USW bites hand

The Friday the 13^th Anarchist

How the USW Bites The Hand That Feeds It!

Despite the President's efforts to deal fairly with the Steel Industry as he tries to save their jobs, the USW continues to demean G.W. Bush, our president. Perhaps one should ask, "What kind of gratitude is this?" None I think!

The Friday the 13th Anarchist report

Recently while at a friend's home I picked up a copy of the United Steel Workers (USW) Union's newspaper. Much to my amazement, however, most of the articles in it bashed the Republican Party and President Bush, including the usual Leftist Cartoons that further demeaned Bush. All this while President Bush has put our nation's export trades at risk-all of this while he has been fighting the World Trade Council to keep the tariffs on imported steel. All the while the World Trade Organization threatens retaliatory action in the form of tariffs against almost all of this country's exports.

The Union membership just sits there and criticizes him. They talk of how his policies have made them lose their jobs, how he has gotten us into another Vietnam in Iraq, and how he has wrecked our economy and put thousands of Americans out of work. And they talk about oil and how Blush and Cheney should be impeached and imprisoned for wrecking this country and stealing all the oil profits.

All the while president Bush's tax cuts are starting the economy back up, which 9-11 terrorists and lack of oversight during the Clinton years caused the crash. We have freed the imprisoned and oppressed people of Iraq and Bush has managed to make Iraq and Afghanistan the battleground for terrorists-instead of it happening here.

No, I am not happy with all the things that President bush has done, but there is no single president who has ever or ever will be 100% perfect in record and deed. But this does not give the USW and its membership the right to bash President Bush and his father the way they have. All the while President Clinton was in office, not once did he raise a finger to help the steel workers. But, because he was a democrat, no matter what he did he could do no wrong (including NAFTA), but here we have a Republican President trying to help the steel workers and all they do is criticize him and the Republican Party!

Because in the union member's mind, Republicans are nothing but greedy capitalists who would have every one working for 25 cents an hour, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week in dirty and dangerous conditions-not to mention that all Republicans want to foul up the environment. Like many good Socialists and Communists that follow the "union" party line, they believe that Republicans do not want workers to earn too much money because when they do, they can rub elbows with them at Country Clubs, etc. How dare a common working man spoil there fun.

Yes, unfortunately, there were such people (scum) with such attitudes, such as Henry Clay Frick, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, J.Paul Getty, and other Robber Barons. And, no doubt, just such people exist today. But, by no means is this the mission or agenda of the Republican Party.

Some times it seems that you cannot any longer tell the Republican and Democratic Parties apart. But as long as in the Union member's minds Republicans can never do good, then there will always be the Unionist mentality, which causes business to look elsewhere for a work force, like Mexico.

Do we need unions in this country? Absolutely, because we have companies with bad management who need union control to keep them in line. But these same bad management companies need the +&*^%$ kicked out of managers who act in such a manner. But unions also need to realize that not every company is badly run and not every Republican is out to get them.

Hey, Union members need to realize that 80% of this country is non-union and running just fine! Unions complain about all the jobs going over seas, but maybe they need to take a direct look at their own policies. How many jobs they have caused to be lost and opportunities never realized because they are so inflexible and unappreciative? More than we will ever know, no doubt.

Look at how many towns and cities are in serious financial problems and their biggest expense is wages. In many cases these workers are unionized, making wages way over what the same position would pay in a comparable non-government job. No wonder so many governments are in trouble and have to raise taxes.

The steel unions demanded higher and higher wages, as their industry was gong down hill because of environmental rules, plants not modernizing, and more and more use of plastics rather than steel. But did they sit down at the table and try to work with management and increase productivity? Did they try to get political backing? No, they did not. In my own area, 70% of the steel mills are now history. Yet Nucor, a non-union steel plant, has turned a profit every year and their workers make a decent wage, along with many other companies, such as Lincoln Welders and Marconi, who are able to compete head to head with foreign imports. Why? Because management is not greedy and works with its workers to insure high productivity and low overhead.

I have never, ever seen such an arrangement when unions are present in a company. It is always the "company is ripping us off and not paying us what we are worth!"

