here…

move along..
go about your business

by Greg Palast

And why the oil companies don’t want you to know it

Marion King Hubbert

Now that I’ve convinced you that the Peak Oil crowd is crackers, let me disagree with myself. We can’t understand the new class war unless we understand why oil, a certain kind at least, has in fact “peaked.”

We’ve long jumped over Hubbert’s predicted peak and, in 2006, rolled our SUVs right through the “culmination”— that is, used the last drops of the one-and-a-quarter-trillion barrels of liquid crude the good Earth can provide according to the Hubbert jeremiad. Furthermore, “The rise in the production of power from nuclear energy for the United States” ran out long before uranium’s five-thousand-year reign, despite Hubbert’s hope and prediction. Except for a couple of unhappy decades’ experimental folly with “reactors for peace,” nuclear power is pretty much an irradiated corpse. The Shell/Hubbert predictions were dead wrong. Those are the facts.

But Hubbert was also deadly right. We are indeed running out of oil. There’s no contradiction here. We have to distinguish between an economist’s concept of “running out” and a scientist’s.

To an economist, every commodity is finite. We are running out of oil and we are running out of copper, aluminum foil, birdbaths, pickles, lumber, clean air, Frappucinos, chocolate, tongue rings, lollipops, silver, cow-shaped milk dispensers, Dylan retrospectives and sand. That is why economics is called “the dismal science.” Limits and scarcity are economists’ bread and butter. There’s a limited supply of every commodity. (And that is why love is not a commodity, as John Lennon noted, because the more you consume, the more you create.) On the other hand, unlike geologists and evangelical ministers, economists believe all commodities can be created as needed. There is an unlimited abundance of anything—oil, copper, hemorrhoid ointment, nose jobs or pornographic balloons. We can even manufacture real estate. (Think of the creation of Holland by landfill or the artificial habitation known as Los Angeles created by draining most of the Colorado River into the desert.)

The number one theorem of economics is that we are running out of everything and yet we can have as much as we want of anything. Again, there’s no contradiction. All commodities are scarce and abundant at the same time. The difference between scarcity and abundance is price. You can get anything, in any amount, if you are willing to pay any price. (See Los Angeles, above.)

Back to Hubbert. His report was used in the cynical Shell Oil game to scare us into Middle Eastern conflicts, drilling tax subsidies and nuclear power. On its face, it was stone cold manipulative nonsense, measurably so. But we are running out of a certain kind of oil nevertheless: cheap oil. That is, we are coming to the end of the stuff we can pump at a low cost, the easy oil that practically jumps out of the ground. When we bring price into the equation, Hubbert was correct—technically. Oil production did peak in the 1970s—for a certain type of oil. Re-read Hubbert. When he wrote his analysis, oil was selling below $3 a barrel, just over $20 in today’s dollars, and falling. Therefore, as prices declined further, we’d run out. We did. We’ve pretty much run out of new oil fields we can “lift” for $20 a barrel. Even the cheapest untapped fields in the world—not coincidentally in Iraq—will cost more than the “Hubbert price” to suck up and pipe out.

At low prices, there’s not much oil. As prices rise, so does supply.

It’s not magic. At $30 a barrel, Oklahoma stripper wells are worth reopening, drilling in the Gulf of Mexico becomes profitable in 3,000 feet of water, Kazakhstan’s crude is worth piping out even with the high cost of transportation and bribes.

To simplify: World oil reserves, officially measured at 1.189 trillion barrels, are probably, as one of Mr. Hubbert’s protégés stated a few years back, grossly overstated—if you assume oil selling at $10 a barrel. But kick the price up to a post-invasion $50 a barrel, and the world reserves are wildly understated.

Reserves are the measure of oil recoverable at a certain price. Raise the price, raise the reserve. Cut the price and the amount of oil in the ground drops. In other words, it’s a fool’s errand to measure the “amount of oil we have left.” It depends on the price. At $9 a barrel (the price in 1998), we’ve peaked. It’s over. All gone. But at $70 a barrel (reached in the third year of the Iraq occupation), miracles happen. Oil gushes forth like manna. How much more? If you are willing to pay $70 a barrel—and apparently you are—it’s worth it to melt sand and drain out the petroleum. Indeed, the “tar sands” of Alberta, Canada, hold 280 billion barrels of oil—for enough high octane to run our Humvees for a century. Canada’s tar oil reserves are, notably, about 15% higher than the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. It’s not pie-in-the-sky stuff. America is dependent on foreign oil—but not from Arabia. Our biggest source of oil is Canada and half of the Canadian supply today comes from tar sands. And that will grow. How could Hubbert have missed all this oil? Answer: He didn’t. On page 20 of his famous “Peak Oil” study, he accepts that the planet can yield up 800 billion barrels of oil from tar sands equal to all the “crude” (i.e., liquid) oil we are using up.

