how Americans have been conditioned to "trust" a very corrupt "System."

the controversial USA Patriot Act undermine the U.S. Constitution, Bush screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper

THIS IS TREASON!!!!
HELLO........ Nancy {and all you overpaid LAZY scheming Congressional no good CORRUPT BASTARDS!!!..you guys are SICK!!! HOW DARE YOU! Bush you poor thing...your pathtic..you don't know better...Uneducated DRUNK COKE HEAD!!! Good Job Bush...YOUR A JOKE! TV makes fun of your SAD EXISTENSE..your punishment is being you..RETARDED DRUNK and STUPID!---------- Forwarded Message ----------
US Financial System Corrupt!

As each day passes, we are hearing of more US corporate and financial frauds and scandals.
Wake up all you trusting souls out there before it's too late!

I describe how Americans have been conditioned to "trust" a very corrupt "System."
Then I outline the corruption that permeates the entire "System." HELLO!! The ENTIRE SYSTEM!
Then I focus on the corruption in the financial markets: the illegal naked short selling process; and the federal agency, the SEC, that is failing to perform its prescribed duty to oversee the securities markets and to enforce the federal laws
Finally, I list the necessary action that you can take to both safeguard your own financial well-being and to help eradicate the corrupt "System."
My script is aligned with Ron Paul in regards to the following:
1. The "trusting" nature of the US populace has allowed "special interests" to take control of the US government.
2. The US Constitution has been/is being breached by those "special interests" in the US government.
3. Our entire "system" is corrupt.
4. Before any real change can occur, that entire corrupt "system" must be eradicated.
5. Both the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System and the Federal Reserve Banking System are fractional systems and therefore are the cause of our financial crisis.
6. The proposed "bailouts" are worthless.
Please bring my script to the attention of Ron Paul as it complements his agenda for the aforementioned reasons.
Then Ron Paul's technicians could create from my script a YouTube video that would encompass titles, stock footage, and animation. Ron Paul would narrate the script.

Wake up all you trusting souls out there before it's too late!
If you continue to "trust" the untrustworthy, you might wake up one fine day to find that everything you have ever worked for has disappeared.
For example, if you are a twentysomething hotshot market trader, the beach houses, the sports cars, and the exotic vacations have all gone poof.
If you are a thirtysomething married couple, your dream house and the college tuition for your two daughters have gone south.
Or if you are a fiftysomething married couple, your retirement nest egg has vanished into thin air.
You don't believe it.
Fantasy, you say.
Can't happen in the United States.
Keep watching!
Because the word "trust" will be repeated throughout this video, and in fact is the keynote of this video, it needs to be defined.
According to the dictionary, "trust" is defined as "the firm belief in the honesty and reliability of another."
So who are these untrustworthy entities that you mistakenly believe are honest and reliable?
Let's begin with the President of the United States, George W. Bush.
You have been conditioned to "trust" that the President of the United States is performing his prescribed duty of enforcing the laws. And you have been conditioned to "trust" that the President of the United States is adhering to his sworn oath of office which is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Are you aware that when a presidential aide of President George W. Bush told him that provisions of the controversial USA Patriot Act undermine the U.S. Constitution, Bush allegedly screamed, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper.”
Are you aware that if George W. Bush did in fact make that statement, he has violated the oath or affirmation of office of the President of the United States?
Remember the definition of "trust?"
Do you still "trust" that President George W. Bush is "honest and reliable?"
Next you "trust" that the members of the Congress of the United States are legislating fair laws and adhering to their sworn oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States--that being the same Congress that passed the USA Patriot Act, a blatantly dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen under the guise of fighting terrorism and, as one brave aid told President Bush, undermines the Constitution of the United States.
At least two U.S. District Federal Judges have already ruled that at least two provisions of the U.S. Patriotic Act are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Federal Judge Victor Marrero ruled that the FBI's use of secret "national security letters" to demand data violates the First Amendment and constitutional provisions on the separation of powers and therefore ordered the FBI to stop its wide use of a warrantless tactic for obtaining e-mail and telephone data from private companies for counterterrorism investigations.
Furthermore, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.
Do you still "trust" that Congress is "honest and reliable?"
Then you "trust" the Federal Courts to impartially interpret the laws.
And finally you "trust" the various quasi-judicial governmental agencies that have been created pursuant to the various Acts of Congress to perform their prescribed duties which are to enforce the federal laws. In essence, you "trust" the entire "System."
Do you still think that is a wise choice?
Now let's examine 2 situations: one in which "trust" is involved; and one in which "trust" is not involved:
When you purchase something that is tangible like an automobile, you do not require that the seller guarantees the existence of the automobile because you can readily see for yourself that it exists. So "trust" is not involved.
Conversely, when you purchase something that is intangible like shares of stock in a company, you do not usually require that the seller guarantees the existence of the shares of stock even though you can't see them. Therefore you "trust" that they actually exist. So "trust" is involved.
But, in fact, do those shares of stock actually exist?
Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.
And this is why.
In a normal legal settlement process, buyers buy shares of stock that sellers own at the time of the purchase.
In a normal legal setlement process, all shares of stock are held in the Depository Trust Company (DTC). When buyers buy shares of stock, their brokers' account ledgers are credited the exact number of shares of the purchase of the stock; likewise, when sellers sell stock, their brokers' account ledgers are debited the exact number of shares of the sale of the stock.
In a normal legal settlement process, all funds are held in the National System Clearing Corporation (NSCC). As soon as the buyers' funds are credited to the sellers' accounts, the NSCC alerts the DTC and the buyers' account ledgers are updated to show ownership of the stock.
Therefore those shares of stock actually exist.
No problem so far.
In a legal short selling settlement process, buyers buy shares of stock that sellers do not own at the time of the purchase.
The sellers then borrow the shares from legitimate owners' brokers in the DTC and then use those shares to make good on their short sale when it comes time to credit shares to the buyers.
Therefore those shares of stock actually exist.
No problem still.
In an illegal naked short selling settlement process, buyers buy shares of stock that sellers do not own at the time of the purchase.
But this is where the illegal naked short selling process deviates from the legal short selling process. These sellers borrow no shares. In place of the shares, the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System (System) creates IOUs, which in essence are illegal counterfeited shares, about which the buyers are never told. Therefore the buyers receive IOUs/counterfeited shares, in exchange for their real funds. In essence, the System creates the IOUs/counterfeited shares which in turn creates failures to deliver(FTD).
Therefore those shares of stock are nonexistent.
A problem exists now!
So the questions that naturally arise are:
Which governmental agency is allowing the problem to fester by failing to perform its prescribed duty to oversee the securities markets and to enforce the federal laws?
And why is it doing so?
Let's examine the "System" further and find out.
The U. S. Congress enacted the Securities Act of 1933 in the aftermath of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and during the ensuing Great Depression that was caused by the Crash. It requires that any offer or sale of securities using the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce be registered pursuant to the 1933 Act, unless an exemption from registration exists under the law.
The Securities Act of 1933 has two basic objectives:
1. to require that investors receive significant (or “material”) information concerning securities being offered for public sale; 2. to prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities to the public.
The relevant phrases pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 are "any offer or sale of securities using the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce be registered" and "prohibit deceit, misrepresentations, and other fraud in the sale of securities to the public."
Then U. S. Congress enacted the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 which is a law governing what is and what is not legal in the secondary trading of securities.
The relevant phrase pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934is "the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions."
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), a quasi-judicial governmental agency, was created pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The SEC is the principal federal agency responsible for oversight of the securities markets and for enforcement of the federal securities laws.
Therefore the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System, the NSCC and the DTC, the participating brokerages, and the naked short sellers such as the hedge funds are clearly in direct violation of numerous provisions in both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Furthermore, the Securities and Exchange Commission is clearly guilty of complicity by failing to perform its prescribed duties which are to oversee the securities markets and to enforce the federal securities laws.
Moreover, the SEC attempts to hide its complicity in the collusion and attempts to protect the wrongdoers by creating worthless laws, such as Regulation SHO, that are rife with loopholes.
The SEC enacted Regulation SHO in January 2005 to target abusive naked short selling by reducing failure to deliver securities. It states that a broker or dealer may not accept a short sale order without having first borrowed or identified the stock being sold. A major loophole in Reg SHO exempts the market makers from being required to locate stock before selling short because, according to the SEC, naked short selling, when transacted by the market makers, contributes to market liquidity.
Before we can address that loophole, we must first examine what a market is.
All markets are simple. Their primary purpose is to distribute, at a reasonable price, a limited supply of stocks, commodities, widgets, or whatever to those buyers who want it the most. They do that by finding and then defining the exact price in which, at any given moment, an absolute balance exists between the buyers and the sellers.
In other words, all markets are created when two or more people have an equal agreement on price and an equal disagreement on value.
For example, Buyer A bids $10 for 1 share of XYZ company. Seller A asks $10 for 1 share of XYZ company.
Both Buyer A and Seller A have an equal agreement on price: they both agree on the price of $10.
Both Buyer A and Seller A have an equal disagreement on value: they both value what they want more than what they have; Buyer A obviously values 1 share of XYZ company more than $10; and Seller A values $10 more than 1 share of XYZ company.
Furthermore, $10 is the exact price in which an absolute balance exists between Buyer A and Seller A.
In essence, Buyer A and Seller A have just created a market. And that is the natural market process.
But now the SEC attempts to rationalize the loophole it creates in Reg SHO, and in the process circumvents the natural market process by posting on its website under "Division of Market Regulation: Key Points About Regulation SHO" the following: "market makers stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers. Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time. Because it may take a market maker considerable time to purchase or arrange to borrow the security, a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares."
Stop this tape now and go back and listen again to my explanation of the natural market process.
Now listen again to the SEC's pathetic rationalization and compare it with my explanation of the natural market process and you can readily see how the SEC's rationalization is totally illogical and how it conflicts with my explanation of a natural market process.
1. SEC's illogical rationalization: "market makers stand ready to buy and sell the security on a regular and continuous basis at a publicly quoted price, even when there are no other buyers or sellers."
Pertinent question: If "there are no other buyers or sellers," who are the market makers going to sell to or buy from?
2. SEC's illogical rationalization: "Thus, market makers must sell a security to a buyer even when there are temporary shortages of that security available in the market. This may occur, for example if there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time."
Natural market process: "If there is a sudden surge in buying interest in that security, or if few investors are selling the security at that time" simply means an imbalance exists between buyers and sellers because they disagree on price and agree on value. In a natural market process, the price of the stock will rise to the point in which the buyers and sellers have an equal agreement on price and an equal disagreement on value.
The following is from SEC's own website: "Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, abusive short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading in a security or to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales effected to manipulate the price of a stock are prohibited."
Therefore what the SEC alleges "contributes to market liquidity" are just "abusive short sale practices" and are "illegal" because they artificially "manipulate the price of a stock" and should be "prohibited."
3. SEC's illogical rationalization: "a market maker engaged in bona fide market making, particularly in a fast-moving market, may need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares."
Pertinent question: Why would a "market maker," "particularly in a fast-moving market" which of course indicates numerous buyers and sellers (otherwise the market would NOT be "fast-moving"), "need to sell the security short without having arranged to borrow shares?"
Furthermore the SEC solidifies its complicity in the collusion by deciding that, after a year of comments pertaining to the market maker exemption loophole, more comments are needed.
As Bob O'Brien asserts, "Yep. Seems that, as if allowing one sort of participant to print stock out of thin air, as often as they like, solely in order for the participant's customers to have inexpensive options pricing in dangerously overshorted issues, WASN'T ENOUGH REASON TO SHUT THE EXEMPTION DOWN IMMEDIATELY. No, a long study was necessary, while every day countless investors were harmed and companies destroyed. The result, that indeed the companies and investors were being hosed by the options market makers, now goes out for comment yet an umpteenth time."
As Bud Burrell asserts in a recent interview: "Regulation SHO is a Fraud. They [SEC} Grandfathered failures to deliver after they looked at the failures at the systemic level they realized they could not force all the failures to settle in the market place without essentially wiping out the Brokerage industry and the Hedge Funds. The List was fraudulent did not list all the stocks that had these persistant FTD's.
"The Brokers realized the way to hide their Fails or to create Naked Shorts so that they couldnt be seen was to do them outside of the system of the Depository Trust custody and clearing system which is a Monopoly in this country in a thing called Ex-Clearing."
So why is the Securities and Exchange Commission failing to perform its prescribed duties, hiding its complicity in the collusion, and protecting the wrongdoers?
Because the SEC is being controlled by the same entity, the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System, that it is supposed to be overseeing.
Therefore do you "trust" that the Securities and Exchange Commission is "honest and reliable?"
Furthermore, the wrongdoers who own the fractional U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System also own the Federal Reserve System and control the Internal Revenue Service.
Therefore do you "trust" that the fractional U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System, the fractional Federal Reserve System, and the Internal Revenue Service are "honest and reliable?"
By the way, Ron Paul was the only presidential candidate who understands the workings of the corrupt "System," and who is not being controlled by it. He advocates the elimination of the fractional Federal Reserve Banking System and the Internal Revenue Service.
So what are the adverse effects on companies that have been illegally naked shorted?
Under the Securities Act of 1933, publicly traded companies are the only entities that are authorized to issue stock. That Act preserves the integrity of the stock of the publicly traded companies and protects the rights of its shareholders to vote and to receive dividends.
When IOUs/counterfeited shares are allowed to trade alongside legitimately registered and issued shares, the normal operation of the markets is skewed because the natural relationship between supply and demand no longer exists.
Furthermore, the company that issues the legitimate stock is irrevocably harmed because that stock is its currency to be used for compensation, acquisitions, collateral for debt, capital raises, etc. When the price of a stock is depressed artificially due to IOUs/counterfeited shares increasing supply in the face of fixed or limited demand, the value of the company's stock (its currency) is depressed. That damages the company and its shareholders in precisely the same way as counterfeiting money harms the general populace.
Taser International, Inc. is an example of just one company that has been harmed by the illegal naked short selling process.
The legal consortium of The O'Quinn Law Firm and Christian Smith & Jewell, both of Houston, Texas and Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP of Atlanta, Georgia filed a Complaint in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia on behalf of certain shareholders of TASER International Inc. against eight of the largest Wall Street firms, including Bank of America Securities LLC, Bear Stearns Securities Corp., Credit Suisse USA Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., UBS Securities LLC.
Furthermore, the Complaint accuses the defendant firms of violating Georgia's Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act. "These are not isolated incidents: we believe the trading data evidences an ongoing and coordinated effort to violate securities and other laws," stated Attorney Wes Christian.
Bloomberg.com did an excellent special report entitled "Phantom Shares" in which it explains stock manipulation and NSS.
In the special report, Patrick M. Byrne , CEO of Overstock.com, describes how his company was victimized by stock manipulation and NSS.
video link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4490541725797746038
transcript link
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEOpTqmLZB7A
Both the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System and the Federal Reserve Banking System are fractional systems and therefore are built on, here is that word again, "trust."
The U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System "trusts" that shareholders who own shares of stock in a particular company will not all request their certificates simultaneously; but unfortunately for the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System, their fractional Settlement System was exposed when shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., did all request their certificates simultaneously and by doing so proved FTD in the trillions (the DTCC ridiculously claims FTD are less than 500 million for the entire market). And shareholders who have purchased shares of stock in a particular company "trust" that all of their shares will be available when they request them; but the U.S. Stock Clearing and Settlement System has violated the "trust" of shareholders of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., by failing to deliver the certificates to all the shareholders because those certificates were counterfeited and are therefore nonexistent.
Likewise, the Federal Reserve Banks "trust" that their customers will not all withdraw their money simultaneously; but unfortunately for the Federal Reserve Banks, their fractional banking system was exposed when their customers did all attempt to withdraw their money simultaneously as evidenced by the 1929 Stock Market Crash and subsequent panic and run on the the Federal Reserve Banks that ultimately caused The Great Depression. And the customers who place their money in Federal Reserve Banks "trust" that all of their money will be available when they want to withdraw it; but the Federal Reserve Banks have violated the "trust" of their customers, as evidenced by the panic and run on the Federal Reserve Banks in 1929, by failing to deliver the money to their customers because it was counterfeited and therefore was nonexistent.
G. Edward Griffin wrote an excellent book, "The Creature from Jekyll Island," in which in he details the secret meeting on Jekyll Island in Georgia at which the fractional Federal Reserve Banking System was conceived.
So the entire "System" is corrupt; and therefore you would be unwise to "trust" any governmental entity or organization.
As Bud Burrell asserts: "Markets in the USA are corrupt top to bottom, front to back."
Because the money that you have invested in the stock market might be in jeopardy, you should now be prepared, if you were not so previously, to take the necessary action to protect your investments.
First, read this Press Release concerning CMKM Diamonds, Inc., and its ongoing quest to try and identify all of its shareholders.
http://www.tradingmarkets.com/.site/news/Stock%20News/1670552/
Next, if you believe that any shares of stock that you own might be counterfeit, go to the following site and register.
http://www.unshareholder.com/
You can both safeguard your own financial well-being and help to eradicate the corrupt "System" by taking the necessary action now.
Once again, America’s disgustingly underhanded government has failed its people, this time bailing out greedy financial brokerage firms without jailing the criminals involved. If the Savings & Loan/ Enron scandals didn’t wake up brain-dead Americans, who, like unsuspecting pigs going to a slaughterhouse, accept higher tolls, taxes, and a dire two-party system with little justification, then I’m sure the fraudulent bald-headed dick-shortened Ivy League turds responsible for America’s brokerage collapse will escape jail time.

