[cia-drugs] Bulk up the SPR, prop up the dollar?
http://www.dailyreckoning.us/blog/?p=310 Bulk up the SPR, prop up the dollar? January 25th, 2007 Has it occurred to anyone else that there's there's an agenda other than "energy security" behind President Bush's proposal to double the size of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve? After all, salting away that oil will add to world demand, and presumably add to the price, which sure won't do anything to help Bush's Nixonian poll numbers. And as Bloomberg reports, the United States might not be alone in this endeavor: George W. Bush's decision to double the emergency oil stockpile in the U.S. may help to stem a six- month slide in prices as China, India and South Korea also add to demand by bolstering their defenses against shortages. Oil gained the most since September 2005 yesterday after the U.S. Energy Department said it will boost the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels over 20 years. China, where imports rose 15 percent last year, began to fill its reserve in October. India also plans to double its inventories. The U.S. plan "helps puts a floor in the market,'' said Antoine Halff, head of energy research at Fimat USA Inc. in New York. "It creates competition for the same barrels. It tightens the market on top of the strategic reserve builds elsewhere such as China.'' So why would Bush be pursuing this course of action knowing there's a good chance it will contribute to higher oil prices? Lefty conspiracists will no doubt say it's to help Bush's oil cronies, but a more sophisticated answer may lie in Tuesday's edition of the Daily Pfennig. Chris Gaffney writes: Ty Keough pointed out an article yesterday that appeared on Bloomberg.com with this headline, "OPEC Dumps $10.1 Billion of Treasuries as Oil Tumbles". It looks like OPEC nations are unloading Treasuries at the fastest pace in more than three years as crude oil prices tumble. Over the last several years, the big oil exporting nations have purchased massive amounts of U.S. debt with the petrodollars they have earned from record high oil prices. As oil prices have sold off, these countries have reduced their holdings of U.S. treasuries. According to the Bloomberg article, for every $10 drop in the price of a barrel of oil, OPEC members adjust Treasury holdings by about $34 billion. When you combine this reduction of available 'petrodollars' with Asia's focus on diversification, it does not bode well for the U.S. dollar. Last year, the Asian monetary authorities, together with the central banks and state investment agencies in oil-exporting countries, bought about $770 billion in foreign-currency assets. These official purchases financed most of the estimated $870 billion U.S. currency account deficit in 2006, according to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of NY. If the petrodollar surpluses dwindle, the job of sustaining U.S. consumption will fall squarely on the Asian central banks, which have already stated a desire to reduce exposure to the U.S. markets. This is not shaping up to be good news for the U.S. dollar! Could it be that bulking up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is a conscious attempt at propping up the dollar? Stranger things have happened. Last 5 posts by dave a.. DR editors' email thread: Another Peak Oil smackdown! - January 23rd, 2007 b.. China's satellite zapper - January 22nd, 2007 c.. Peculiar prediction - January 19th, 2007 d.. Canary in the coal mine? - January 18th, 2007 e.. Surely you jest - January 18th, 2007
[cia-drugs] How Much Time on the Front Line?
How Much Time on the Front Line? by Gary Benoit February 5, 2007 With President Bush sending 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, and the new Democrats in Congress talking only about a phased withdrawal, when will our troops come home? "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me," President George W. Bush acknowledged in his January 10 speech announcing his new strategy for Iraq. "Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." The soldiers have indeed done everything they were asked to do. More than 3,000 of them have paid the ultimate sacrifice, and many more have been maimed for life. But the war drags on and the casualties continue to mount — with no end in sight. Even the streets of Baghdad are not secure. According to the president, "Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have." To address these failings, President Bush announced that he's sending more than 20,000 additional troops to Iraq and that Iraqi and American forces will now have a "green light" to enter "neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence." In past operations, the president acknowledged, "political and sectarian interference" have prevented the military from entering those neighborhoods. Now, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated." Maliki's pledge rings hollow because he did more than "tolerate" the interference — he helped orchestrate it. As the New York Times recalled in its January 12 edition, Maliki "has consistently refused to sanction major offensives in Sadr City," the Shiite district in northeast Baghdad that serves as a major base of operation for the Mahdi Army led by radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr. The Times also reported that Maliki has "postponed any action on a new law to disarm and demobilize the militias" and that he has "on at least one occasion ... intervened to secure the release of a man captured by American troops and identified by American commanders as a death squad