NEWS BYTES
Man fears the unknown -- what did Kissinger know?
The following statement is attributed to Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberg meeting held at Evian, France, May 21, 1992: "Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being, granted to them by their world government."
President Bush's 'Wild West rhetoric'
Phyllis Bennis, a Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, says, "In Bush's speech we got no doctrine, no strategy, no evidence. What we did get was a lot of Wild West rhetoric -- dead or alive material. In Afghanistan, 25 per cent of the people were already dependent solely on foreign-aid food, and all international workers have left because of the U.S. threats. Today, the process of starvation begins. Bush said he would use everything at the U.S.'s disposal, but apparently that doesn't include Washington's formidable arsenal of diplomacy. Instead he outright rejected negotiations or discussions. While condemning 'self-appointed rulers', Bush rallied to the defense of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt -- all examples of absolute monarchies or self-perpetuating regimes."
Le Monde says the FBI and CIA ignored warnings
In an article September 23, the Paris daily, Le Monde, charged that the FBI and the CIA "ont neglige le risque terroriste et les infromations donnees sur les kamikazes." They reported that a delegation from the FBI met with their French counterparts, the DST and DGSE September 5 and 6. At that time the DST tried to draw the Americans' attention to the arrest, in Minnesota, of a Franco-Algerian man they considered dangerous. He was part of the Al-Qaeta terror network and had strong ties to Osama bin Laden. The American delegation, obviously preoccupied with administrative and procedural matters, said that terrorist attacks inside the U.S. were impossible because they were "unimaginable". In August, according to Le Monde, the CIA informed immigration services and the FBI that two men, Khalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi, may have been trying to enter the U.S., but they were slow to even begin looking for the two men. They also failed to alert the airlines that the two were on a blacklist -- that is, the FBI watch list of suspected terrorists. The two men were on the hijacked flight that smashed into the Pentagon on September 11.
Castro offers peaceful support
In a speech to his countrymen over Radio Havana September 22, Castro commented on the line of action being taken by Mr. Bush and his government. "An unheard of confession in a political speech on the eve of a war, and no less than in times of apocalyptic risks, 'The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. And we know that God is not neutral.' This is an amazing assertion. When I think about the real or imagined parties involved in that bizarre holy war that is about to begin, I find it difficult to make a distinction about where fanaticism is stronger. . . . An objective and calm friend should advise the United States government against throwing the young American soldiers into an uncertain war in remote, isolated and inaccessible places, like a fight against ghosts, not knowing where they are or even if they exist or not, or whether the people they kill are responsible or not for the death of their innocent fellow countrymen killed in the United States. . . . Whatever happens, the territory of Cuba will never be used for terrorist actions against the American people and we will do everything within our reach to prevent such actions against that people. Today we are expressing our solidarity while urging peace and calmness."
Will justice prevail or will it be just another slaughter?

British journalist and Mid-East expert Robert Fisk notes we are being asked to fight, not world terror, but America's enemies in the wake of the September 11 tragedy.

As examples he cites the 1982 Sabra and Chatila massacre when 1,800 were the victims of terrorist slaughter; the 20,000 Syrians slaughtered in Hama that same year; the Israeli invasion of Lebanon when 17,500, most of them civilians, were killed? Even those terrorists who live in the U.S. but have not harmed America are safe, he says. For example, a pro-Israeli militiaman murdered two Irish U.N. soldiers in southern Lebanon, flew safely out of Tel Aviv and now lives in Detroit. The Irish have offered his name and address but the FBI are apparently not interested.

A great many other terrorist actions have gone unpunished in the world, despite the great numbers of innocent people whose blood was spilled.