watch Corruption report / Real broadband - download - Download (Real) watch Corruption report / Real broadband - download - Watch (Real) watch Corporate Corruption report / Real dialup - download - Download (Real) watch Corporate Corruption report / Real dialup - download - Watch (Real)
Enron and Worldcom often come to mind as prime examples of corporate corruption. But some analysts say corruption in the business world is more common and less sensational than most people think. Mil Arcega continues VOA's series on corruption with a look at the cost of corporate misdeeds in America and around the world.
U.S.-based energy trading firm Enron reported earnings of more than $100 billion in 2000. So when Enron collapsed a year later, the financial community was stunned.
Employees lost jobs and pensions. Some investors lost their entire life savings in what became the largest bankruptcy in American history. Top Enron officials were later found guilty of fraudulent accounting practices and of trying to hide hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.
Worldcom was next. The telecommunications company was once among the most powerful in the world. But a 2002 investigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission found company officials had inflated the value of the company's assets by 11 billion dollars.
A string of other cases followed, including revelations of executive excess at Tyco International - a multinational manufacturing conglomerate - and insider trading by television personality Martha Stewart.
The abuses led to new accounting standards , but Wendell Rawls, who heads the Center for Public Integrity in Washington DC, says corporate corruption is nothing new.
"This has been going on for 150 years," he said. "The Rockefellers, the JP Morgans of the world, the Vanderbilts of the world - they were all doing the same thing in the late 1800's, in the early 20th century. They made huge profits. That's the reason they were calling them the robber barons."
Kimberly ElliottKimberly Elliott wrote a book on corruption in the global economy. She says corporate misdeeds extend beyond America's shores.
"Some European countries used to allow their corporations to take tax deductions for bribes," she noted. "That was, in fact, a normal way for doing business. That is no longer allowed."
Wang XuebingBanker Wang Xuebing, once regarded as a leader in efforts to modernize China, was convicted in 2003 for taking bribes and expensive gifts at the Bank of China's New York office. Wang was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay $20 million in fines.
Earlier this year, Hyundai Motor Corporation chairman Chung Mong-koo was arrested by South Korean authorities for allegedly embezzling millions of dollars.
Analysts say there's no way to estimate the true cost of corruption. But author Kimberly Elliott says its impact on societies is clear.
"You really can see it very qualitatively in countries where sick people in poor countries don't get medicine because it's been shifted off to the black market and sold or you don't get teachers showing up in schools unless they're paid by parents to show up and teach their children," she added. "You see it in cement plants that are built and never operate, because they weren't really needed."
Wendell RawlsCorruption's effects are different, but just as pervasive, in developed countries. "Corporate corruption leads to higher prices," added Wendell Rawls. "Corporate corruption leads to less efficiency. Corporate corruption leads to a reduced share price. Corporate corruption reduces your pension benefits. Corporate corruption means there's less profit usually because they spend more money on legal fees to protect themselves against prosecutions."
And it can cause markets to decline as Peter Morici, an Economics Professor at the University of Maryland, explains.
Peter Morici"These corporate scandals - Enron, Tyco and the others - they together caused stock market values to come down as a group," he noted.
Despite the impact on stock markets, Morici described the reforms that followed as "overzealous." He points out that Enron officials were convicted on regulations that were already in place before U.S. lawmakers changed the law to make chief executives, board members and auditors more accountable.
"We don't need to micromanage America's accountants by putting a federal auditor over their shoulders through regulation every step of the way as we are doing now," he explained.
Wendell Rawls, who won a Pultizer Prize for investigative journalism, believes tougher laws are necessary, but he says the best way to reduce corruption is to expose it.
"You have to shine lights in the corners and expose those who are trying to cut corners and those who are trying to skirt the law and you have to make government accountable at every level," he said. "You have to make anybody who profits on the backs of the American people or the people of the world, accountable for how they're making their money and who they are abusing and how they are abusing them."
Analysts say the Enron case revealed that many of the nation's most successful companies during the stock market bubble of the 1990's were far less substantial than they seemed. A former federal prosecutor said it's important to expose and punish those responsible for corporate misdeeds in order to restore investor confidence.