You now have just such a problem with the supermarkets in this country, such as Walmart, who came. in and swallowed every thing in sight. Its grocery division is killing all the other chains who are trying to compete and stay alive, and what have the unions done to help these smaller firms? They have gone on strike demanding higher wages, no layoff guarantees, all the while their members go shopping at Walmart for the cheapest prices! Yes!! I'm absolutely serious!

Such Union practices have put hundreds of Union workers out of work because the companies they work for cannot provide the same low prices that Walmart demands. Instead of sitting down and working out strategies to keep Walmart at bay, these Unions continue to place unreasonable demands on the companies who hire their union members. Where are the Union Members who should be protesting Walmart's tactics?

Yes, Unions, you need to take a good, hard, long look at your policies and re-examine them and then decide what you are going to do to keep good-paying jobs in this country instead of allowing them to move overseas. The choices are not easy, but until you lose the bad attitude, the mass exodus of jobs to oversea firms is sure to continue.

Anarchist Menu
What's New
Main Menu
Search

Resolution some of Als research

U.N. Resolution - What Happens Next?
by Gary D. Halbert
November 13, 2002

IN THIS ISSUE:

1. U.N. Resolution - What Happens Next?
2. What Will The Inspectors Find?
     It Depends On U.S. Intelligence.
3. Saudi Arabia's Predicament.
4. Implications For The Economy & Markets

Introduction

The United Nations Security Council's unanimous passage of the Iraq resolution on November 8 sets in motion two things. The most obvious being the return of UN weapons inspectors to Baghdad for at least 60 days, assuming Saddam Hussein consents. The not-so-obvious will be the aggressive deployment of US and coalition military forces, equipment and weapons to the region.

At this point, the odds greatly favor a war with Iraq, as discussed below, and this will no doubt have various impacts on the economy, the markets and our investments. In this issue, we will look at what is likely to happen over the next 2-3 months. There will be a lot going on that we will know about, and a lot more that we will not know about - at least in terms of the mainstream media reporting. Hopefully, my geopolitical and military intelligence sources will keep us ahead of the general public.

Iraq - What's Next?

The UN resolution represents a massive defeat for not only Saddam Hussein but also for Saudi Arabia. Hussein's war-deterrence strategy, which was supported by the Saudis, was built on creating a split between the United States and Europe and the Middle East. The unanimity of the vote, including Syria, means that strategy failed miserably in the end.

Almost certainly, Hussein will decide to let the weapons inspectors back in. His puppet parliament voted this week to reject the UN resolution, but this is very likely just a smokescreen to make Hussein look better.

The UN inspectors, led by Hans Blix, plan to return to Iraq on November 18. To avoid war, the Iraqi leader has seven days to accept the resolution and pledge his compliance. By December 8, he must produce a full and accurate list of Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and ballistic missile developments to demonstrate that he is ready to be the primary agent of his own disarmament.

The key words above are "full and accurate list." There is very little optimism that Hussein will divulge information on his weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In fact, producing such a list would contradict repeated statements by Hussein that Iraq has no WMDs.

There is widespread skepticism about the weapons inspections. Even if the inspectors are given unfettered access, most military analysts doubt that they will have much success UNLESS the US has much more intelligence about the location of Hussein's WMDs than we know about.

This is really the key. Hussein has had years to move and hide any sensitive programs he might have had under way. He also has had the opportunity to develop plans for last-minute redeployments. Reportedly, US intelligence has actively tracked the deployment of these systems, but Iraqi leaders are believed to understand many of Washington's intelligence systems and know how to evade them. More cat and mouse games.

On the other hand, if Washington can supply the inspectors with precise information about where to go for evidence, Hussein either will have to block them or permit an inspection that yields damaging results. Most analysts believe it will be the former and not the latter. Time will tell.

The Odds Greatly Favor A War. What Kind Of War Will It Be?

If we assume Hussein will not divulge all of his weapons, the inspections chess game has three possible outcomes: 1) the inspectors find WMDs; 2) the inspectors are blocked from access to key sites; or 3) the inspectors are allowed unfettered access but find nothing. There is plenty of evidence that Iraq has WMDs and is working on nuclear capabilities.