U.S. needs oil to fight a war
The United States was the world's major supplier of oil when it went into World War II. Today, while planning to go to war again, it is the major importer of oil. There is a significant difference. Mr. Bush needs oil to fight this war. There is folly in pursuing war and solidifying enmity in the part of the world that is providing it. The cost of running the war in VietNam escalated beyond hope when oil quadrupled in price in 1975 and President Nixon was forced to call it quits. A global recession followed. Oil supplies have levelled off today and prices are at high risk of doing more than quadrupling in the near future. If terrorists were able to hijack planes to use as wicked weapons of destruction in the United States, what and who will stop them from blowing up oil wells in Iraq or Saudi Arabia, in Libya or Nigeria? And if you take away what drives the money-making machine and America loses its control of money and what money can buy, the normally entrepreneurial country may have a serious survival problem.
Outsourcing of Canada Savings Bonds just the beginning
New Democrat finance critic Lorne Nystrom condemns the Bank of Canada's decision to hand over administration of Canada Savings Bonds to EDS Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of EDS Corporation of Texas. He considers the move the beginning of the privatization of Canada Savings Bonds and further monetary integration with the United States.

"Canada Savings Bonds financed the war effort during the Second World War and shaped modern Canada," Mr. Nystrom says. "If this government wanted to really encourage savings bonds, instead of making them less of a good deal and now foreign dominated, they could have brought back the $1,000 limit for tax-free interest income that was so popular with small investors. Now the government is turning its back on this heritage and is simply selling out."
Not all 'savings' are truly safe
An amendment to the Currency Act of 1935 was passed into law as Bill 124 on June 23, 1993. The act regulates the Exchange Fund where Canada's international reserves are held. The bill gives power to the International Monetary Fund to seize any and all deposits you have in the bank, whether in your account or as GICs, term deposits, RRSPs and RRIFs -- as well as the contents of your safety deposit box. If deemed necessary, they could even seize your stocks, bonds and mutual funds -- no matter in what financial institution they reside. They can also get at anything you have in any financial institution in any country that has a tax treaty with Canada.

The reason given for the ignorance of financial planners and accountants with respect to this information is that their education is regulated by the government -- the same government that changes laws almost daily to collect ever more money from its citizens.
You may be taking Prozac unknowingly
According to one news source, the major pharmaceutical company, Eli Lilly, has mounted one of the greatest consumer deceptions in history. Their new drug, Serafem -- used to treat Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder (a severe form of PMS) in women -- is allegedly not new at all. Serafem is said to be a renamed and repackaged version of the controversial drug, Prozac.

Some people refuse to take Prozac because of its being linked, rightly or wrongly, to violent crimes. Lilly's patent to Prozac expired Aug.1 (in the U.S., about five years ago in Canada) and speculation is that Serafem was developed with the same molecular makeup as Prozac so that a new U.S. patent could be obtained. Big dollars will be charged for the "new" Serafem, while generic versions of Prozac are available at low cost.
Now here's a funny one

What gags will titillate Jean Carle? He hasn't been hired as vice-president and "Chief of Operations"of Canada's premier comedy corporation because of his polished funnybone. Isabelle Perras, communications director for the Just For Laughs Festival, explains that M. Carle is well known for his "organizational skills"and that he came recommended by a "corporate headhunter".

Justice Hughes' interim report suggests Carle improperly used these "organizational skills" on crowd control at the APEC summit -- while he was employed as Jean Chretien's "Director of Operations". During his last post as vice-president of the Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC), his "organizational skills" were put to good use in the bailiffs' raid on the home of the bank's former president.

Nothing funny about his career so far.

But here is a funny thing: He got rewarded for his voluntary resignation from the BDC with a $150,000 payoff (a not-at-all-funny use of our tax dollars), including a $1,000-per-month car allowance and his $3,500 annual dues at the Royal Montreal Golf Club.

It's shocking to believe that a comedy festival with $1.5 million in federal grant money already in its pocket might need the influence that Carle can apparently wield. What else can it be since Carle is said to be no more qualified for the comedy crowd than he was for his former banking buddies?

Seems obvious that it's not what you know, but who.


"Already the deployment has almost certainly killed more innocent people than the terrorist outrage in New York. The U.N. world food programme has pulled out of a country in which 5.5 million are at imminent risk of starvation. The victims are invisible, their language incomprehensible, so the world neither knows nor cares."

George Monbiot, British journalist