Like rich assholes dumb enough to lose houses, cars, and millions at gambling tables, defunct brokerage firms such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and their lower-rung crooks will walk away from the current credit problem they created with nary a slap on the wrist. How appalling! Put a poor black man in jail for selling cocaine (usually to the same corporate scum causing America’s financial collapse), but allow the presidents and corporate board members of these disdainful brokerage houses to keep ill-gained millions in profits without reparation. Fuck these creepy overeducated brokerage cretins and let the same black men jailed for mere drug trafficking rape their ugly cornholes in prison while they cry in pain. That’s justification.
I hate the fucking jerkoffs running this dumbed-down country with a passion (Bush, Cheney, pussy democrats) and despise what they’ve done to ruin America’s society and corporate infrastructure. I’d never dream of asking what I could do for this country now since its government rapes me out of thousands in taxes every year for unworthy causes and the shrill lobbyists put in place to kill off independent candidates who’d end their reign. And I’m even more sick of America’s Lowest Common Denominator scum always falling for the stupid shit overpaid lobbyists’ candidates dump on the wretched proletariat. Chances are you are one of the lazy, overweight LCD scum suffering from two-party fraud and the criminal brokers lowering your meager stock-bond portfolios.
I tried for fucking years to help dumber LCD scum, joining college committees, chambers of commerce, and employee programs, using common sense logic to help these twits survive and lead a better life, but the desperate chum with names in lights (mayors, governors, senators) fooled the public with bold-faced lies. No republican or democratic cares to get anything done correctly until everything fails, such as our current financial system. As long as the LCD scum’s little corner of the world is fine and politicians receive unworthy salaries, the numb-skull proletariat will sit in a box like a veal calf and let an unworthy politician worry about, then destroy America. What dipshits! For this, I pray for the total demise of our LCD scum and feel sorry for their compromised offspring, who will get stuck with an exorbitant future debt demising social security, welfare funding, and bank lending.
NAKED SHORT SELLING SPECULATORS GIVEN FREE REIGN TO RUIN EQUITY MARKET WITH NO RECOURSE
Here’s what fucked up America’s financial system in ’08. Naked short sellers known as crooked money-hungry speculators trading and selling securities, such as common stock, then taking a negative position in stock price hoping for stock decline and personal gain afterwards. These fucking crooked assholes known as naked short sellers, will borrow 1,000 shares of stock at $10 for a $10,000 purchase. These fucking crooked assholes will then buy back the shares when the stock falls to $8 and is worth $8,000. Profit to naked short selling fucking assholes equals $2,000. Banks and brokers (two evil shit-stained lenders only in it for ill-gotten gains) provide money to secure the crooked speculating borrowers so they may sell these stocks to individual buyers, ensuring shares to be delivered. When the crooked speculating brokers ‘fail to deliver’ these stocks to individuals, it creates a loss since the outdated flakes at the Security & Exchange Commission allow three business days for stock delivery on deals that have never been arranged with individuals in the first place. It’s a corrupt method of doing business. What a pile of shit!
Basically, this manipulated maneuver has hurt this so-called ‘greatest country on earth’ (as if we have any competition with the pennywise dollar-stupid Asians and lazy, ignorant Europeans) to the tune of a trillion dollars in corporate draining and bad loans. So now our communistic government plans to purchase the bad loans given to stupid LCD scum by crooked brokers to save face and, later on, rip off these same LCD scum who took out bad adjustable rate mortgages from slimy bankers and brokers connected to short selling slime. America’s dreadfully antiquated two-party system of government could not care less since they’ll make back the money on newer loans meant to fuck over the LCD scum once more.
Similarly, the crooked oil speculators blamed the lower American dollar value against the soon-to-be shrunken Euro for higher gas prices, sucking billions of dollars from the LCD scum for Big Oil profits that our government could then tax and steal more money. These unchecked oil speculators were allowed to go on a rampage, bloating oil’s value by selling bad news (hurricanes, Nigerian extremist fighting, Iranian stupidity) to America’s LCD scum for better oil profit gain. Here’s how it works. An oil speculator falsely creates panic and runs crude oil to $145 in July, then sells the shares and ‘shorts’ the market while manipulating the price down to $93. So these speculative scum have made a fortune on the way up and then another 30% profit ($145 minus $93 equals $53 gain shorting oil) on the way down. This just happened in a two-month period – look it up.
America’s biggest problem is we have too many former or current coke addicts, mostly so-called yuppies, who are ‘chizzlers’ trying to rip you off for profit. Our Security & Exchange Commission allows these fucking brokerage cretins to find holes in their cheesy rules and exploit you, the investor, for their own gain. It’s a simple pump and dump. You get calls from these ‘chizzlers’ when your stock is doing well so they could sap you for more investment money, but they are nowhere to be found when you’re losing money. And they always have a ready excuse at hand if you should finally catch up with these blood-sucking vermin on the way down.
Basically, the arrogant jerkoffs at Lehman, Bear Stearns, and their lower-rung crooks, who’ll be divorced by their sagging trophy wives now that they’ve lost jobs (but won’t face jail time), tried convincing individuals to buy in so they could corruptly manipulate individuals’ cash for personal gain through short selling tricks. What’s worse is how the Security & Exchange Commission changes and manipulates its own rules so two-party politicians could be in on the take and take nifty personal profit gains when the paradigm shifts. These scummy politicians then become the first ones to invest in the markets’ newfound profits before the public does.
Do yourself a favor and don’t let some overpaid Ivy League jerkoff convince you how to invest properly. I’ve dealt with these losers but never let them manipulate my accounts. They have no proper educational knowledge to understand the financial markets since most of their professors have no street knowledge or personal experience to relay. Most of these Ivy League jerkoffs only got into their once-prestigious schools because they are legacies. And I really mean, once-prestigious schools, since that dumb-ass Bush and fatty-fucker Clinton graduated from these despicable overpriced Ivy League mess halls. Want some help: buy Colgate Palmolive, Johnson & Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, and two months before Christmas, Apple and RIMM. There. I’ve sanctified your horridly blackened soul. I’ve profited on these worthy stocks and several others over time while making a killing on failed internet IPO’s (bought and sold in a week) during 1999 – before Prez Clinton’s phony economic uplift failed miserably and the NASDAQ index crumbled from 5,000 to 2,000. But I paid dues, too. I worked as an operations manager and independent columnist while obtaining a Real Estate Brokers License, semi-retiring in 2001 at age 40. I once believed in the American dream, which has now become nothing but the American scheme. I was driven to succeed by my absolute hatred of the blathering LCD scum, ruinous government officials, and rancid brokerage frauds crowding this formerly great, and now grating, country. And I won’t be happy until the corporate scum that once headed Lehman, Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual, and other financial corporate giants get serious jail time for misrepresenting their firms and the LCD scum.
Meanwhile, get ready to meet the new boss (Mc Cain), same as the old boss (Bush-Clinton). Sad sacks. I pity this fucking country and all it’s done to ruin its youthful foundation through corporate fraud, financial corruption, and mortgaged futures while allowing those in charge of crooked financial firms to roam streets safely

GIVE US A BREAK!!!!

US Financial System Corrupt!

As each day passes, we are hearing of more US corporate and financial frauds and scandals. The current crisis is giving credibility to the view that the whole financial system in the US is corrupt and the white collar crooks have been getting away with it because they, themselves, have been treated as the 'gatekeepers' to the system... but instead, they have abused their positions of trust... and now the whole world is paying for it.The real question is this... has the US government started building all the prisons it will need, to house all the corporate crooks of the US who have brought the US financial system into disrepute and who have caused untold damage to the US?Financial giants revealed potential losses of almost ï¿¡4 billion today as they joined a queue of investors caught up in an alleged fraud by investment manager Bernard Madoff.The Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC and Abbey owner Santander as well as France's BNP Paribas and Japan's Nomura Holdings all reported they had fallen victim to Madoff's alleged 50-billion US dollar (ï¿¡33 billion) pyramid scheme.The Wunderkinder charity connected to film director Steven Spielberg and the foundation of Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel were also reportedly among the investors.Madoff, 70, a well respected investment manager and former chairman of New York's Nasdaq stock exchange, was arrested last week after apparently telling his employees his operations were "all just one big lie" and "basically, a giant Ponzi scheme".A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment vehicle which pays very high returns to existing investors paid for by money put into the fund by newcomers.The arrest has raised questions about the competence of financial regulators.Hedge fund giant Man Group said: "Based on information available to date, it appears that a systematic and comprehensive fraud may have been committed, evading a range of structural controls."The company, which said it had approximately 360 million US dollars (ï¿¡239 million) of exposure, said Madoff Securities was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which monitors investment funds.Madoff Securities was also a member of five self-regulatory organisations, including US independent securities regulator Finra and the Nasdaq.Nicola Horlick, who manages Bramdean Alternatives, which had 9% of its funds invested with Madoff's scheme, said the SEC had given it a "clean bill of health".
Profile: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was a participant or observer in the following events:

Early September 2001: Unusually High Volume Trade of US Treasury Note Purchases

After 9/11, both the SEC and the Secret Service announce probes into an unusually high volume trade of five-year US Treasury note purchases around this time. These transactions include a single $5 billion trade. The Wall Street Journal explains: “Five-year Treasury notes are among the best investments in the event of a world crisis, especially one that hits the US. The notes are prized for their safety and their backing by the US government, and usually rally when investors flee riskier investments, such as stocks.” The value of these notes has risen sharply since the events of September 11. The article also points out that with these notes, “tracks would be hard to spot.” [Wall Street Journal, 10/2/2001]
Entity Tags: Securities and Exchange Commission, Secret Service
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Early September 2001: NYSE Sees Unusually Heavy Trading in Airline and Related Stocks

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) later announces that they are investigating the trading of shares of 38 companies in the days just before 9/11. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the New York Stock Exchange sees “unusually heavy trading in airline and related stocks several days before the attacks.” All 38 companies logically stand to be heavily affected by the attacks. They include parent companies of major airlines American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, Southwest, United, and US Airways as well as cruise lines Carnival and Royal Caribbean, aircraft maker Boeing and defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The SEC is also looking into suspicious short selling of numerous insurance company stocks, but, to date, no details of this investigation have been released. [Associated Press, 10/2/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 10/3/2001]
Entity Tags: Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Stock Exchange
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

Early September 2001: Suspicious Trading in Reinsurance Companies

It will later be speculated that, around this time, people with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks short sell reinsurance company stocks that are insuring either or both the airplanes and the buildings involved in the attacks. Munich Re, the largest European reinsurance company, loses 22 percent of its value in the two month before 9/11, with about half of that taking place in the week before the attacks. German authorities will later alert the Securities and Exchange Commission of “suspect movements” with Munich Re. [Agence France-Presse, 9/17/2001] Suspicious inquiries into the short selling of millions of company shares are made in France days before the attacks. [Reuters, 9/20/2001; San Francisco Chronicle, 9/22/2001] Munich Re stock will plummet after the attacks, as they claim the attacks will cost them $2 billion. [Dow Jones Business News, 9/20/2001] There is also suspicious trading activity involving reinsurers Swiss Reinsurance and AXA. These trades are especially curious because the insurance sector “is one of the brightest spots in a very difficult market” at this time. [Los Angeles Times, 9/19/2001] A source within AXA will later say, “There are indications that the shorting has been going on for some time. People inside the company could not understand why” there had been so much shorting of the stock in recent weeks. “This could give some explanation why the stocks were going down so much when there seemed to be no apparent reason.” AXA shares drop almost 10 percent in the week before 9/11, and will plummet afterwards. The attacks will cost the company up to $400 million because of its coverage of both airplanes and buildings. [Los Angeles Times, 9/18/2001]
Entity Tags: Swiss Reinsurance, AXA, Securities and Exchange Commission, Munich Re
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

After February 2002-January 6, 2005: Justice Department and SEC Investigate Monsanto for Bribery

The Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launch an investigation into allegations that Monsanto representatives paid bribes to Indonesian officials in an effort to advance its business interests there. The Justice Department and SEC were reportedly informed of the suspected bribery by Monsanto itself, which says it launched its own investigation after noticing irregularities in the accounting of its Jakarta-based subsidiary. [Wall Street Journal, 5/27/2004] The investigation lasts about three years. On January 6, 2005, the Justice Department and the SEC announce that Monsanto has agreed to pay a $1 million penalty to the Justice Department, which has charged the company with violating the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company is also ordered to pay $500,000 to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). As part of the settlement, Monsanto will allow an “independent compliance expert” to audit and monitor the company and to ensure there are no further breaches of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The company says it accepts full responsibility and has taken action against those involved. “We accept full responsibility for the improper activities that occurred in connection with our Indonesian affiliates,” says Lori Fisher, one of the company’s spokespersons. “Such behavior is not condoned nor accepted at Monsanto, and the people involved are no longer employed by Monsanto.” [Associated Press, 1/6/2001; Reuters, 1/7/2001; BBC, 1/7/2005; Sunday Herald, 1/9/2005]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Monsanto
Timeline Tags: Seeds

March 2, 2002: Diesel Tanks May Have Destroyed Building and Secret Files on 9/11

A New York Times article theorizes that diesel fuel tanks were responsible for the collapse of Building 7 of the WTC. It collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, even though it was farther away from the Twin Towers than many other buildings that remained standing (see (5:20 p.m.) September 11, 2001). It was the first time a steel-reinforced high-rise in the US had ever collapsed in a fire. One of the fuel tanks had been installed in 1999 (see June 8, 1999) as part of a new “Command Center” for Mayor Rudolph Giuliani. [New York Times, 3/2/2002; Dow Jones Business News, 9/10/2002] However, in interviews, several Fire Department officers who were on the scene say they were not aware of any combustible liquid pool fires in WTC 7. [Fire Engineering, 9/2002] And, according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), between 11:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. on 9/11, “No diesel smells [were] reported from the exterior, stairwells, or lobby areas” of WTC 7. [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 6/2004, pp. L-22 ] Curiously, given all the Wall Street scandals later in the year, Building 7 housed the SEC files related to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. Some were backed up in other places, but many were not, especially those classified as confidential. [New York Law Journal, 9/17/2001] Lost files include documents that could show the relationship between Citigroup and the WorldCom bankruptcy. [Street, 8/9/2002] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected. [New York Law Journal, 9/14/2001] The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost investigative files. Says one agent: “All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building.” [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] The IRS and Department of Defense were also tenants, along with the CIA, which, it has been revealed, had a secret office in Building 7. [CNN, 11/4/2001; New York Times, 11/4/2001; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 5-2; New York Magazine, 3/20/2006] A few days later, the head of the WTC collapse investigation says he “would possibly consider examining” the collapse of Building 7, but by this time all the rubble has already been removed and destroyed. [US Congress, 3/6/2002]
Entity Tags: WorldCom, US Department of Defense, World Trade Center, Secret Service, Securities and Exchange Commission, Citibank, Internal Revenue Service, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

September 10, 2003: SEC, Others Still Keep Mum About Insider Trading Investigations

Slate reports that two years after the 9/11 attacks, neither the Chicago Board Options Exchange nor the Securities and Exchange Commission will make any comment about their investigations into insider trading before 9/11. “Neither has announced any conclusion. The SEC has not filed any complaint alleging illegal activity, nor has the Justice Department announced any investigation or prosecution.… So, unless the SEC decides to file a complaint—unlikely at this late stage—we may never know what they learned about terror trading.” [Slate, 9/10/2003]
Entity Tags: US Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, Chicago Board Options Exchange
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