leader with links to Mr. Sadr." Sadr's Mahdi Army, the most powerful of the Shiite militias, is responsible for so much of the sectarian violence now tearing apart Iraq that the Pentagon has described it as the country's biggest security threat. Yet this major security threat is also intertwined with Maliki's government. Sadr's "parliamentary bloc sustains Mr. Maliki in office," the Times noted. Not surprisingly, Bush said nothing about the Maliki-Sadr connection in his January 10 address to the American people. Nor did he try to explain why an Iraqi government that owes its very existence to American blood and treasure would ally itself with those responsible for much of the violence, why we would have continued supporting that government under those circumstances, and why we would have cooperated with political and sectarian restrictions that provided safe haven for insurgents and terrorists who targeted Americans as well as rival Islamic sects and Iraqi Christians. But Bush at least acknowledged that Maliki might fail to honor his pledge to no longer tolerate the political or sectarian interference. "I've made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended," Bush said in his nationally televised address. "If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people." As well it should! Furthermore, looking beyond Bush's declaration of limits on American support, questions should be raised: is the Iraqi government now deserving of the support of the American people? Is it deserving of the continued sacrifice of our soldiers? Was it ever deserving? And regardless of the answers to those questions, what exactly does President Bush hope to achieve by keeping our troops in Iraq, let alone escalating our involvement? The New Iraqi Government In his January 10 speech, the president cautioned: "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship." He added: "Victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties, and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them." However, the regime we have installed in Iraq through our military intervention has not only harbored insurgents and terrorists but has also violated human rights
[cia-drugs] Senator Harry Reid wants you to sign his petition for No Escalation! Quick before they meet on this
Thu, 25 Jan 2007 18:02:13 -0500To: "Theresa J Steed" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>From: "Harry Reid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> View Contact Details
Add Mobile Alert Subject: 50,000 before the vote [input] [input]
[input] [input] YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true;
YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false; YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us";
YAHOO.Shortcuts.lang = "us"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = { lw_1169803837_0:
{ text: 'Iraq', weight: 0.954411, type:
['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country'] , metaData: { geoArea: "431879",
geoCountry: "Iraq", geoIsoCountryCode: "IQ", geoLocation: "(43.68985,
33.24052)", geoName: "Iraq", geoPlaceType: "Country", type:
"shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country" } }, lw_1169803837_1: { text: 'Iraq',
weight: 0.954411, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country'] , metaData:
{ geoArea: "431879", geoCountry: "Iraq", geoIsoCountryCode: "IQ", geoLocation:
"(43.68985, 33.24052)", geoName: "Iraq",
geoPlaceType: "Country", type: "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country" } },
lw_1169803837_2: { text: 'Iraq', weight: 0.954411, type:
['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country'] , metaData: { geoArea: "431879",
geoCountry: "Iraq", geoIsoCountryCode: "IQ", geoLocation: "(43.68985,
33.24052)", geoName: "Iraq", geoPlaceType: "Country", type:
"shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country" } }, lw_1169803837_3: { text: 'Iraq',
weight: 0.954411, type: ['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country'] , metaData:
{ geoArea: "431879", geoCountry: "Iraq", geoIsoCountryCode: "IQ", geoLocation:
"(43.68985, 33.24052)", geoName: "Iraq", geoPlaceType: "Country", type:
"shortcuts:/us/instance/place/iq/country" } }, lw_1169803837_4: { text: '422 C
St. NE Washington, DC 20002', weight: 0.995657, type:
['shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/street'] , metaData: { geoArea: "13.8496",
geoBldgNumber: "422", geoCountry: "United States", geoCounty: "District Of
Columbia", geoIsoCountryCode: "US", geoLocation:
"(-76.976669, 38.908089)", geoName: "20002", geoPlaceType: "Street", geoState:
"District of Columbia", geoStateCode: "DC", geoStreetName: "C St. NE", geoTown:
"Washington", geoZip: "20002", type: "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/us/street" }
} }; YAHOO.Shortcuts.overlaySpaceId = "97546169"; YAHOO.Shortcuts.hostSpaceId
= "97546168";Dear Theresa J,
Tuesday night, President Bush demonstrated that the public outcry about our
nation's single greatest concern, the war in Iraq, has fallen on deaf ears.
Opposition to the President's escalation plan isn't partisan -- Democrats,
Republicans, military leaders and the American people know it is a flawed
strategy. We need to end our open-ended commitment to Iraq and begin the phased
redeployment of American troops. President Bush has clearly chosen to ignore
that option.
Yesterday, with a bipartisan vote, the Senate Foreign Relations committee
sent a clear message to the President opposing his escalation plan. In the near
future, the full Senate will take up the resolution. However, I need you to
take action right now.
More than 30,000 GiveEmHellHarry.com members have already signed our message
to George Bush telling him, No Escalation - No Way. We need your help to reach
50,000 before the Senate vote. If you've already signed the petition, please
send this message along to your friends and family and ask them to lend their
voice.
Tell President Bush, No Escalation - No Way
President Bush's plan to escalate the war will not bring success in Iraq or
make America more secure. Congress will always put our troops first -- that
means holding the President accountable for a change of course and giving his
plan an up-or-down vote.
Democrats have a plan for success in Iraq that will make America safer,
protect our strategic interests and honor the sacrifice of our troops and their
families.
This plan includes:
* Shifting the principal mission of our forces from combat to training,
logistics, force protection, and counter terrorism;
* Beginning the phased redeployment of our forces in the next four to six
months;
* Implementing an aggressive diplomatic strategy, both within the region and
beyond, to help the Iraqis achieve a sustainable political settlement,
including amending their constitution.
We need to send George Bush as clear a message as possible: No Escalation -
No Way
As Jim Webb told the nation Tuesday night, if the President decides to take
action "for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our
relations around the world . . . . we will join him. If he does not, we will be
showing him the way."
Thank you,
Harry Reid
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, go to: http://www.giveemhellharry.com/unsubscribe
Paid for by Friends For Harry Reid 422 C St. NE Washington, DC 20002
-
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and
always stay connected to friends.
[cia-drugs] Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1570.asp Toll Road Giant Buys Newspapers to Silence Critics Critics charge that the Macquarie purchase of American Consolidated Media is designed to silence critics of a Texas toll road project. Australian toll road giant Macquarie agreed Wednesday to purchase forty local newspapers, primarily in Texas and Oklahoma, for $80 million. Macquarie Bank is Australia's largest capital raising firm and has invested billions in purchasing roads in the US, Canada and UK. Most recently the company joined with Cintra Concesiones of Spain in a controversial 75-year lease of the 157-mile Indiana Toll Road. Sal Costello, the leading opponent of toll road projects as head of the Texas Toll Party, says the move is directly related to a 4000-mile toll road project known as the Trans-Texas Corridor. It will cost between $145 and $183 billion to construct the road, expected to be up to 1200 feet wide, requiring the acquisition of 9000 square miles of land in the areas through which it will pass. "The newspapers are the main communication tool for many of the rural Texan communities, with many citizens at risk of losing their homes and farms through eminent domain," Costello wrote. Many of the small papers purchased, most have a circulation of 5000 or less, have been critical of the Trans-Texas Corridor. An article in the Bonham Journal for example, states, "The toll roads will be under control of foreign investors, which more than frustrates Texans."
[cia-drugs] Fwd: [ctrl] Drug Cash Flow: Why Negroponte Goes Back 2State
Begin forwarded message:From: Our bill of rights <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Date: January 25, 2007 5:28:46 PM PSTTo: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Subject: [ctrl] Drug Cash Flow: Why Negroponte Goes Back 2StateReply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Drug Cash Flow: Why Negroponte Goes Back to Stateby AL MARTINThe Deputy Secretary of State is a position, that, in Bushonian Regimes, is often unfilled because with the Deputy Secretary of State’s position goes control of the State Department’s FNCO, or Foreign Narcotics Control Office.The Undersecretary of State is automatically the head of FNCO, or the Foreign Narcotics Control Office, just as Richard Armitage was, unless there is a specific appointment, as there was when Armitage was Assistant Secretary of State in the mid 1980s. He was specifically appointed as head of FNCO. Then when Armitage, almost 20 years later, became Undersecretary of State again, there wasn’t anyone in charge.Thus Negroponte will be filling a position that Armitage was in last. The position went unfilled because it really is a make-work position. The Deputy Secretary of State’s job is really an internal or political control, or political liability control job within the Secretary of State’s Office. It’s been that way almost forever, since the position was created. Click to join catapultthepropaganda http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catapultthepropaganda/join Click to join openmindopencodenews http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindopencodenews/join It is really meant to control internal liability of the regime then in power. Or, in the case of Reagan or Bushonian regime, it is meant to control general Bushonian liability.Negroponte will become head of FNCO. You will notice, under Bushonian regimes that a Bush always wants control of the Foreign Narcotics Control Office of the State Department. Why? Because of the cash flow. Because it is FNCO that controls most narcotic-growing regions on the ground. Much more so than the CIA does. Because that is their mandate. When you hear the word ‘foreign narcotic control office,’ that’s precisely what it means.They’re on the ground in Afghanistan and throughout Central and South America. Their real function is to coordinate with the host government anti-narcotic spending, (not efforts) not only the regime, wherein they are based, but, more specifically, they have a huge degree of control over U.S. anti-narcotic aid, which is what’s important. FNCO has a great deal of control over the borders of the countries in which they operate, and really have de facto control of what narcotics are allowed to move out and where they’re allowed to move to.You will see, in the Reagan Bush Regime, that wherever this regime goes militarily, FNCO soon follows. Afghanistan or anyplace that produces or has the capability to produce narcotics -- you’re going to find the Foreign Narcotics Control Office there. And then you’re going to also find, as was the case in Afghanistan, an increased CIA presence. I think one reason Negroponte was moved over is because heroin income has been falling in the United States. We wrote about this previously on AlMartinRaw.com, anticipating that there would be a surge of heroin importation in the United States after the Bush Cheney Regime effectively occupied Afghanistan. And, indeed, there was.For the rest of this exclusive analysis and more columns by political-economic analyst Al Martin, subscribe to Al Martin Raw.com (Political, Economic and Financial Intelligence) * AL MARTIN is an independent economic-political analyst with 25 years of experience as a trader on NYMEX, CME, CBOT and CFTC. As a former contributor to the Presidential Council of Economic Advisors, Al Martin is considered to be a source of independent analysis for financially sophisticated and market savvy investors.After working as a broker on Wall Street, Al Martin was involved in the so-called "Iran Contra" Affair as a fundraiser for the Bush Cabal from the covert side of government aka the US Shadow Government.His memoir, "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider," (http://www.almartinraw.com) provides an unprecedented look at the frauds of the Bush Cabal during the Iran Contra era. His weekly column, "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway," is published on Al Martin Raw.comAl Martin's website "Insider Intelligence" Insider Intelligence provides a long term macro-view of world markets and how they are affected by backroom realpolitik, as well as weekly market trading recommendations. Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.=
[cia-drugs] Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16772560/ Are Saudis waging an oil-price war on Iran? Falling fuel costs probably not a coincidence, oil traders say ANALYSIS By Robert Windrem Investigative producer NBC News Updated: 20 minutes ago Oil traders and others believe that the Saudi decision to let the price of oil tumble has more to do with Iran than economics. Their belief has been reinforced in recent days as the Saudi oil minister has steadfastly refused calls for a special meeting of OPEC and announced that the nation is going to increase its production, which will send the price down even farther. Saudi Oil Minister Ibrahim al-Naimi even said during a recent trip to India that oil prices are headed in the "right direction." Not for the Iranians. Moreover, the traders believe the Saudis are not doing this alone, that the other Sunni-dominated oil producing countries and the U.S. are working together, believing it will hurt majority-Shiite Iran economically and create a domestic crisis for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose popularity at home is on the wane. The traders also believe (with good reason) that the U.S. is trying to tighten the screws on Iran financially at the same time the Saudis are reducing the Islamic Republic's oil revenues. For the Saudis, who fear Iran's religious, geopolitical and nuclear aspirations, the decision to lower the price of oil has a number of benefits, the biggest being to deprive Iran of hard currency. It also may create unrest in a country that is its rival on a number of levels and permits the Saudis to show the U.S. that military action may not be necessary. The Saudis firmly and publicly deny this, saying it's all about economics. Not everyone believes them. "If under normal circumstances, the price of oil was falling this dramatically [17% in the last few months], Saudi Arabia would have already called for a special OPEC meeting," says one oil trader. "It's got to be something else and that something else has to be Iran." Costs higher in Iran The trader notes that Iran, OPEC's second largest producer, is "in trouble" both in the short and long term. Iran's oil reserves, he notes, are declining more rapidly than Saudi Arabia's and are more difficult to extract. While a barrel of oil costs the Saudis $2-3 to get out of the ground and to market, that same barrel costs Iran as much as $15-18. "Iran does have some oil that costs them $8-10 but most of it is in that upper range," he said. Moreover, Iran has a large domestic market for oil, particularly fuel oil, which Saudi Arabia, with its smaller population and milder climate, does not. Perhaps more important, because Iran has limited refining capability, it must import more than 40 percent its gasoline, making it the second largest importer of gasoline in the world after the United States, according to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Agency. And since Iran sells gasoline at a rate comparable to the rest of the Gulf states - around 33 cents a gallon - it must subsidize the price on a massive scale. In fact, say traders, Iran is paying about $1.50 per gallon to subsidize domestic gasoline consumption - the world market price of gasoline minus the tiny price per gallon - a practice that is costing Iran