding" that Merrill would be repaid, with a profit, by June
Merrill disputes that characterization, saying it was "likely, though
not certain," that an unaffiliated third party would acquire the
The Senate panel will also look at other ways Merrill sought to
increase its business with Enron, including the firm's decision to
take $40 million of a $482 million offer of Enron debt early last
year in a deal called Zephyrus.
One internal Merrill document states that Enron executives
had "informed Merrill Lynch that it is at a distinct disadvantage
because of Merrill's reluctance to use its balance sheet to support
Enron's business activities" and that investing in Zephyrus was part
of Merrill's efforts to "improve its relationship." Merrill said the
deal had been approved "pursuant to the firm's applicable policies
Iran's Leader Says Iran Would Make US Regret Any Attack
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said
Saturday his country would make the United States regret any attack
on the Islamic Republic, which Washington has branded part of
an "axis of evil."
Khamenei's latest warnings came amid calls in the United States for a
change of regime in Iran due to Washington's growing doubts about the
ability of moderate President Mohammad Khatami to deliver promised
"The Americans know that if they opt for military intervention, this
nation would give them a response to make them regret it," Khamenei
told a public meeting, quoted by the state media.
"The Americans cannot do as they did in 1953 because the Iranian
people are faithful to Islam and the revolution and alert in the face
of plots," he said, referring to a CIA-backed coup against Iran's
elected prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq to bring the former shah to
The shah's regime was toppled in the 1979 Islamic revolution and
months later Washington broke ties with Iran after radical Islamists
stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took staff hostage.
A bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers said Thursday they wanted
Congress to go on record calling for a new regime in Iran, which they
said posed a more serious threat than Iraq.
They said their demand mirrored a shift in President Bush's policy
The White House has denied it was dropping a five-year effort to
reach out to Khatami, elected in 1997 as a reformer, but
administration officials say their focus will be directed at Iranians
pushing for change.
The Konformist must make a request for donations via Paypal, at
Paypal.com. If you can and desire, please feel free to send money to
help The Konformist through the following email address:
If you are interested in a free subscription to The
Konformist Newswire, please visit:
Or, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org with the
subject: "I NEED 2 KONFORM!!!"
(Okay, you can use something else, but it's a kool
Visit the Klub Konformist at Yahoo!: