Long overdue update 12/18-12/23

Much has been happening as the Infinite Speculator remains on the road, having crossed into Europe and in search for investment opportunities.

Stanley "Tookie Williams-

It was sad to see yet another deviant character hyped and stroked in the media and among celebrities. Here is someone that when he was a free man spent his time committing criminal acts and found himself convicted of several murders. The punishment called for death and the state of California sentenced him to such. He would, however, spend over half of his life on deathrow before his sentenced was carried out.

Besides the obvious, that Williams was able to live for free behind bars for 25 years, he was allowed to scrall out a few children's books and was even once nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Now consider the conventional world of wishful thinking legitimized the self proclaimed 'co-founder' of the notorious street gang the C.R.I.P.S. What was stunning is that there is a webpage dedicated to this deceased criminal and that Hollywood decided to jump in on the action, producing a movie about Williams' life as a reformed gangster.

Then as all of you know Williams began to long and time consuming process of appeals. It culminated on multiple courts upholding the death warrant and at the expense of the California taxpayer. The victims' family left behind to wait for justice.

As fun loving, leftish, all encompassing and politically correct Hollywood felt it necessary to push the plight of Williams' victims to the side. One that stood out in particular, besides the obvious presence of rapper Snoop Dog and 'Reverend' Jesse Jackson, was Bianca Jagger. I have to wonder if the ex wife to the Rolling Stones frontman would invite 'Tookie' over for tea and cookies, considering she saw him as a reformed individuals and worthy cause. Someone should tell Ms. Jagger that Mick and her divorced over 25 years ago and that famed Manhattan disco Studio 54 has been closed for over 20 years now.
_________________________________________________________________

Operation I-Spy

Typical to their form, The New York Times (Times) decided to hold off on allegations that President Bush was authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to illegally spy on American citizens. The very fact that The Times has proven to ad nauseam their desires to see Bush have the most unpleasant tenures in the Oval Office should be no surprise. Failing as a company and sales slipping, The Times desperately needs to become The Washington Post of 1975, with a few crack reporters and relive Watergate all over again. The Infinite Speculator's analysis of The Times can be seen on the website http://www.infinitespeculator.com

However in light that The Patriot Act was in the midst of seeking a renewal vote from Congress, The Times carefully held off on reporting the allegations for a year and guess what? Yes they released the claims just in time to coincide with Congress's vote. Bush didn't waiver from the issue, this author forsees President Bush no longer playing nice with his opponents and stated that illegal eavesdropping is just that-illegal. The Patriot Act renewal did pass, although Dems were able to shorten the length of the bill's time until the next renewal, The Times failed (once again) to influence policy on The Hill. By the way infamous and executed Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh looked like an 'ordinary, run of the mill' American citizen. Think about it. The following piece takes into account so called infringement upon American citizens' rights. Source: ModerateVoice.com

Former Clinton Justice Official: Bush Did Have Authorization For Taps
by Joe Gandelman

John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States under President Clinton from 1994 to 1997, writes in the Chicago Tribune that President George W. Bush did have the authority to do the controversial warrantless wiretaps:

President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.The president authorized the NSA program in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America.

An identifiable group, Al Qaeda, was responsible and believed to be planning future attacks in the United States. Electronic surveillance of communications to or from those who might plausibly be members of or in contact with Al Qaeda was probably the only means of obtaining information about what its members were planning next. No one except the president and the few officials with access to the NSA program can know how valuable such surveillance has been in protecting the nation.In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant.

There's more. But Schmidt, now a Chicago-based lawyer, is saying Bush had the authority. It still is unlikely to end the debate, since there are others who have a totally different view. But the next question will be: if Schmidt is correct, then why is there so much cloudiness over this issue? All the more reason for the need for Congressional hearings to delineate once and for all (a) what precisely IS the law, (b) what will the executive and legislative branch roles be in the 21st century in this new age of what seems to be a constant anti-terrorism war?The wildcard will be more sensational revelations in the press. If it turns out that the government was spying to prevent far-fetched threats or threats that gobble up resources better used for Al-Qaeda-type terrorists (in other words: do you REALLY have to waste taxpayers' money on spying on PETA???) — or using agencies in any way in political campaigns — the key issue will clearly be whether this government can be trusted to use powers responsibly...or if it's abusing powers. Schmidt ends his piece (which should be read in full) with this:

What was needed after Sept. 11, according to the president, was surveillance beyond what could be authorized under that kind of individualized case-by-case judgment. It is hard to imagine the Supreme Court second-guessing that presidential judgment.Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.It's unlikely Congress is going to take away the president's authority. But it could insist upon greater oversight and scrutiny of what the executive branch is doing — and insist upon exercising the powers Congress was given in the U.S. Constitution.
____________________________________________________________

Weapons Alert, Weapons Alert!

I have to wonder if The Times will report on the following: Source: AP

December 20, 2005
Huge weapons cache found
By Ryan Lenz
Associated Press

ZUWAD KHALAF, Iraq — As the piles of missiles and rockets dug from the desert floor grew, smiles on soldiers’ faces turned to scowls of serious concern.
Working on a tip from an informant, soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division on Tuesday dug up more than a thousand aging rockets and missiles wrapped in plastic, some of which had been buried as recently as two weeks ago, Army officials said. “This is the mother lode, right here,” Sgt. Jeremy Galusha, 25, of Dallas, Ore., said, leaning on a shovel after uncovering more than 20 Soviet missiles.

As the sun set Tuesday, soldiers continued to uncover more, following zigzagging tire tracks across the desert floor and using metal detectors to locate weapons including mines, mortars and machine gun rounds.

But the growing piles of missiles and rockets were of primary concern for the soldiers in Iraq, where bombs made with loose ordinance by insurgents are the preferred method to target coalition forces.

“In our eyes, every one of these rockets represents one less IED,” said 2nd Lt. Patrick Vardaro, 23, of Norwood, Mass., a platoon leader in the division’s 187th Infantry Regiment.
Vardaro would not comment on whether there were signs the caches had been used recently to make bombs, but the service records accompanying the missiles dated to 1984, suggesting they were buried by the Iraqi military under Saddam Hussein. Still, the plastic around some of the rockets — of Soviet, German and French origins — appeared to be fresh and had not deteriorated as it had on some of the older munitions.

An Air Force explosive ordinance team planned to begin destroying them as early as Wednesday morning. Commanders in the 101st said knowing that an Iraqi tipped them off to the buried weapons could mean that residents in this largely Sunni Arab region about 150 miles north of Baghdad are beginning to warm up to coalition forces.

“The tide is turning,” Vardaro said. “It’s better to work with Americans than against us.”
Army officials would not say who had informed them of the weapons caches or whether national security forces including Iraqi Army and police had helped.

“A good Samaritan told us about it,” he said.

__________________________________________________________________

NYC Transit Strike

By now most are aware of the strike that is occurring in NYC with the MTA union. The 32,000 strong union made absurd demands against the City of New York and very ealy on said they were prepared to shut down, leaving millions of New Yorkers stranded. Not only were millions of citizens at the mercy of the union, the northeastern economy was threatened and holiday shopping along with tourism, both vital to the city, are being held captive. Mayor Bloomberg attempted to negotiate but at last said 'no deal' and the MTA did strike.

Now Bloomberg has gone before a Brooklyn judge in a lawsuit against the union and estimated that the city will lose $22 million a day if the strike continues. The MTA union, Local 100 of Transport Workers, has already been fined $1 million for every day the strike continues. In the end, assuming the strike will be ended, what is the outcome. Well for starters you will have a customer base of several million New Yorkers left with a bitter taste in their mouth. The fines and forthcoming lawsuit will most certainly take a toll on the union's financial stability. Additionally leaders of the union who called for the strike may face being jailed within the next 48 hours. Now sitting jail on Christmas for the leaders may prove interesting results. This all merely proving that public transportation may not be so cheap after all. Suggestion? Go with scab labor Mayor and get your City back to running again.
___________________________________________________________________

Clinton's Myth

The Infinite Speculator found the following piece. I don't think The Times will report on this either. It is quite interesting that Congress narrowingly passed deficit eduction by a 51 to 50 vote. Thank you VP Cheney for casting the deciding approval.



Snow lauds Bush on budget; calls Clinton’s surplus ‘mirage’
Published: Thursday, 22 December, 2005, 08:39 AM Doha Time

WASHINGTON: President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127bn. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319bn in 2005. So who deserves more credit for fighting red ink? No question, says Treasury Secretary John Snow: It’s his boss, Bush. Sipping a latte at a Starbucks coffee shop with reporters in Washington two days ago, he said that “the president’s legacy will be one of having significantly reduced the deficit in his time,’’ and said Clinton’s budget was a “mirage’’ and “wasn’t a real surplus.’’

Snow said the Clinton surplus was inflated by a stock-price bubble and that Bush will be remembered for cutting the gap from a record $412bn in the 2004 fiscal year. “Snow’s comment would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetically and obviously inaccurate,’’ said Thomas Mann, a political analyst at the Brookings Institution, a policy research group in Washington. Colleague William Gale, who worked on the Council of Economic Advisers under President George HW Bush, said calling members of the current administration “deficit-fighters is completely at odds with all of their policies.’’Snow has some support for his view. “Capital gains receipts were unusually high’’ during the last years of the Clinton administration, said Ed McKelvey, senior US economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co in New York. He estimated that when the budget surplus reached a peak of $237bn in 2000, capital gains tax payments were about $90bn higher than the norm for the early-to-mid 1990s.Government forecasts for continued surpluses depended on those tax payments continuing, Snow said. “You’re going to make a lot of mistakes if you forecast based on a bubble,’’ he said. “Bubbles burst.’’