It is clear that the Bush administration believes that the outcome of the inspections process will either be 1) or 2) above, not 3). If true, the odds are very high that we will go to war against Iraq within the next few months.

My good friends at Stratfor.com, the highly respected geopolitical intelligence service, believe that Secretary of State Colin Powell has prevailed among the top ranking military leaders when it comes to war plans for Iraq. Stratfor's intelligence, coupled with war plans that were leaked by the White House late last week, indicate that a decision has been made to go with Powell's plan which would involve large numbers of US and coalition troops (200,000-250,000 or more) on the ground in Iraq. In its latest analysis of November 11, Stratfor says:

"This evolution of events represents a substantial victory for U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell. The real victory was not in waiting for a U.N. resolution, which was ultimately secondary. Rather, it was in shifting U.S. strategic planning away from the Air Force/Joint Special Operations Command's desire to use a war plan similar to that seen in Afghanistan to a more conventional, robust force emphasizing heavy Army assets.

Powell wanted a coalition, but that was secondary in our view to his mistrust of the kind of plans that were being developed in the Department of Defense. In the end, it was the conventional Army general with the diplomatic portfolio winning out on both the military and diplomatic scenarios."

If this is true, we should see an acceleration in the shipment of troops and equipment to the region in the weeks ahead. The US already has forces in the region in Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Turkey.

Saudi Arabia - Fish Or Cut Bait?

The Saudis are openly opposed to the war on Iraq. With the passage of the UN resolution, the Saudis have a difficult decision to make. Do they capitulate and get behind the war plans, or do they increase their efforts to derail an attack on Iraq?

The Saudis greatest fear is that the installation of a democratic government in Iraq would lead to uprisings and upheaval among the Saudi people. Specifically, al Qaeda factions in the country have threatened to instigate and lead such an uprising among the Saudi people if the House of Saud caves in and backs the war on Iraq.

In the Gulf War in 1990, when Saudi Arabia assisted us, the Saudi rulers rejected Osama bin Laden's offer to raise an Islamic army to defend Saudi territory from the US. This drove a crucial wedge between bin Laden and the House of Saud that eventually evolved into al Qaeda's jihad. Ever since, al Qaeda has been seeking a trigger to mobilize the Saudi population and military against the House of Saud, and the terrorist organization might see its chance in the Iraq campaign.

The Saudi's other major concern can be summarized as follows. If the US and its coalition partners install a "pro-America" government in Iraq, that would insure a steady flow of oil to the US and reduce our dependence on Saudi oil. More importantly perhaps, the Saudis are very alarmed at the possibility of new US military bases in the new Iraq. Why? Because the Saudis fear that they might be next in the War On Terror.

The Saudis may believe they can quell any uprisings that might occur as a result of acquiescing on the war against Iraq. However, they know absolutely that the Saudi people would revolt over US military sweeps into Saudi Arabia in search of al Qaeda, once our military bases are in place in Iraq. That would mean the end of the House of Saud.

No Good Options. Al Qaeda?

Clearly Saudi Arabia has no attractive options. Most likely the Saudi rulers will continue to condemn US war plans in Iraq and hope their people believe them. Some have suggested that Saudi Arabia will try its best to broker some kind of peaceful solution before the war commences, perhaps including offering Saddam Hussein and his family sanctuary. Stranger things have happened in Saudi Arabia.

The US is probably content with Saudi Arabia's stated opposition to the war. The last thing the Bush administration wants is to see a major revolt in Saudi Arabia at the same time we are prosecuting the war on Iraq. If the Saudi royalty were swept out of power, the country and all its oil could fall into the hands of al Qaeda. The US could not allow this to happen, given its ominous implications for the global economy.

Saudis Hope The Russians Are Successful

Stratfor says it has information indicating that the Russians are working with Iraqi generals in an effort to oust Hussein prior to an attack by the US. Stratfor says:

"Informed Russian sources told Stratfor on Nov. 7 that Russian intelligence services are working in tandem with pro-Russian Iraqi generals to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, hoping to stave off a U.S. war. Moscow seeks to stage a coup before the end of November, in time to prevent a U.S. attack.

Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly does not aim to hijack a U.S. victory over Iraq, but rather fears that a war would have serious economic consequences for his country and would hurt its international standing. Sources say Putin likely has discussed the matter with U.S. President George W. Bush."

While this might sound encouraging, Stratfor goes on to discuss just how difficult a coup would be in Iraq. There was some talk several weeks ago that Hussein might be planning step down and replace himself with his younger son. Whether such a move occurred voluntarily or under force, replacing Hussein with one of his close relatives would not be an acceptable regime change to the Bush administration.

Implications For The Economy & The Markets

Given the significantly increased likelihood that the US will attack Iraq, investors are asking what implications the war will have for the economy and the markets. That all depends, of course, on whether the war is quick and relatively easy, or if it is difficult and protracted.

The latest economic news was encouraging. GDP increased at an annual rate of 3.1% in the 3Q, above expectations. The best news in the report was that business investment spending increased by 0.6% in the 3Q. A recent survey of economists suggests the economy will avoid slipping back into recession and grow at a rate of 2% (on average) in the 4Q.

My best source for economic and financial forecasts is the highly respected (and very expensive) Bank Credit Analyst (BCA). I have been a continuous subscriber to BCA since 1977. Of all the services I subscribe to, BCA has the best long-term record in calling major turns in the economy.

BCA believes that the US economy will manage to stay in positive territory, thus avoiding another recession for the next 2-3 quarters. They see growth of 1-2% over that period. This forecast assumes, however, that the war with Iraq (assuming it happens) will not be protracted and ugly.

With regard to the stock markets, BCA remains defensive for now. They continue to recommend "below-average" holdings of stocks and mutual funds for now, but they expect a buying opportunity in the near future. In this regard, we could see a repeat of what happened in the Gulf War. Stocks went down in anticipation of the war, but then bottomed and turned sharply higher for the next three years.

With regard to the bond market, BCA believes there is a very good chance that interest rates bottomed out in October, especially Treasuries. While they don't expect rates to rise sharply higher in the months ahead, they believe the bull market in bonds is over.

If BCA is correct that bonds have peaked out, this argues more than ever for a bond-timing service like Capital Management Group (CMG), which I have recommended in the past. CMG can move from bonds to the safety of a money market account if rates turn higher. For more specific information on CMG, including their past performance record, visit our website at www.profutures.com or call us at 800-348-3601.

One market that is sure to remain very volatile is OIL. We have already seen some big swings in oil prices, in both directions, and the swings may only get bigger as the war looms closer. Unless you are a professional or a very experienced investor, I don't recommend that you try to tackle the oil market, any time, and especially not now.

Newsletters & More Online

My November newsletters are posted on my website at www.profutures.com. In addition to these weekly Forecasts & Trends E-Letters, I also write two monthly newsletters (in paper format). There is also a wealth of other information you can find at the website.

The "Other" Gary Halbert

If you search the Internet for "Gary Halbert," you're going to find a LOT of information about one Gary C. Halbert. Remember, I am Gary D. Halbert. When you search for Gary Halbert on most search engines, you won't find anything about me until you get down 15-20 links from the top of the list.

I don't know Gary C. Halbert, and I don't believe we are related. He claims to be a lot of things: marketing wizard, advertising guru and even has some kind of stock trading system (or at least he used to).

If you want to search for me on the Internet, be sure to use Gary D. Halbert. Even then, you will see some links for the "other" Gary Halbert. Better yet, just visit our website at www.profutures.com.

Best wishes,


Gary D. Halbert
GaryHalbert@InvestorsInsight.com

LINKS TO SPECIAL ARTICLES

An optimistic view on the economy.
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20021103-1392837.htm

The shape of an Iraq invasion.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1112/p01s01-usmi.html

Interesting take on the war (PDF file).
http://www.newschool.edu/gf/econ/syllabi/The%20Economic%20Impact%20of%20Invading%20Iraq.PDF

Copyright 2002 Gary D. Halbert. All Rights Reserved.

Send to a Friend   |   Contact Gary   |   Print View

---

Subscriber Services

---

You are currently subscribed as colombo@tpromo.com.

To Change your subscription or unsubscribe, go here.

Reproductions. If you would like to reproduce any of Gary Halbert's E-Letters or commentary, you must include the source of your quote and the following email address: GaryHalbert@InvestorsInsight.com. Please write to Reproductions@InvestorsInsight.com and inform us of any reproductions including where and when the copy will be reproduced.

---

Notice

---

Gary Halbert is president and CEO of ProFutures, Inc., a diversified investment advisory firm located in Austin, Texas. All material presented herein is believed to be reliable but we cannot attest to its accuracy. Investment recommendations may change and readers are urged to check with their investment counselors before making any investment decisions.

Opinions expressed in these reports may change without prior notice. Gary Halbert and/or the staffs at ProFutures, Inc. and InvestorsInsight may or may not have investments in any funds, programs or companies cited above.

Communications from InvestorsInsight are intended solely for informational purposes. Statements made by various authors, advertisers, sponsors and other contributors do not necessarily reflect the opinions of InvestorsInsight, and should not be construed as an endorsement by InvestorsInsight, either expressed or implied. InvestorsInsight is not responsible for typographic errors or other inaccuracies in the content. We believe the information contained herein to be accurate and reliable. However, errors may occasionally occur. Therefore, all information and materials are provided "AS IS" without any warranty of any kind. Past results are not indicative of future results.

We encourage readers to review our complete legal and privacy statements on our home page.

 

Al was right just look at food situation today

 

Daily Commentary

15 January 2001

Controlling Global Food Consumption
Out of Sight But Not Out of Mind

Not a single area of our lives will escape the goals of the globalists. Those in charge of global affairs will inevitably seize control of every aspect of our lives--right down to the local grocery store you buy your food from. Although this may seem far fetched, it's not. When the following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1997, it made quite a stir. Damage control experts were quick to respond, telling myself and others that this was not a serious piece, only one meant to poke fun at the International Community. Although none of this makes any sense to the common man, I can assure you, such logic exists among some of those who walk the hallways of the United Nations building. This article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1997, outlined just how control over food consumption in the U.S. would take place. According to this story, everyone will be required to notify government officials of the single grocery store where they intend to shop, as well as a single restaurant where they intend to dine out at, during the next 12 months. Their food purchases will be monitored and regulated so they can buy only certain foods to which they are authorized. The following Wall Street Journal story speaks of an upcoming meeting at which the UN will draw up plans for what they call a FMO (Food Management Organization). I was able to verify that such a meeting was about to take place at the time. Thus, this alone proves that the Wall Street Journal was based on truth. It was NOT intended to poke fun at the International Cummunity after all, but rather to test the social waters of public acceptance. Why didn't FMOs become a reality after that, you may ask? Well, like any true leftist liberals, the folks behind the FMO plan systematically test the waters of public acceptance. They do that with stories, such as the Wall Street Journal story contained herein. If the indicators they see counters their plan, they will bury the issue for a time, to later embark on the same effort again. The reason why their effort to form FMOs did not move ahead relates more to how the American public reacted at the time. But, rest assure that this issue did not die--It will surface again. Please take the time to read through the following Wall Street Journal story and the other tidbits of information included from my research archives. Read this material carefully and judge for yourself whether the global community has serious intentions that have to be brought to light and addressed. Thank you, Al Colombo

-------------------------------------------------------------------------Blueprint for food

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1996

Blueprint for Managed Foodcare

By KARL-OTTO LIEBMANN

The time has come for the eating public to face a stark reality: The consumption of food, if allowed to grow at the present rate, will bankrupt our great nation.

Production of food has risen from 10% to more than 30% of the gross domestic product since 1945. The Congressional Budget Office projects that by the year 2010 Americans will spend more money and time on eating than on working, vacationing, and being sick combined. To counter this threat, a junior U.S. senator, (whose name has been withheld upon request) has begun to draft legislation designed to fundamentally reform the way Americans consume food.

The proposal, preliminarily dubbed "Managed Foodcare," promotes the cost-efficient consumption of food by regulating access to stores and restaurants. It preserves the principles of consumer choice and free competition.

A brief outline will illustrate how the reforms benefit the average eater. Each year, during the last week of December, consumers have the choice of signing up at their preferred grocery store or restaurant for the year to come. These two main retail markets for the distribution of food are referred to as Primary Food Providers.

Employers will by law be required to offer employees a choice among at least three so-called Food Benefit Plans. FBPs describe what stores, restaurants, kinds of food and menus will be covered by the plan. FBPs will also furnish comprehensive brochures listing the items approved, such as certain cereals, vegetables, meats, and so on.

The lawmakers anticipate that the opportunity to choose only once a year what to eat for the next 12 months will save families innumerable hours of time now spent on gazing at store shelves or menus and comparing brands and prices. During the year of the plan, consumers will be obliged to buy all their food at the chosen store and eat at the restaurant they elected. There will be a designated copaymemt, they will also pay a monthly premium to a Food management Organization.

FMOs, whose formation will be encouraged under the legislation, are privately owned corporations. They control the production and manage the distribution of food based on a highly variable Cost Efficiency Quotient, whose numerical value is directly proportional to the value at which the FMOs' stocks are traded on the open market. FMOs contract with Primary Food Providers to provide the most cost-efficient nutrition to their enrollees.

The key element of the reform is known as "capitation." Basically, stores and restaurants will receive a fixed annual amount of money from their FMO for each enrolled customer, regardless of how much or little he consumes during the year. If the enrollee spends more than his allotment, it will be the provider's loss; if less, it will be the provider's gain.

Legislators from New York and California have objected that some people habitually eat more than others or have developed rather idiosyncratic and expensive tastes. Such behavior, comparable to the reckless spending of health dollars by people with chronic or terminal illnesses, could quickly bankrupt the provider. To counter this fiscal threat, the FMOs will maintain personal customer records listing all purchases, creating an "Individual Consumption Profile" (CPI) for each member. The ICP is subject to periodic review and approval by the FMO.

People with excessive ICPs are considered "high risk" and may eventually lose their right to be re-enrolled in any FMO. (Soup kitchens and self-help groups will no doubt assist these misfits.)

To rein in abuse of specialty shops and gourmet restaurants, access to these establishments will be controlled by the primary food providers. They will serve as "gatekeepers" and decide whether and when a consumer should be referred to specialty providers such as Italian bakeries or French restaurants. Their decisions will be guided by their conviction that packaged breads and cakes or fast food can meet the same nutritional needs as delicatessen food.

They also recognize that the more money from a fixed, capitated amount that consumers spend on outlandish food, the less will remain for primary food providers.

The proponents of managed Foodcare sum up their argument by pointing out that their proposal preserves and protects genuine American values. The new laws support yearly renewable consumer choice, and at the same time reduce unnecessary and costly culinary options. They encourage corporate and individual responsibility by rewarding thoughtful management of food supply and demand. Capitation will further thriftiness, invention, and imaginative sales practices. Ultimately, Managed Foodcare will accelerate the accumulation of capital in the hands of those who know best how to promote a healthier and leaner America.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Changing Consumption Patterns in "Human Settlements."

"IN ORDER TO STABILIZE WORLD POPULATION, WE MUST ELIMINATE 350,000 PEOPLE PER DAY." Jacques Cousteau in 1991, UNESCO Courier.

Notice of Symposium to Outline Gorbachev's and Maurice Strong's Plans for Your Standard of Living

Editor's Note: The Notice below from the United Nations to NGOs who attended the Istanbul Habitat II UN Conference announces a symposium to tell participants how to force changes in "consumption patterns" in the 21st Century through Worldwide Planning at the UN. The prime target is reduction in the consumption and standard of living of Americans. --Al Colombo

From: Andre Dzikusby way of information habitat

To: habitat partners network; NGO committee on Human settlements; earth summit two csdgen@nygate.undp.org

Subject: Symposium on Changing Consumption Patterns in Human Settlements, 4/6/1997, New York

Date: Tuesday, May 27, 1997 10:20 AM

Dear Colleague,

I am pleased to inform you that the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) is organizing a one-day Symposium on the theme: "Changing Consumption Patterns in Human Settlements", to be held at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday, 24 June 1997 as a part of the parallel events of the United Nations General Assembly special session on sustainable development.