billions of dollars annually and eating up most of the state-run oil company's discretionary funds. Iran has other problems that make it vulnerable. Inflation is officially running at 17 percent, the highest since the revolution, and unemployment is at 11 percent. U.S. intelligence, though, believes the real figures are much higher, with inflation as high as 50 percent and joblessness much higher among the country's restless youth). In addition, capital outflow is estimated at $50 billion annually and budget deficits are a chronic problem, leading to overseas borrowing. And none of this takes into account the possibility that the United Nations will impose harsher sanctions if Iran continues its work on nuclear weapons technology. Political fallout There are domestic political consequences to such a convergence, note traders and officials in both the U.S. and Iran. Ahmadinejad was elected on campaign promises that he would end corruption and better distribute the nation's oil wealth. He has been unable to do either; now, with declining oil revenues, his job will be even more difficult. One sign of this is the street demonstrations he has faced each time his administration has so much as floated the suggestion of a small increase in the price of gasoline. To counter his inability to fulfill his domestic promises, Ahmadinejad has played the nationalism/nuclear card, accusing the West of trying to stifle Iran's legitimate energy needs. How long and how successfully he can play these cards is debatable. Municipal elections last month unveiled a lot of dissatisfaction as opposition parties swept through municipal majlises throughout
[cia-drugs] N.Y. scanners spark union cries of "geoslavery"
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-01-26T195830Z_01_N25259138_RTRUKOC_0_US-WORK-SCANNERS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 N.Y. scanners spark union cries of "geoslavery" By Michelle Nichols NEW YORK (Reuters) - Every morning Dennis Colson, a surveyor at New York City's Department of Design and Construction, begins his work day by placing his hand on a scanner to log his time and attendance at the office. The use of hand geometry and other biometric data, like facial and iris recognition, is not new -- the University of Georgia pioneered the use of hand geometry when it installed scanners in its student dining hall in 1974. But the planned roll-out of hand geometry scanners in all New York City government agencies has sparked union cries of "geoslavery" and assertions that technology developed for security will be used to track, label and control workforces. "It's frustrating, it's kind of an insult," Colson, 53, told Reuters. "They are talking about going to voice and retina scanners and that's an invasion of privacy in that they can track you wherever you go." Jon Forster, of the Civil Service Technical Guild, which represents Department of Design and Construction workers, said the biometric systems gave the city a license to obtain personal, uniquely identifiable data to track workers. "It's really a matter of this kind of technology having far outstripped any legislation or even case law in the United States in terms of what are the restrictions," Forster told Reuters. "On the one hand I think people might all agree that if you put a GPS system in ambulances then that's a good thing. On the other hand you have an employer in Ohio who has demanded that two of his employees have chips implanted in their bodies." "If these are the extremes, the question is where does the line get drawn?" he said. "The unions' arguments keep changing, but the tracking workers throughout the day is not true. It's just for clicking in and out," said Stu Loeser, spokesman for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, adding that there were no plans to install voice recognition or iris scanners. IS HAND GEOMETRY THE REAL PROBLEM? Biometrics expert Jim Wayman, who consults for the U.S., British and Australia governments, said mobile phones and credit cards were the "No. 1 enemies" for workers worried about geoslavery, not biometrics. "There may be large forces at work in western society wishing to enslave the workforce. I want to acknowledge that fear. But hand geometry is not part of this," Wayman, who has studied biometrics for more than two decades, told Reuters. He said monitoring computer and phone usage were the "tools by which an employer would seek to enslave the workforce -- it would not be done through biometrics." In 2004, U.S. employers reportedly spent $9 billion on monitoring devices for the workplace, while a 2005 survey by American Management Association and The ePolicy Institute found 76 percent of companies monitor workers Web site use. The survey of 526 U.S. companies also showed 36 percent of employers track computer content, keystrokes and time spent at the keyboard, while half store and review employees' computer files and 55 percent retain and review e-mail messages. Only 5 percent used GPS in phones and 8 percent used GPS in company vehicles, while fingerprint scanning only accounted for 5 percent, facial recognition 2 percent and iris scans 0.5 percent. "Most people in the industry are surprised that biometrics devices have not become more widespread already," Wayman said. "There is a 40 year history of implementation of biometric devices, but use of these devices has never become widely popular and one of the reasons is they are thoroughly expensive to use and it's not clear the cost savings in their use."
[cia-drugs] E. Howard Hunt and JFK
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper/0701/20070125_Thu_Piper.ram An interesting thesis not one nazi was involved