July 22, 2004: 9/11 Commission Finds No 9/11 Insider Trading

In a footnote contained in its Final Report, the 9/11 Commission dismissed allegations of insider trading in the days preceding 9/11. According to the Final Report, the put options of the parent companies of United Airlines were placed by a “US-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al-Qaeda” “as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” With respect to the highly suspicious trading on the parent company of American Airlines, the Commission stated that much of the trades were “traced to a specific US-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.” According to the Commission, “The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.” [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 499]
Entity Tags: Securities and Exchange Commission, United Airlines, American Airlines, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Al-Qaeda, 9/11 Commission
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
A Little Accounting Background
The most important documents that a company puts together are its financial statements. These include a balance sheet, a cash flow statement, and a profit and loss statement. These documents quantitatively describe the financial health of a company and are used by almost every entity that deals with the company, including the company executives and managers themselves. The following financial statements are usually compiled on a quarterly and annual basis: The New York Stock ExchangeThe balance sheet gives a snapshot or bird's eye view of the company's financial situation at a given date in time. It includes assets and liabilities and tells the business's net worth. The cash flow statement shows cash that is coming in as well as the cash needed to go out over a period of time. It is very helpful for planning for large purchases, or to help be prepared for slow periods in the business. In simple terms, the cash flow equals cash receipts minus cash disbursements. The profit and loss statement (also referred to as an income statement) lists revenues and expenses. It also lists the profit or loss of the business for a given period of time. It is helpful for planning and helps to control operating expenses. Banks review the financial statements to decide if they will lend the company money (and at what interest rate if they choose to lend it). Investors review the documents to decide if they feel confident in the company enough to invest their hard-earned money. Company managers use them to analyze the business and determine how well they are doing. Many others also use the documents, so it is critical that they are accurate. For public companies, these documents are audited by outside accounting firms that certify that the documents are compiled according to generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. These firms are still at the mercy of the information provided by the company, however. They are also interested in keeping their largest customers happy.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
In 2002, President Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act into law to "re-establish investor confidence in the integrity of corporate disclosures and financial reporting" [ref]. The act was brought on by the large number of corporate financial fraud cases (such as those of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Adelphia, AOL, and others) and by the end of the "boom" years for the stock market. The Act requires all public companies to submit both quarterly and annual assessments of the effectiveness of their internal financial auditing controls to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Each company's external auditors must also audit and report on the internal control reports of management and any other areas that may affect internal controls. The company's principal executive officer and principal financial officer must personally certify that the financial reports are true and that everything has been disclosed. Many of the Act's provisions apply to all companies, United States and foreign. However, some provisions apply only to companies that have equity securities listed on an exchange or NASDAQ. The details of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act address many of the tactics companies have used to "cook the books" over the years. In the next few sections, we'll go over some of the more popular methods of improving a company's bottom line -- if only on paper.
Who keeps them all straight?
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) protects investors by maintaining the integrity of the securities markets, based on the idea that all investors should have access to certain basic facts about an investment. The SEC requires public companies to disclose meaningful financial information (and other types of information) to the public so all investors can determine whether or not a company's securities are a good investment. The SEC also oversees stock exchanges, broker-dealers, investment advisors, mutual funds, and public utility holding companies. Each year the SEC files between 400-500 civil enforcement actions against individuals and companies that break securities laws. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB):The Financial Accounting Standards Board establishes standards for financial accounting and reporting. Those standards dictate how financial reports must be prepared. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP):GAAP is the accepted method for accountancy (the practice of accounting). It works with the authority of the FASB and establishes a common set of procedures for compiling financial statements.
Off-Balance Sheet Accounting
With off-balance sheet accounting, a company didn't have to include certain assets and liabilities in its balance sheet -- it was "off-sheet" and therefore not part of their financial statements. We'll talk more later about how the Sarbanes-Oxley Act changed this practice. While there are legitimate reasons for off-balance-sheet accounting, it is often used to make a company look like it has far less debt than it actually does. Some types of off-balance-sheet accounting move debt to a newly created company specifically for that purpose, which was the case with Enron. These are called special purpose entities (SPEs) and are also known as variable interest entities (VIEs). Off-balance-sheet entities can be created for several reasons, such as when a company needs to finance a business venture but doesn't want to take on the risk, or when there is too much debt to get a loan. By starting a new SPE, they can secure a loan through the new entity. There are situations where it makes sense to start an SPE. If your company wants to branch out into another area outside of its core business, an SPE will keep that risk from affecting the main balance sheet and profitability of the company. Prior to 2003, a company could own up to 97 percent of an SPE without having to report the liabilities of the SPE on its balance sheet.
Synthetic Leases
Synthetic leases often use SPEs to hold title to a company's property and lease that property back to the company. Because of off-balance-sheet accounting, synthetic leases allowed companies to reap the tax benefits of ownership without having to list it as a liability on their balance sheets. Synthetic leases could also be signed with some entity other than an SPE. Banks, for example, would often purchase property for businesses and lease it back to them via a synthetic lease. The company leasing the property avoids the liability on the balance sheet but still gets to deduct interest and depreciation from its tax bill.
The End of the Hiding Game
New requirements from the Financial Accounting Standards Board now require SPEs to be listed on a company's balance sheet. Section 401(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that annual and quarterly financial reports disclose all material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements, and obligations. The rules also require most companies to provide an overview of known contractual obligations in an "easy-to-read tabular format" [ref]. This new ruling has essentially ended the days of the SPE and the synthetic lease -- even though they are still legitimate practices. In the next section will talk about how companies manipulate expenses to boost the appearance of earnings.
Expense ManipulationAccelerating Expenses
Accelerating a company's expenses may not seem to be the way to boost the appearance of earnings, but it depends on when those earnings need to be boosted. There are legitimate and illegitimate reasons to accelerate expenses. A legitimate example would be making equipment purchases when earnings are high rather than when they were planned.
Here's an example of a less legitimate earnings acceleration. A manager's bonus is based on his meeting a certain earnings goal. Once the target earning level has been exceeded, that manager might decide to spend money now that was budgeted to be spent in the next year because having higher earnings this year won't mean a bigger bonus for him. Spending money this year that was budgeted for next year, however, could help ensure he meets next year's level as well. While this may seem like the same thing as making purchases when earnings are high, it depends on the circumstances. If making those purchases earlier than planned has no adverse affect on the business, then perhaps there is no problem. In many instances there is an adverse affect, however. For instance, buying computer equipment six months earlier than expected can mean a big difference in the actual equipment purchased -- power, features, and price can all change dramatically.
Delaying Expenses
Companies that are cooking the books have been known to capitalize expenses that are really everyday expenses. AOL was charged with engaging in various acts of securities fraud -- among other things -- between 1992 and 1996. In one part of a larger case, AOL was accused of listing advertising expenses (the cost of creating those CDs and diskettes they send out) as capital expenses rather than regular expenses. This presented a false picture of the company's profitability and boosted the stock price. The disks should have been expensed as they were mailed. In an upcoming case study, you'll see that WorldCom capitalized expenses that should have been operating expenses to the tune of billions of dollars. When companies land a big contract to provide a product or service over a long period of time, they're supposed to spread the revenue over the cost of the service contract. Some companies have been known to show the sale and revenue in the quarter in which the contract was signed. Here are some other examples of premature revenue booking: Recording sales after the products were ordered but before they were shipped to the customer
Recording revenues when the sales involved contingencies that allowed the customer to return the merchandise
Overstating revenues by speeding up the estimated percentage of completion for a project in process
Recording revenues by shipping products that weren't ordered by the customer or by shipping defective products and recording revenues at full rather than discounted prices.
Recording revenues when unassembled products are shipped from the manufacturing plant -- they must set up a separate assembly location and assemble the products before the products can actually go to the customers Trying to improve future earnings by "front loading" future expenses and booking them in the current quarter is another example. This has been done during the acquisition of a company. The company will pay off (or even pre-pay) expenses in order to increase the earnings per share (EPS) over that of previous quarters for the combined company.
Non-recurring Expenses
While this category of expenses was meant for things that would only occur once in order to keep it from affecting regular operating expenses, it has been abused in the world of "managed earnings." By over-budgeting for a "non-recurring" expense, companies have been known to then move the excess money over as earnings.
More Manipulation Methods
In-Process R&D Charge-Offs
Another way companies have increased their earnings per share is through in-process R&D (Research & Development) charge-offs. Here's how it works. A large company buys a small company that has new technology in development. The technology is not yet ready for commercialization, so the large company writes off the related costs. Later on, the technology is further developed and ready for market, but with a much lower R&D expense.
Now the GAAP requires companies to charge off that expense. This charge will reduce earnings and must be disclosed in the financial statements. Operating expenses are the everyday costs of running a business. Capital expenses are business expenses for long-term assets, such as equipment. They are not tax deductible as business expenses, but may be used for depreciation or amortization -- in other words, the expense is somewhat delayed by being stretched over several years.
Pension Plan Manipulation
Many companies have defined benefit pension plans for their employees. These are plans that pay out a specific, defined amount at retirement. Companies are required to maintain enough money in their retirement account to pay benefits to everyone in the event that the company goes out of business. It makes sense for companies to invest that money so it will grow. Rather than investing in something safe like bonds, some companies invest in the stock market. Accounting rules allow any "extra" money that the fund earns to be claimed as company profit. Companies can "estimate" how much it believes the money will grow each year rather than going by actual numbers. They use their estimate to figure how much money they should plan to put into the fund and how much they can consider profit. The potential for companies to inflate their earnings by underestimating the contributions required to fully fund their retirement funds is high. Even assuming a percentage point or less can mean a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars on a company's balance sheet. Many company pension plans have been underfunded because the companies assumed that the stock market will perform as it did in the late nineties, which is nowhere near the rate of returns right now. These methods for earnings management are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ways to manipulate a company's earnings. There's a fine line between legitimate earnings management and "cooking the books." Let's take a look at some real-life cases and learn how they did it.
Case Study: Enron
Company Background
Once the seventh largest company in America, Enron was formed in 1985 when InterNorth acquired Houston Natural Gas. The company branched into many non-energy-related fields over the next several years, including such areas as Internet bandwidth, risk management, and weather derivatives (a type of weather insurance for seasonal businesses). Although their core business remained in the transmission and distribution of power, their phenomenal growth was occurring through their other interests. Fortune Magazine selected Enron as "America's most innovative company" for six straight years from 1996 to 2001. Then came the investigations into their complex network of off-shore partnerships and accounting practices.
How the Fraud Happened
The Enron fraud case is extremely complex. Some say Enron's demise is rooted in the fact that in 1992, Jeff Skilling, then president of Enron's trading operations, convinced federal regulators to permit Enron to use an accounting method known as "mark to market." This was a technique that was previously only used by brokerage and trading companies. With mark to market accounting, the price or value of a security is recorded on a daily basis to calculate profits and losses. Using this method allowed Enron to count projected earnings from long-term energy contracts as current income. This was money that might not be collected for many years. It is thought that this technique was used to inflate revenue numbers by manipulating projections for future revenue. Use of this technique (as well as some of Enron's other questionable practices) made it difficult to see how Enron was really making money. The numbers were on the books so the stock prices remained high, but Enron wasn't paying high taxes. Robert Hermann, the company's general tax counsel at the time, was told by Skilling that their accounting method allowed Enron to make money and grow without bringing in a lot of taxable cash. Enron had been buying any new venture that looked promising as a new profit center. Their acquisitions were growing exponentially. Enron had also been forming off balance sheet entities (LJM, LJM2, and others) to move debt off of the balance sheet and transfer risk for their other business ventures. These SPEs were also established to keep Enron's credit rating high, which was very important in their fields of business. Because the executives believed Enron's long-term stock values would remain high, they looked for ways to use the company's stock to hedge its investments in these other entities. They did this through a complex arrangement of special purpose entities they called the Raptors. The Raptors were established to cover their losses if the stocks in their start-up businesses fell. When the telecom industry suffered its first downturn, Enron suffered as well. Business analysts began trying to unravel the source of Enron's money. The Raptors would collapse if Enron stock fell below a certain point, because they were ultimately backed only by Enron stock. Accounting rules required an independent investor in order for a hedge to work, but Enron used one of their SPEs. The deals were so complex that no one could really determine what was legal and what wasn't. Eventually, the house of cards began falling. When Enron's stock began to decline, the Raptors began to decline as well. On August 14, 2001, Enron's CEO, Jeff Skilling, resigned due to "family issues." This shocked both the industry and Enron employees. Enron chairman Ken Lay stepped in as CEO.
How it Was Discovered
On August 15, Sherron Watkins, an Enron VP, wrote an anonymous letter to Ken Lay that suggested Skilling had left because of accounting improprieties and other illegal actions. She questioned Enron's accounting methods and specifically cited the Raptor transactions. Later that same month, Chung Wu, a UBS PaineWebber broker in Houston, sent an e-mail to 73 investment clients saying Enron was in trouble and advising them to consider selling their shares. Sherron Watkins then met with Ken Lay in person, adding more details to her charges. She noted that the SPEs had been controlled by Enron's CFO, Fastow, and that he and other Enron employees had made their money and left only Enron at risk for the support of the Raptors. (The Raptor deals were written such that Enron was required to support them with its own stock.) When Enron's stock fell below a certain point, the Raptors' losses would begin to appear on Enron's financial statements. On October 16, Enron announced a third quarter loss of $618 million. During 2001, Enron's stock fell from $86 to 30 cents. On October 22, the SEC began an investigation into Enron's accounting procedures and partnerships. In November, Enron officials admitted to overstating company earnings by $57 million since 1997. Enron, or "the crooked E," filed for bankruptcy in December of 2001.
Where Are They Now?
Enron's CFO, Andrew Fastow, was behind the complex network of partnerships and many other questionable practices. He was charged with 78 counts of fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. Fastow accepted a plea agreement in 2004. He was given a ten year prison sentence and ordered to pay $23.8 million in exchange for testifying against other Enron executives. Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay were both indicted in 2004 for their roles in the fraud and will stand trial in January 2006. Other Enron executives are also being charged. According to the Enron Web site, "Enron is in the midst of restructuring various businesses for distribution as ongoing companies to its creditors and liquidating its remaining operations."
Case Study: WorldCom
Company Background
WorldCom took the telecom industry by storm when it began a frenzy of acquisitions in the 1990s. The low margins that the industry was accustomed to weren't enough for Bernie Ebbers, CEO of WorldCom. From 1995 until 2000, WorldCom purchased over sixty other telecom firms. In 1997 it bought MCI for $37 billion. WorldCom moved into Internet and data communications, handling 50 percent of all United States Internet traffic and 50 percent of all e-mails worldwide. By 2001, WorldCom owned one-third of all data cables in the United States. In addition, they were the second-largest long distance carrier in 1998 and 2002.
How the Fraud Happened
So what happened? In 1999, revenue growth slowed and the stock price began falling. WorldCom's expenses as a percentage of its total revenue increased because the growth rate of its earnings dropped. This also meant WorldCom's earnings might not meet Wall Street analysts' expectations. In an effort to increase revenue, WorldCom reduced the amount of money it held in reserve (to cover liabilities for the companies it had acquired) by $2.8 billion and moved this money into the revenue line of its financial statements. That wasn't enough to boost the earnings that Ebbers wanted. In 2000, WorldCom began classifying operating expenses as long-term capital investments. Hiding these expenses in this way gave them another $3.85 billion. These newly classified assets were expenses that WorldCom paid to lease phone network lines from other companies to access their networks. They also added a journal entry for $500 million in computer expenses, but supporting documents for the expenses were never found. These changes turned WorldCom's losses into profits to the tune of $1.38 billion in 2001. It also made WorldCom's assets appear more valuable.
How it Was Discovered
After tips were sent to the internal audit team and accounting irregularities were spotted in MCI's books, the SEC requested that WorldCom provide more information. The SEC was suspicious because while WorldCom was making so much profit, AT&T (another telecom giant) was losing money. An internal audit turned up the billions WorldCom had announced as capital expenditures as well as the $500 million in undocumented computer expenses. There was also another $2 billion in questionable entries. WorldCom's audit committee was asked for documents supporting capital expenditures, but it could not produce them. The controller admitted to the internal auditors that they weren't following accounting standards. WorldCom then admitted to inflating its profits by $3.8 billion over the previous five quarters. A little over a month after the internal audit began, WorldCom filed for bankruptcy.
Where Are They Now?
When it emerged from bankruptcy in 2004, WorldCom was renamed MCI. Former CEO Bernie Ebbers and former CFO Scott Sullivan were charged with fraud and violating securities laws. Ebbers was found guilty on all counts. Sullivan pleaded guilty and took the stand against Ebbers in exchange for a more lenient sentence.
Case Study: Tyco
Company Background
Tyco International has operations in over 100 countries and claims to be the world's largest maker and servicer of electrical and electronic components; the largest designer and maker of undersea telecommunications systems; the larger maker of fire protection systems and electronic security services; the largest maker of specialty valves; and a major player in the disposable medical products, plastics, and adhesives markets. Since 1986, Tyco has claimed over 40 major acquisitions as well as many minor acquisitions.
How the Fraud Happened
According to the Tyco Fraud Information Center, an internal investigation concluded that there were accounting errors, but that there was no systematic fraud problem at Tyco. So, what did happen? Tyco's former CEO Dennis Koslowski, former CFO Mark Swartz, and former General Counsel Mark Belnick were accused of giving themselves interest-free or very low interest loans (sometimes disguised as bonuses) that were never approved by the Tyco board or repaid. Some of these "loans" were part of a "Key Employee Loan" program the company offered. They were also accused of selling their company stock without telling investors, which is a requirement under SEC rules. Koslowski, Swartz, and Belnick stole $600 million dollars from Tyco International through their unapproved bonuses, loans, and extravagant "company" spending. Rumors of a $6,000 shower curtain, $2,000 trash can, and a $2 million dollar birthday party for Koslowski's wife in Italy are just a few examples of the misuse of company funds. As many as 40 Tyco executives took loans that were later "forgiven" as part of Tyco's loan-forgiveness program, although it was said that many did not know they were doing anything wrong. Hush money was also paid to those the company feared would "rat out" Kozlowski. Essentially, they concealed their illegal actions by keeping them out of the accounting books and away from the eyes of shareholders and board members.
How it Was Discovered
In 1999 the SEC began an investigation after an analyst reported questionable accounting practices. This investigation took place from 1999 to 2000 and centered on accounting practices for the company's many acquisitions, including a practice known as "spring-loading." In "spring-loading," the pre-acquisition earnings of an acquired company are underreported, giving the merged company the appearance of an earnings boost afterwards. The investigation ended with the SEC deciding to take no action. In January 2002, the accuracy of Tyco's bookkeeping and accounting again came under question after a tip drew attention to a $20 million payment made to Tyco director Frank Walsh, Jr. That payment was later explained as a finder's fee for the Tyco acquisition of CIT. In June 2002, Kozlowski was being investigated for tax evasion because he failed to pay sales tax on $13 million in artwork that he had purchased in New York with company funds. At the same time, Kozlowski resigned from Tyco "for personal reasons" and was replaced by John Fort. By September of 2002, all three (Kozlowski, Swartz, and Belnick) were gone and charges were filed against them for failure to disclose information on their multimillion dollar loans to shareholders. The SEC asked Kozlowski, Swartz, and Belnick to restore the funds that they took from Tyco in the form of undisclosed loans and compensations.
Where Are They Now?
Kozlowski and Swartz were found guilty in 2005 of taking bonuses worth more than $120 million without the approval of Tyco's directors, abusing an employee loan program, and misrepresenting the company's financial condition to investors to boost the stock price, while selling $575 million in stock. Since replacing its Board Members and several executives, Tyco International has remained strong. The difference in the Tyco case and some of the others is that it is more related to greed than accounting fraud. For more information on cooking the books and related topics, check out the links on the next page.
Related How Stuff Works Articles
How Stocks and the Stock Market Work
How Banks Work
How Currency Works
How Accounting Works
How Employee Compensation Works
Investopedia: Cooking the Books
Cooking the Books: The Cost to the Economy
Sarbanes-Oxley: Financial and Accounting Disclosure Information
FASB: Financial Accounting Standards Board
SEC: Securities Exchange Commission
http://money.howstuffworks.com

WAR IS A RACKET

WAR IS A RACKETWAR is a racket. It always has been.It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.And what is this bill?This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor. The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?Yes, and what does it profit the nation?Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

Is Congress Taking Handouts From the Drug Companies?

Is Congress Taking Handouts From the Drug Companies?
Drug companies will do whatever it takes to make a profit; even if that means shelling out $19 billion a year to persuade physicians into prescribing their drugs to patients over others


Since 1998, drug companies have spent $3.9 Billion on lobbying - bribing CONGRESS free speech...yeah..how funny!- more than any other industry. HELLO!!!! That is 4 billion dollars that have a dramatic influence on how drugs are viewed politically.
Since the government ultimately determines which products drug companies can market and how they're labeled, their lobbying is really having a serious impact on you. So, with the drug industry facing the possibility of increased regulation -- due to mounting concerns about the safety of the nation's drug supply -- many drug companies are doing whatever it takes to wine and dine members of Congress to lean in their favor.
For example, the drug companies' corporate planes have been made available for dozens of trips taken by powerful lawmakers. The absolute clincher, however, is the amount of money drug companies are willing to spend in order to protect themselves and their drugs for meeting their doom.
Big Spenders
Drug companies and their officials contributed at least $68 million to federal candidates in last year's elections, including:
Nearly $1 million to President Bush last year
More than $800,000 to his opponent, Democrat, Obama
At least 59 members of Congress received more than $100,000 a piece.
And if that doesn't seem like enough schmoozing, consider this fact again: Drug companies have spent more than 3 Billion over the past seven years on lobbying alone. According to government records analyzed by the Center for Public Integrity, that's more than any other industry!
Lobbyists' Political Success
The drug industry employs almost 1,274 lobbyists, including 40 former members of Congress. Over the years those lobbyists have been extremely successful, proving they know politics just as well as they know chemistry. Specifically, they've:
Won coverage for prescription drugs under Medicare in 2003 while preventing the government from negotiating prices downward.
So far kept out imports of cheaper medicines from Canada and other countries.
Protected a system that uses company fees to speed the drug-approval process.
Unfortunately, this information serves as a sad reminder of just how deeply the mega-pharmaceutical industry influenceswhat is seen and heard in the media.
Drug companies are one of the most powerful industries on this planet. Do you know of many other companies that could lose $30 billion in one day and still go on strong?
Folks, it doesn't get any bigger than the drug companies. They even dwarf Internet darlings like Google. They use some of the most sophisticated marketing strategies known to man. And why not? They can afford the best, and I assure you they use it.
They have the full force of Congress behind them, as they control the largest political lobbying group and have spent over $4 billion alone on lobbying in the last 10 years. There are more drug company lobbyists than there are congressmen.
While spending a billion dollars to influence Congress over 10 years may seem like a lot, it pales in comparison to what they spend to influence you. They spent over $4 billion in the United States last year on direct-to-consumer advertising.
But even that pales to what is spent to influence your doctor. They spend over $10,000 every year for every doctor in the United States. That amounts to $15 billion a year.
These companies are anything but stupid; I assure you that they are not throwing this money away. They are only spending this much because they are getting a much better return on their investment for the money they spend. They are able to leverage their marketing dollars to major sales at the drug store.
Part of the process is to pay sales reps to visit your doctor and drop samples off to them. These "drug reps" are effective tools that clearly influence the way doctors prescribe. This is really so "last century," as that is when the study was first done that proved this fact -- that many doctors would still disagree with.
Related Articles:
Drug Companies Greatly Influence Doctors' Prescribing Habits
Is Your Doctor Moonlighting -- As a Drug Rep?
The Virtual Schmooze
How Drug Companies Deceive You
This Washington Post article focuses on a relatively new, and some say increasing, phenomenon dubbed "disease mongering."
In disease mongering, a feeling or symptom that would normally be considered a normal part of life is labeled as a disease that requires a drug to treat it.
Drug companies are the ones bringing disease mongering into the mainstream. The article used Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS), a once obscure condition that has gained much attention in the public's eye after drug maker GlaxoSmithKline ran a commercial for their RLS drug Requip, as an example.
GlaxoSmithKline spent $57 million to advertise Requip for the treatment of RLS in 2005. Perhaps as a result, sales have increased from $97 million to $146 million.
While some say the ads have raised awareness about an under-diagnosed condition, others say there is not enough to distinguish a normal fidget from the actual disease. The result? The ads may make healthy people feel like they're sick.
Researchers say disease mongering is not unique to RLS, but has expanded to include any number of conditions including:
Shy people who think they have "social phobia"
High-strung boys who are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder
People with slightly elevated blood pressure who have "pre-hypertension"
Drug makers maintain that the drug ads help people who are suffering with illness, but critics remain skeptical that disease mongering encourages people to think they need prescription drugs when they may not.