The event will be an important follow-up to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), addressing the goal of sustainable human settlements development in a rapidly urbanizing world. The Symposium is aimed at bringing together new thinking on sustainable consumption in human settlements, in the growing cities of the developing and the developed world in particular, where the majority of the world's population will live and work by the turn of the century, where most economic activity will take place, natural resources will be consumed and pollution generated - with consequent impact on the environment.

The Symposium will also provide a forum to present the findings of an expert-group meeting on the same theme organized by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements, in cooperation with the United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development, at the United Nations in New York in April 1997. The attached flyer gives more information on the event.

Should you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact this office. Your participation in the symposium is welcome.

Yours sincerely

Kalyan Ray

• Chief, BITS/RDD
  
• UNCHS (Habitat)
  
• e-mail: kalyan.ray@unchs.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

SYMPOSIUM ON CHANGING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS IN HUMAN SETTLEMENTS

Date: Tuesday, 24 June 1997

Time: 2:00 - 5:00 p.m.

Venue: Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium United Nations, New York

Organizer: United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat)

Invited Keynote Speakers:

• Hon. Prof. Dr. Klaus Toepfer, Minister for Regional Planning, Building and Urban Development, Federal Republic of Germany
• Mr. Maurice Strong, Chairperson, Rio+5, and Chairman, The Earth Council (Editor's Note: Mr. Strong is responsible for Agenda 21.)
• Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General, United Nations Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development
• Mr. Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President, Environmentally Sustainable Development, The World Bank
• Mr. Wally N'Dow, Co-Chairperson, Rio+5, and Assistant-Secretary-General, United Nations, Head of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements

Invited Panellists:

• Prof. Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Singapore
• Lord Mayor Norbert Burger, Mayor of Cologne and President of WACLAC
• Mr. Jaime Lerner, Governor of the State of Parana, Brazil
• Hon. Mr. John Edward Afful, Minister of Environment, Accra, Ghana
• Mr. Martti Lujanen, Director-General, Ministry of the Environment, Finland
• Mrs. Kiran Agarwal, Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment, India
• Ms. Raquel Alfaro, Consultant, Santiago, Chile

UNITED NATIONS CENTRE FOR HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (HABITAT)

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in today's commentary are that of the author and not necessarily that of Al Colombo or others who appear in this publication. Direct inquiries regarding it's content to the author. Thank you.

Editor's Note: Permission is granted to reproduce this or any of the other articles and commentaries that appear on this web site, providing they appear in their entirety with the author's name, e-mail address, and www.GiantKillers.Org included. If you have a comment and would like it to appear in The Daily Commentary, send it with the words FOR COMMENTARY in the subject line. Click HERE. Thank you. --Al Colombo

Allan B. Colombo
Copyright©2001

Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu

Good Riddens

Daily Commentary

January 4, 2001

The Clinton Era
Good Riddance!

In a couple of weeks the Clinton era with be over and I say GOOD RIDDANCE! We have endured eight years of controversy, scandals and ruin. I call the Clinton Administration the Smoke and Mirror Administration.

By this, I mean there has been few accomplishments but people keep saying that President Clinton has done so much but if you press them they cannot name anything significant.

Oh, they do come up with the "wonderful economy" but we all know that he really had nothing to do with the economy, although, he does take credit for it. I can think of nothing "good" that he has done. However, I will name a few of the "bad" things he has done:

1. Dismantled the military to record levels while deploying the troops more than any other President during peacetime.
2. Degraded the White House and took politics to a new height (or low).
3. More scandals than any other administration.
4. Been impeached.
5. Gave more power to the United Nations and gave more of the U.S. to Globalis.
6. Taught everyone that the "ends justifies the means."
7. Divided the country by class, sex, religion, race, politics, etc. and did it in the name of "bringing the country together."
8. Increased taxes to record levels.
9. Elevated his wife to such a position that she will now be a Senator which carries on the socialistic policies of her husband.