James Lucier, a political analyst at Prudential Equity Group Inc in Washington and former economic research director at Americans for Tax Reform, said the projected surpluses weren’t real because of the “artificial’’ way Congress accounts for spending.Even so, the “enormous growth’’ in so-called discretionary spending by the Bush administration – programmes such as defence, transportation and education, which must be approved each year by lawmakers – “belies the notion that spending restraint has been the major focus of this White House,’’ Lucier said.Moreover, Gale said, the administration used the same Clinton-era forecasts to justify its tax cuts in 2001. Since taking office, Bush pushed through tax cuts totaling $1.85tn and raised government spending 23% in his first four years in office to $2.29tn. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, the US invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. Defence spending rose 48% to $454bn in 2004, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Discretionary spending under Bush rose from $649.3bn in 2001 to $895bn in 2004, CBO figures show. Discretionary spending also rose as a share of the economy, from 6.5% in 2001 to 7.7% in 2004. “The surpluses in the late ‘90s weren’t a mirage, and as the deficits of the last few years grow even larger with the erosion of budget discipline, they won’t be a mirage either,’’ said Chris Rupkey, senior financial economist at Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ltd in New York. “About the only thing you can say in the administration’s favour is that a fast-growing economy of over $13tn covers up a lot of mistakes.’’After reaching a record in 2004, the deficit fell by $94bn in the budget year that ended September 30 as tax receipts soared. The improvement won’t last, and even Snow says the deficit will rise this year as the government spends more to rebuild after the hurricanes. Economists including Drew Matus at Lehman Brothers Inc in New York said the deficit may rise enough to wipe out all of last year’s improvement. Snow and other administration officials said they inherited a recession in 2001, after the equity bubble burst a year earlier, and then had to increase spending to kick-start the economy and fight the war on terror. At the same time, the administration also opposed renewing rules for government spending that required all tax cuts or spending increases to be offset elsewhere in the budget. Bush wanted such rules to apply only to spending measures and not to tax-cutting proposals. – Bloomberg

My comments: I find it interesting that Clinton's surpluses relied heavily on the chaotic levels the stock markets saw during the tech boom. One other point, there was no mention how the Clinton admin. bought back the thirty year T bond and eventually retiring the federal government's borrowing tool. Time and time the longer the maturity date of a fixed income (loan issued by an entity), the 'cheaper' it becomes to manage during times of changing interest rates. In other words why didn't the Clinton admin purchase the ten year back? Because they couldn't due to lack of funds. Nice try Bill.

Speaking of budgets and the Clintons, here is 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's analysis. By the way, now that you are unopposed for your senate seat, you won't have to tell New York residents you plan on only serving two of your four years, because in 2008 you will be campaigning for the Oval Office. You caught a break Hillary.

Hillary Clinton says GOP deficit bill will increase abortions

By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer

December 20, 2005, 5:21 PM EST

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton waded back into the highly charged abortion debate Tuesday, charging that a GOP cost-cutting measure will boost the number of abortions in the United States.

Clinton, D-N.Y., said a piece of a pending deficit-reduction measure would indirectly raise the number of abortions in the United States by leaving poor women with less Medicaid coverage for contraception

"I sadly predict that if this measure stays in the bill ... the number of abortions will go up, the human and financial costs will go up, and many women will be really out of luck," Clinton said in a Senate floor debate on the bill, which is headed for a close vote later Tuesday or early Wednesday.

The former first lady spoke out against language in the bill that would allow states to choose whether to offer family planning services under Medicaid, a government-funded health care program for the poor. Under current Medicaid rules, states must offer those services. Clinton raised concerns even among some supporters earlier this year in a speech decrying abortion as a "sad, even tragic choice," and urging those on both sides of the issue to find common ground. The remarks, coming from a longtime supporter of abortion rights who is considered a front-runner for the Democratic party's 2008 presidential nomination, was seen by many as an effort to reach out to voters who oppose abortion.

Clinton has argued that efforts by the Bush administration to limit family planning efforts would lead to more abortions. On Tuesday, she said the congressional deficit-reduction measure would do precisely that. Speaking on the Senate floor, she claimed the result of the proposed change in Medicaid rules would leave more poor women without contraception, causing more unwanted pregnancies and therefore more abortions. "We obviously have very strong opinions and deeply held convictions about abortion, but are we also divided about contraception and family planning? Are we not in this body committed to reducing the number of abortions? Apparently we're not," Clinton said. The senator, up for re-election next year, has credited her husband Bill Clinton's policies as president for the falling rate of abortion in the United States in the 1990s.

Summary: The Infinite Speculator has to wonder what Sen. Clinton knows about A. Being poor and B. The decisions involved in an abortion or to kill, not to kill. Referencing your philandering husband in declining abortion rates, increasing abortion rates, declining birthrates, increasing birthrates, births to a single mother, irresponsible sexual behavior, STDs, contraception or any other phrases that stem from sexual activity are just sadly hillarious! To think this who will be taking the Dem's presidential nomination. FDR must be rolling in his grave.

More on the markets and state of the US economy in the next post. Have a Merry Christmas, I don't care if you don't celebrate or are a secularist, remember it is still a federal holiday.

Thanks,
Infinitespeculator.com





___________________________________________________________________