Sources:
Washington Post May 30, 2006
Drug companies will do whatever it takes to make a profit; even if that means shelling out $19 billion a year to persuade physicians into prescribing their drugs to patients over others.
One famous tactic drug companies rely on to influence physicians is giving them free samples. Research has clearly shown that when doctors are given samples of drugs by pharmaceutical representatives, they are more likely to prescribe those drugs in lieu of over-the-counter or generic alternatives.
Settling the Debate
In order to clearly determine if drug prescribing is influenced by free samples, researchers conducted a randomized study of 29 internal medicine residents over a six-month period.
By random selection, half the residents agreed not to use the free samples.
After selecting five drug classes where free samples of heavily advertised drugs were distributed, and where inexpensive alternatives existed, researchers analyzed the prescribing differences between residents who had access to the free samples and those who agreed not to use them. Results showed:
Those with access to drug samples were more likely to write new prescriptions for heavily advertised drugs and less likely to recommend over-the-counter drugs than their peers.
There was a trend toward less use of inexpensive drugs.
The influence free samples have over physicians seems to violate published national guidelines on physician interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, according to researchers, this finding contradicts the widespread beliefs that drug samples are essentially different from other forms of marketing and that samples help patients manage drug costs in the long term. Big Pharma Insider Information Scam (continued)
One high-ranking member of the Bush Administration's FDA, Dr Richard Pazdur, has been one of the leakers in two cases involving cancer drugs that caused investors to lose vast amounts of money.The first case devastated investors when a company's stock value dropped more than $1.5 billion in less than 3 weeks after Dr Pazdur tipped off the Cancer Leadership Council's legal counsel Samuel Turner that the FDA planned to reject the application for approval of a cancer drug the week before the decision was scheduled to be sent to the main sponsor, ImClone, on December 28, 2001.At that time, Mr Turner also was a registered lobbyist for a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Bristol-Myers Squibb, which just happens to be the largest manufacturer of chemotherapeutic drugs.Bristol-Meyer tipped off ImClone owners Harlan and Sam Waxal, and family members immediately started selling their stock. An investigation by the SEC later determined that the Waksals sold more than $10 million worth of stock in the 48 hours before the FDA's rejection of the application for drug was made public.According to a June 16, 2002 report on Newsbytes News Network, short sellers also made millions by placing bets that ImClone's stock value would fall in the weeks before the FDA publicly rejected the application.The House Committee on Energy and Commerce investigated the insider trading in this case, and a subcommittee held a hearing on June 13, 2002. At the start, the chairman noted that there were two stories here.One, he said, "will be more fully told by the SEC and the Justice Department as it examines how the FDA process and what appears to be some rather amoristic players conspired in a way that allowed insider trading to potentially occur and an awful lot of investors to lose a lot of money while insiders were trading on information that was available only to them.""The other story," he noted, "is about the process at FDA and how the FDA process allowed this to happen."A transcript of the hearings shows that when members of Congress asked directly who within the FDA leaked the information to Bristol-Myers, Dr Pazdur and the rest of the Bush Administration officials talked in circles and never answered.But in the end, somebody pulled some strings because Dr Pazdur got off Scott free, which probably accounts for his lack of fear when engaging in similar, behind-the-scenes activities in 2007.In the more recent case, the continued short selling in Dendreon's stock following the Provenge Advisory Committee meeting of March 29, 2006, despite the fact that the Committee recommended approval of the drug, surely indicates that information leaked to Wall Street from inside the FDA guaranteed that the drug would not be approved.On May 9, 2007, when Dendreon announced to the public that the FDA had issued the company a Complete Response Letter instead of an approval letter, the market value of Dendreon dropped more than 60% in one day.The known people behind the “leaks” in this case are Dr Pazdur, along 2 members of the Advisory Committee who were chosen to participate on the panel by Dr Pazdur. When persons serve on these committees, they become “special government employees,” and are subject to the same rules and regulations as all government employees.When the Provenge Committee recommended approval, there were two votes taken. The first was on safety and the vote was 17-0 that the drug was safe. The second was on efficacy and the vote was 13-4 that the drug demonstrated "substantial evidence" of efficacy, the federally mandated standard.The approval of this new cancer vaccine represented a grave threat to the multi-billion dollar chemotherapy industry. Dendreon is the first company to seek approval of a drug in a promising new class of immunotherapies that direct the body's own immune system to attack only cancer cells, unlike chemotherapy which destroys cancer cells but damages healthy cells and the immune system as well.Provenge sought approval to treat men in the final stage of prostate cancer whose only option is months of chemotherapy with the drug Taxotere, which causes debilitating side effects and extends life on average 2.5 months.In applying for approval, Dendreon submitted a study that showed 3 injections of Provenge extended life by nearly double that chemotherapy and the side effects, if any, consisted of flu-like symptoms for one or 2 days.If the new immunotherapies turn out to be as effective as some experts claim, chemotherapy and radiation treatments could become obsolete in the not to distant future. Dr Pazdur knew this all too well. In fact, his fear was that if Provenge were to be approved, it would establish a new standard of care for late stage prostate cancer patients and from then on testing of new therapies would be up against Provenge.He was also ticked off about the fact that the FDA had chosen the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research to control the Provenge Advisory Committee instead of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which he controlled.So as a back-door means of regaining control, he recruited his two partners in crime, Dr Howard Scher, from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Dr Maha Hussain, from Michigan University, to serve on the Advisory Committee to assist him in thwarting Dendreon's bid for the approval of Provenge.Both of these doctors have made a fortune from their involvement in the cancer treatment and research racket over the past 2 decades. And they also stood to lose a fortune if the chemo-cartel was dismantled.Investors had every reason to believe that Provenge would be approved once the Advisory Committee voted for approval. The FDA had never refused to follow a recommendation by its own experts to approve a drug for dying cancer patients who had no other options.While testifying at the hearing, Dr David Penson, Associate Professor of Urology and Preventative Medicine at the University of Southern California, told the panel: "If you turn this drug down, it will likely set back the innovative field of active cellular immunotherapy in cancer many, many years."He warned that the Committee's decision "will not only affect prostate cancer patients, but it may have an effect on the larger population of oncology patients in general."Dr Hussain and Dr Scher were positioned on the panel to do everything in their power to make sure the vaccine was not approved. But their best efforts failed and within two weeks after the panel voted to approve the Provenge, Dendreon stock had nearly tripled in value and analysts were predicting that the vaccine could bring in $1 billion annually.However, it was soon obvious that something was up, because the short sellers were still betting millions that the stock value would fall. On April 29, 2007, Bloomberg reported that shares were being sold short "at a record pace" as investors "bet the company's experimental prostate-cancer drug will fail to win approval from U.S. regulators."All totalled, 33.9 million shares were sold short by the end of April. In hindsight, figuring out why people would engage in such risky betting was a no-brainer. The only people who could have known that Dendreon stock was headed for a nose-dive on May 9, 2007, because the FDA was going to overrule it's own panel by denying the approval of a cancer drug for dying patients for the first time in history, were the people who made it happen.As late as May 7, 2007, Prohost Biotechnology, a firm that evaluates companies and publishes a monthly newsletter for investors, was calling Dendreon a good investment on its web site, stating: We Have A New Pick “DENDERON AGAIN.”The web site went on to explain why the firm was predicting that the short sellers were wrong in betting against the company, by stating in part:This time, positive investors/analysts are determined to neutralize the shorters' efforts. Why not, if the verdict is expected in 10 days only and the committee, which was appointed by the FDA itself has already voted 17-0 in favor of safety and 13-4 in favor of efficacy?We are with the approval, Prohost said. “As a matter of fact, we expect it on May 15, based on many facts, the most important is the result of the FDA committee's voting.”The firm noted that the experts on the panel would not have been chosen by the FDA if they were not highly regarded researchers, medical doctors, and academicians, and stated:““If the results of voting would have been 50-50, we would have understood the need for the FDA to take a stand. But with a landslide voting in favor of approval, we do not see why the FDA should hesitate to follow the committee's recommendation of approval.““Besides, the vaccine is safe. It acts synergistically with the available treatments and it helped desperate patients survive advanced prostate cancer.”But as it turns out, another plot was put in action immediately after the news came out that the panel recommended approval, in which government officials at the FDA and the National Cancer Institute worked with Dr Scher, and probably Dr Hussain, to compose letters with bogus reasons why the FDA should not follow the recommendation.Once the rough drafts were edited, the letters were sent to the FDA by email and hardcopy, and leaked for publication on the internet by “The Cancer Letter,”” which just happens to be the same rag used to leak insider information in the ImClone case.The overly dramatic Dr Scher, even went so far as to tell Thomas Fleming, another doctor who just happened to send a letter to the FDA, disparaging Provenge, which was also put out on the internet by “The Cancer Letter,” that he could not sleep because he was so concerned over the possibility of patients being harmed if Provenge was approved and that's why he wrote the letter. Dr Fleming then noted that he could not sleep either.This is an utterly ridiculous remark coming from Dr Scher, considering that he and Dr Hussain voted with the majority 17-0 that Provenge was safe at the hearing.The pharmaceutical companies that stood to benefit the most from the non-approval of Provenge were Novacea, Schering-Plough and Sanofi-Aventis because they have billions of dollars invested in research, drug trials, and cancer treatments involving therapies that would compete directly with Provenge for the same late stage prostate cancer patients.Dr Scher and Dr Hussain, as well as her husband, are involved in dozens of studies conducted by the same companies. Both Dr Scher and Dr Hussain are consultants and members of the scientific advisory board for Novacea, which produces Asentar together with Schering-Plough.Asentar would directly compete with Provenge and at the time of the Advisory Committee hearing, Dr Scher was the co-lead investigator on trials of AsentarAccording to www.portfolio.com, Dr Scher is also an officer, member of the Board of Directors, and a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of ProQuest Investments, which was had mega-bucks invested in Novacea during 2007. However, for some odd reason, ProQuest's web site no longer lists the names for the Scientific Advisory Board.Dr Scher and Dr Hussain have also both received research funding from Sanofi-Aventis the maker of Taxotere.A review of Dr Hussain's most current resume in fact, shows that she's been on one long global junket funded by the cancer treatment and research racket for close to 2 decades. She apparently began her journey in Bagdad, Iraq, in1980, and 2 years later she was in the UK and a year after that she ended up in Detroit, Michigan.It looks like her home base has been Ann Arbor, Michigan since late 2002, that is in between her 6 trips to Canada, 3 to Hawaii, 3 to Puerto Rico, 2 to St Thomas, 2 to Barcelona, and at least 1 trip to Japan, China, Jordon, Lisbon, Monte Carlo, Bermuda, and Austria, in addition to her 17 trips to California, 9 to Chicago, 4 to New Orleans, 5 to New York, 9 to Florida, and at least 38 trips to other states.The list of excursions certainly demonstrates that the good doctor enjoyed quite a lot of travel on someone else's dime. In fact, her hotel fees alone would put a bonifide hooker to shame.Its impossible to determine the amount of "research" funding funneled her way because the amount is redacted for half of the grants listed. But at a bare minimum, she had at least 28 million "current" reasons to sabotage the approval of Provenge.Under ““Current Grant Support,” she lists 11 grants, although 5 have no amounts. But the total for the other 6 comes to over $28 million, and she will be receiving income from a few of these grants for several more years.Dr Hussain also lists another 2 grants as submitted, with all information redacted. She lists 5 under “Active Research,” all involving treatments for late stage prostate cancer, but not one includes the amount. No dates are listed for these 5 grants either, which makes it impossible to estimate how long she intends to profit from this research.The doctor also lists 30 funding sources under “Past”, but only 6 have amounts. The total for those 6 comes to more than $20 million, so it would probably be safe to say that if all amounts were to be listed, Dr Hussain had at least 100 million good reasons to derail the approval of Provenge.All the plotting by persons benefiting from the non-approval of Provenge might have gone undetected if not for the non-profit advocacy group, Care-To-Live. The group filed a lawsuit in Federal court against officials in charge of the FDA, including Dr Pazdur and Dr Scher, seeking an injunction to overturn the FDA's decision and to make Provenge available immediately to extend the lives of dying prostate cancer patients.By filing the lawsuit, the group was able to gain access to a lot of information and after reading much of it, one thing's for sure, the government officials involved in this sick plot will never be accused of wasting time on the clock worrying about dying cancer victims.Another case of leaking occurred on March 1, 2006, when the FDA sent a letter to the Canadian investment firm, Infinium Capital, that said the agency would allow testing for a generic version of Vancocin, marketed by ViroPharma, to be conducted in a test tube.Two weeks later, after allowing plenty of time for persons with the inside information to position themselves to make a killing in the stock market, Infinium issued a report on ViroPharma stating, “Generics . . . sooner than you think”.According to an SEC filing by ViroPharma, Infinium's report was the first public disclosure of the new testing standard and:"ViroPharma itself had not previously heard that OGD had lowered its BE standard for Vancocin. Nor it would seem, except those to whom OGD had privately communicated, had anyone else.”ViroPharma's filing went on to note that Infinium's report stated:““Our recent communications with the FDA regarding the approval process for a potential generic competitor to Vancocin lead us to believe a generic could enter the market 1-2 years sooner than current expectations.”What ““recent communications with FDA” might mean, the filing states, beyond the March 1, 2006 letter to Infinium, is unclear to ViroPharma. On March 16, 2006, Medindia.com dropped a bombshell when it informed the public of the news by quoting analysts at Infinium as saying it could mean a generic version would be available by early 2008."Previously, generic manufacturers may not have been interested in developing this therapeutic due to its low revenue potential; however, with the recent sales growth of 133 percent in 2005, Vancocin is now on the radar screen," an Infinium analyst told Medindia.Infinium's announcement caused shares of ViroPharma "to dip by about 33 percent," according to Medindia. But in fact, Infinium's report triggered a multi-day stock sell-off that cut the company's market capitalization by 40%, or roughly $500,000,000.The approval process prior to the FDA's unexpected announcement required trials to be conducted on humans. ViroPharma has filed a Petition to stop the approval of generic versions with allegations that the FDA violated the Freedom of Information Act, the Data Quality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and its own Standards of Conduct.Vancocin is used to treat hospital-acquired bacterial infections in the lower gastrointestinal tract caused by the bacterium Clostridium difficile. In order to be effective, the drug must be released in one specific section of the intestines, making its release mechanism far more difficult to replicate than other drugs.The release of an ineffective version of Vancocin at this point in time would be especially dangerous because recent studies have shown that cases of Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) are increasing world-world. The disease causes 400,000 cases of diarrhea and colitis each year in the US, according to the US Department of Veterans Affairs.In addition, a paper by Michel Warney, et al., entitled, "Toxin Production by an Emerging Strain of Clostridium difficile Associated with Outbreaks of Severe Disease in North America and Europe," in the September 2005 Lancet medical journal, reported a new strain of C difficile that produces up to 23 times more toxins than previous strains; this strain has been implicated as the cause of a more severe form of the diseaseA May 11, 2007, report by the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council said that in 2005, patients with CDAD were hospitalized 2-and-a-half times longer, charged over twice as much, and were 4 times as likely to die as patients without the disease.On average, the report notes, patients with CDAD remain in the hospital almost 7 days longer at a cost of $73,576, verses the average charge of $30,833 for patients without the disease. A November 2007 report entitled, "The Emerging Infectious Challenge of Clostridium difficile-Associated Disease in Massachusetts Hospitals: Clinical and Economic Consequences," cites a “conservative estimate” of the annual cost for CDAD management in the US as $3.2 billion.People treated with antibiotics are at the highest risk because antibiotics disrupt the balance of bacteria in the GI tract, which allows C difficile bacteria to multiply. CDAD is highly infectious and can spread by contact with patients or touching surfaces contaminated with C difficile spores. The severity of the disease ranges from mild cases of diarrhea to painful colitis, bloodstream infections or death.Years ago, CDAD was almost exclusively limited to patients in hospital or long-term care settings where infectious diseases spread easily. But there are now widespread reports of patients developing CDAD outside hospital settings, referred to as “community-acquired” CDAD, and with no antibiotic exposure.Recent studies indicate that many cases may be caused by proton pump inhibitor drugs which inhibit the production of gastric acid in the stomach that acts as a defense against bacteria and spores, widely used by persons with ulcers and other GI illnesses.The December 21, 2005, Journal of American Medical Association published a report by Canadian researchers based on studies that determined that gastric acid-suppressant drugs were associated with the rising cases of community-acquired CDAD.The researchers used the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database and identified all 1,672 cases of CDAD recorded between 1994 and 2004 and found that 1,233, or 74%, of the patients had not been hospitalized in the year prior to the diagnosis and were considered community-acquired.The study showed the increase in community-acquired cases rose from less than 1 per 100,000 in 1994 to 22 per 100,000 in 2004 and during this same period, prescriptions for antibiotics had decreased while prescriptions for proton pump inhibitors had increased.The first course of treatment for CDAD caused by antibiotics is to stop the antibiotics. But if diarrhea continues and becomes severe, Vancocin is a treatment of last resort for very sick patients which means there is no room for error.The FDA claims that dissolution testing for the generic version can be done by creating a test tube solution that replicates the environment in the lower intestine. But experts say it would be next to impossible to replicate the GI tracts of very ill and elderly patients to determine whether the generic version will work the same in the targeted area.Experts also point out that drug interactions, such as those in patients on proton pump inhibitors would make it hard to develop a solution that would replicate the GI tract.The approval of an ineffective generic version of Vancocin, will subject millions of people to potentially fatal risks because the patients who end up being treated with this medication will have no second chances if it fails.The FDA is currently under attack for doing the exact same thing by not requiring adequate testing for the generic version of the antidepressant Wellbutrin. The FDA approved the generic in 2006 and after a steady stream of patients reported that they were experiencing serious side effects, testing by ConsumerLabs, revealed that the time release rate of the active ingredient was much faster than the release rate in the original drug.The consumer-product testing group, ConsumerLab began investigating the drug after Joe and Terry Graedon, authors of The People's Pharmacy column, came to the group with complaints received from readers of their column. While the Graedons had received complaints about generic drugs before, "we had never received this volume of response," Joe Graedon, a pharmacologist, told MSNBC on October 12, 2007."In almost all cases people were saying their depression returned," he said. Users also complained about severe headaches, digestive problems, insomnia, anxiety, and tremors.ConsumerLab performed dissolution testing on 6 samples of each medication and found that even though both contained the same amount of the active ingredient, the generic released nearly 50% of the ingredient in the first 4 hours verses 25% by Wellbutrin."It's been an eye-opener for everyone," ConsumerLab President, Dr Tod Cooperman, told MSNBC. "It makes you question whether generics are always going to be equivalent to the original product.”“If these things are releasing at such different rates,” he advised, ““it's hard to believe they'd be acting the same way in your body.""It would seem very difficult to imagine that the results we saw would be acceptable results," Dr Cooperman told MSNBC.He pointed out that the release of the active ingredient more quickly could mean there is less medication available to the patient later, and may explain why patients experienced a return of their depression.He said a time-release problem might also explain why patients experienced more side effects, such as headache, irritability and nausea, if they received a high dose of the medicine upfront. "Too much Wellbutrin can cause side effects, even the potential for seizure," he told MSNBC.The Canadian firm Biovial filed a petition with the FDA in 2005, asking the agency to require generic makers to conduct more rigorous testing of generic versions of Wellbutrin prior to their approval but apparently the agency ignored the request.An agency spokesperson told MSNBC that the FDA does not require generic makers to do clinical trials on hundreds or thousands of people as required for name brand drugs. It only requires lab data and "bioequivalence" testing in about 24 to 36 healthy volunteers showing that the drug enters the bloodstream in a similar manner to the original product.Since the generic version was approved, millions of consumers have switched to the drug to save money which means a high number of patients may be experiencing serious side effects without knowledge of the cause. Experts say this whole problem could have been avoided had testing on humans been conducted to check the release mechanism before millions of scripts were written."Sustained release mechanisms are not that easy to develop, and they tend to be proprietary in nature," Michael Katz, clinical associate professor of pharmacy practice and science at the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy told MSNBC."It would be difficult for a generic manufacturer to reproduce the same release characteristics as the brand-name product," he stated."Such differences clearly could have an impact on patients,” he said, “and my view is that sustained-release products are among the relatively short list of products that should not be switched."Experts say the time release characteristics would be even more difficult to replicate in a generic version of Vancocin, where the concern is not just about how much of the drug is released into the blood stream but rather in one specific section of the GI tract.The leaking of information in the Vancocin case is reminiscent of a major scandal that erupted during the first Bush Administration in 1989, when FDA officials were charged with taking bribes from generic makers and sharing insider information.On August 28, 1989, Time magazine reported that an investigation by the Justice Department had uncovered evidence that “some makers of generic pharmaceuticals falsified laboratory test results and paid off FDA chemists to gain quick Government approval for their products.”In that case, Charles Chang the head of the FDA's generic division and two co-workers pleaded guilty to accepting a total of $24,300 in illegal gifts in exchange for preferential treatment for certain generic makers in July 1989, according to the Time report.
Pharmaceutical companies rely upon ill health in the population to survive and reap their profits. No drug company has a vested interest in curing disease. They do, however, have a massive vested interest in maintaining ill-health, creating disease and manufacturing chemicals which will promote this under the guise of 'therapy' for the symptoms – rarely ever the cause – of disease. Dr John Braithwaite, now a Trade Practices Commissioner, in his expose, Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry, states:
'International bribery and corruption, fraud in the testing of drugs, criminal negligence in the unsafe manufacturing of drugs – the pharmaceutical industry has a worse record of law-breaking than any other industry.'
In the US in 1978 1.5 million people were hospitalized because of medication side-effects alone. In 1991 in the US, 72,000 people were killed due to iatrogenic – that is doctor-induced – causes whilst 24,073 died of victims of firearms shootings, which makes doctors nearly three times more lethal than guns! This has serious implications for other countries including Britain because the US are the foremost pioneers in the health care field and what occurs in health care in the US is usually implemented in Britain a decade later.
The drugs industry has managed to sell to the majority of the world the idea that disease is largely an inevitable part of life, especially during the later years. Through its front-line representatives – the medical system – it has effectively reduced the range of choices of health care to which the public has access. Through funding and educational control it has seen to it that natural forms of treatment are largely ignored and grossly under-researched. Those organisations which do reveal the true causes of disease and promote effective forms of disease prevention, such as nutritional medicine, healing and naturopathy are regularly attacked in the mass media and publicly labelled as quacks by pharmaceutically-sponsored de-bunking organisations such as the Campaign Against Health Fraud, now called Healthwatch.
They have also sold to us the idea that natural remedies and cures which have been successfully employed for centuries are 'alternatives' and to be treated with great scepticism and caution. Frequently, we are told of how one or two people have been injured or killed through the misapplication of a herbal remedy by dubious alternative practitioners but are not told at the same time of the thousands who are damaged by the conventional drugs which are handed out like sweets by our doctors.
During their initiation into the Western medical tradition most of our young doctors are repeatedly informed by their superiors that therapies which are alternative to classic western medicine are fraudulent and quackish. They are told that there is no scientific evidence to support any of the claims of psychic healing, crystal therapy, colour therapy and the like and the whole area is dismissed with a superior grin and a wave of the hand. A mountain of study is then hurled at the junior doctors, on top of an already inhumane workload of practical hours, to be spent absorbing the biased views of their forebears. A junior doctor has not even enough time to explore the realms of stress-free relaxation never mind alternative thought and therapies. Much the same methods are used by certain religious organisations to indoctrinate the minds of their followers into a single belief system. The key tactics, to which most doctors will relate, are: maintenance of sleep deprivation so as to minimise resistance to teachings, isolation from the outside world until one is literally eating, breathing and sleeping the set doctrine of the cult, and maintenance of a fear of failure to conform through almost unachievably high level goal setting; often via frequent examinations.
I believe that western medicine is as much a dogmatic cult as popular Christianity or the Moonies. It breeds its young on dogma to the exclusion of free will and reasoned thought in order to perpetuate itself. It is controlled by instilling into its members the fear of failure and it thrives by exploiting the initial motivation of its members, which is love and a desire to help and heal others.
At the apex of the pyramid of medicine lie the controllers; not doctors, but the multinational pharmaceutical companies who exist, not for the benefit of others, but for the desire for money and power. And behind them lies the sinister organisation of global secret societies headed by the Illuminati.
It is through this subtle mind control that the System maintains itself. Veiled in secrecy and fuelled by fear, the monster machine controls every aspect of our lives. The medical system is an integral part, but nevertheless only one aspect, of the overall design which seeks power and neither cares how this power is achieved, nor how many individuals are destroyed in the process.
As an example of the fraud perpetuated by the pharmaceutical companies, the next section will take a close look at the AIDS scandal, which illuminates how these companies have infiltrated every area of the healthcare system are willing to endanger people, allowing them to be killed, for profit via the industry's tool of corruption and front organisation, our own medical system:

Truth – A Cure For All Disease
As another example of the medical conspiracy; would it shock you to find out that there are, in use today, several medically proven cures for cancer? One such cure is Essiac and has been in use since at least 1922; it has no known adverse side effects. It is made from four common herbs and elevates the immune system. In 1937 it came within three votes of being legalised as a cancer treatment in Canada and was passed on to the British Cancer Campaign by its founder, Rene Caisse, via the Prince of Wales. And yet today, it is still only available through selected, virtually underground, outlets world-wide. I have many dozens of case studies which testify to the efficacy of this treatment (see Appendix IV).
Furthermore, in the 1930s a man named Royal Raymond Rife developed a very high powered microscope, almost seven times more powerful than those in use at the time, which could detect organisms which cause diseases such as infections and cancers. He did this by illuminating these organisms at their own specific frequency of light and could, therefore, examine them and their effects whilst they remained alive as opposed to killing them first using dye stains or high powered electron microscopy as was the norm. He then discovered that, by altering the frequency of their environment microbes could mutate and change their size and shape to resemble viruses and bacteria alike, thereby enabling the same microbe to cause many diverse diseases. For example, the same germs which cause pus – streptococci – could also become the germs which cause pneumonia – pneumococci – in response to an alteration in their environment. Rife also discovered that by bombarding these organisms with higher frequencies of light, he could destroy them. He demonstrated that it was possible to create and destroy cancers at will and succeeded in curing otherwise terminal patients of this disease, as well as others such as polio and typhus, in almost 100% of cases.
Today, it is conventionally accepted that single specific germs are responsible for single specific forms of infection. This theory was advanced by the French scientist Pasteur but was disputed by his rival Bechamp who was in favour of the mutation theory known as pleomorphism. We are rarely informed in text books that, according to his co-worker, Dr Duclaux, Pasteur himself changed his mind and revoked his 'germ theory' in favour of one closer to that of pleomorphism. However, over 100 years later, Pasteur's original germ theory is still the standard working model for the understanding of the action of microbes in the body.
Many types of bacteria exist in a symbiotic relationship with our bodies all of the time and only become symptomatic once the physical body begins to deteriorate due to an unhealthy lifestyle. Bacteria are then free to scavenge the 'soil' produced in the disease process, i.e. when the tissues degenerate to a similar frequency as the microbes, releasing dead organic matter similar to viruses upon which these microbes feed (remember Wilner's definition of the HIV retrovirus?). They then excrete this dead matter as waste products via the bloodstream, faeces or other exudates such as mucous. The extent to which the bacteria can multiply is limited to the amount of soil upon which they have to feed and could not be capable of invading the body to the extent to which science would have us believe unless there was already an adequate food supply. Furthermore, as has been demonstrated in Rife's vibratory work, it is possible for these microbes to mutate into other forms and even to cancer-causing agents according to their environmental conditions, defined by the degree of concentration of waste products and the vibratory rate. The subsequent systemic and metabolic reaction to these toxic excreted waste products, such as sore throat and high temperature (the body's natural way of eradicating the bacteria), are generally the symptoms of diseases which are given priority in day to day general medical practice, whereupon drugs are usually given to suppress them. In giving antibiotics we often succeed in killing the very microbes which are removing the diseased body's dead matter during the natural healing process. In doing so we also open up our bodies to other forms of disease such as fungal infections which are usually kept at bay by the natural presence of bacteria.
One smoke-screen which is constantly employed by the major drug companies is the regular promise that they are 'currently working on a new form of treatment which could soon revolutionise the treatment of…'. Such stories are picked up by the press and t.v science programmes with great fervour. They are nearly always described in terms of 'miracle cure' and point out that adequate funding is necessary for the fulfilment of the prophecy in another 2 or 3 years time. However, when 2 or 3 years time finally arrives we have all conveniently forgotten about the promised miracle drug whilst anxiously awaiting the fulfilment of yet further promises of drugs which are 'hoped' will one day prove to be the end of yet another terrible disease.
And this is the industry which denigrates the field of natural health for taking advantage of the sick and for so cruelly promising fake cures and providing false hope! The obvious lesson here is that to disguise your own sins you must accuse your enemies of them and to always do it before your enemy has a chance to formulate their defence. Mud usually sticks to the one it first lands upon. This a political trick which has been used to devastating effect by the key manipulators of this century in all areas and has been used to shift public opinion in favour of some of the greatest atrocities ever committed.
The Elite via chemo-pharmaceutical companies and food and water production services penetrate all areas of health care and use it to promote and execute their policies of population control, mind control and 'divide and rule', whilst making vast sums of money into the bargain.
In the end, the generic scandal during the first Bush Administration landed Mr Chang in federal prison and caused 42 others and 10 companies to be convicted on charges of fraud and corruption and the FDA Commissioner Frank Young resigned in November 1989.The crooks in the current Bush Administration's FDA deserve the same fate.