If I could send a letter to Mr. Clinton it would say something like:

Mr. Clinton, my advice to you is to retire to your state of Arkansas and become a statesman like the other former Presidents. Please do not try to put roadblocks or undermine the new administration. You had your turn and you wasted eight years. Mr. Clinton, you accomplished nothing and your legacy will reflect that.

T.K.T.

Editor's Note: The opinions expressed in today's commentary are that of the author and not necessarily that of Al Colombo or others who appear in this publication. Direct inquiries regarding it's content to the author. Thank you.

Editor's Note: Permission is granted to reproduce this or any of the other articles and commentaries that appear on this web site, providing they appear in their entirety with the author's name, e-mail address, and www.GiantKillers.Org included. If you have a comment and would like it to appear in The Daily Commentary, send it with the words FOR COMMENTARY in the subject line. Click HERE. Thank you. --Al Colombo

Allan B. Colombo
Copyright©2001

Return to Comments Menu
Return to Main Menu

www.TPromo.com

 

Use of Human Subjects Chemichal or Biological Agents

The Patriotic American

Use of Human Subjects
Chemical or Biological Agents

text verbatim

---

 
> -CITE-
>
>     50 USC Sec. 1520                                             01/16/96
>
> -EXPCITE-
>
>     TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
>
>     CHAPTER 32 - CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM
>
> -HEAD-
>
>     Sec. 1520. Use of human subjects for testing of chemical or
>
>         biological agents by Department of Defense; accounting to
>
>         Congressional committees with respect to experiments and
>
>         studies; notification of local civilian officials
>
-More-

-STATUTE-
>
>       (a) Not later than thirty days after final approval within the
>
>     Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be
>
>     conducted by the Department of Defense, whether directly or under
>
>     contract, involving the use of human subjects for the testing of
>
>     chemical or biological agents, the Secretary of Defense shall
>
>     supply the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of
>
>     Representatives with a full accounting of such plans for such
>
>     experiment or study, and such experiment or study may then be
>
>     conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day period
>
>     beginning on the date such accounting is received by such
>
>     committees.
-More-
         (b)(1) The Secretary of Defense may not conduct any test or
>
>     experiment involving the use of any chemical or biological agent on
>
>     civilian populations unless local civilian officials in the area in
>
>     which the test or experiment is to be conducted are notified in
>
>     advance of such test or experiment, and such test or experiment may
>
>     then be conducted only after the expiration of the thirty-day
>
>     period beginning on the date of such notification.
>
>       (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to tests and experiments conducted
>
>     by Department of Defense personnel and tests and experiments
>
>     conducted on behalf of the Department of Defense by contractors.
>
> -SOURCE-
>
-More-
         (Pub. L. 95-79, title VIII, Sec. 808, July 30, 1977, 91 Stat. 334;
>
>     Pub. L. 97-375, title II, Sec. 203(a)(1), Dec. 21, 1982, 96 Stat.
>
>     1822.)
>
> -COD-
>
>                                 CODIFICATION
>
>       Section was not enacted as part of Pub. L. 91-121, title IV, Sec.
>
>     409, Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 209, which comprises this chapter.
>
> -MISC3-
>
>                                  AMENDMENTS
>
>       1982 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 97-375 struck out par. (1) which
>
>     directed the Secretary of Defense to supply not later than Oct. 1
>
>     of each year the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
-More-
        House with a full accounting of all experiments and studies
>
>     conducted by the Department of Defense in the preceding twelve
>
>     month period, whether directly or under contract, which involved
>
>     the use of human subjects for the testing of chemical or biological
>
>     agents, and designated par. (2) as subsec. (a).
>
> -CHANGE-
>
>                                CHANGE OF NAME
>
>       Committee on Armed Services of House of Representatives treated
>
>     as referring to Committee on National Security of House of
>
>     Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub. L. 104-14, set out as a
>
>     note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress.

Back to Biological Attack Information Pages

Back to The Patriotic American Main Menu

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!