Hubbert’s Wars

So where did Hubbert get the idea that we are running out of oil? He didn’t. He made no such prediction. Quite the opposite, he said, after predicting “the culmination of world production” by 2006, he noted,

“This does not necessarily imply that the United States or other parts of the industrial world will soon become destitute of liquid and gaseous fuels….”

So what’s going on here? This is where Hubbert brings in Canadian tar sands and heavy oils, which he correctly predicts could more than replace the cheap, easily obtainable “liquid crude” (as he calls the light stuff). And he doesn’t fail to note the location of the giant supplies of the heavy oil: “Mesopotamia” (as Iraq was then known), Brazil and Venezuela.

So what was bugging Hubbert? We have plenty of oil, it just gets heavier. He warns against drilling for it, preferring a uranium-powered future. Why? Hubbert was writing in the hottest moments of the Cold War. The U.S. overthrow of Iran’s government and the looming tension over the Suez Canal pushed America and the Soviet Union toward nuclear war—and underneath it all was the tussle over oil. Hubbert’s peak did not identify dates we’d “run out of oil” but predicted the shift in the location of oil’s main sources—to Iraq and Venezuela by the beginning of the twenty-first century, which had serious implications, he said, for “domestic purposes and national defense.” To avoid conflicts between the U.S. and Russia, he hoped the superpowers in conflict would turn inward, to uranium, a resource abundant in both nations. The value of Hubbert’s seminal “peak” paper was not in predicting the end of the oil era but in naming, with chilling accuracy, the date and location of our future wars.

Selling the Peak

So who’s selling us Peak Oil today? The operator of the supertanker Condoleezza has been running an extravagant advertising blitzkrieg to tell us: We’ve peaked! “The world consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered!” That’s just the billboard. Their double-page spread in Harper’s is even more hysterical: “The fact is, the world has been finding less oil than it’s been using for twenty years now.”

Unfortunately, that “fact” isn’t a fact at all—reserves rise year after year—and those facts don’t change because Chevron paid my magazine to print it. (If Chevron is truly concerned that more oil is burnt than discovered, it might consider looking for some. The industry has cut exploration budgets from a third of production spending to an eighth. But that’s a churlish comment. Chevron is not in the business of finding oil, but finding profits.)

Ads sell. What is Chevron trying to sell us when it sells us the “peak” idea that we now use more oil than we discover? The ad says, “We need your help.” I am, I admit, flattered that a big, giant oil company would ask my assistance. What could a petroleum goliath earning $14.1 billion in a year want from me? Apparently, more money.

The new oil Chevron is finding “requires a greater investment to refine.” In other words, don’t bitch about high prices—we need your cash to mix your next fix of crude.

The “we’re running out of oil” line still has its uses. In 2005, taking advantage of oil-shortage hysteria, the Republican Congress passed an “energy” bill that was a Petroleum Club wet dream. For example, the feds can now order cities to accept liquid natural gas ports, a boon to Big Oil’s Explosions-R-Us LNG divisions. Drilling under the caribou in Alaska is likely to follow. And, in 2006, George Bush is attempting to raise nuclear power from its crypt. In his State of the Union message, our nuke-salesman-in-chief admonished Americans for our “addiction” to oil—which was a bit like the pusher-man sermonizing against the dangers of the needle. Unfortunately, some environmentalists have echoed the “peak oil” theorem in the false hope that oil companies’ raising prices will lead to conservation. Fat chance. Despite $50-a-barrel oil, we don’t see windmills on the Empire State Building. We will reduce oil dependency only when we have a government less dependent on oil money.

A closing note of caution: I fear that some may take my noting the super-abundance of oil remaining on the planet as approval for our using it. Far from it—getting off the oil habit is an urgent working- class issue. First, because cheap, good air and water are in limited supply. We can’t keep pooping combustion contaminants into the sky unless expect we expect our children to grow gills that will metabolize sulfur. There’s lots of arsenic on the planet. Don’t eat it. There’s lots of oil. Don’t burn it.

Second, massive oil use is like any other addiction—it sickens the user and only enriches the pusher; in the case of oil, that would be ExxonMobil, OPEC and Vladimir Putin. Get the petroleum needle out of our veins and we get the extra bonus of watching Citibank go through agonizing petro-dollar withdrawal.

CORRUPT JUDGES & DA BREED POLICE BRUTALITY OF LAPD
REMOVE LAPD-INSTALLED DA STEVE COOLEY
REMOVE BUSH-SUPPORTED & LAPD-FINANCED CORRUPT JUDGES IN LA
Bush, DeLay, Rove, Libby, and other reactionary members of their criminal organization are now far more fearful than ever before that other District Attorneys around the country may follow the lead of Ronnie Earle, District Attorney of Travis County, Texas, and bring criminal indictments against them for their years of criminal activities and conspiracies. However, Bush and his gang feel no fear of criminal indictments against them coming out of the prosecutorial office of the largest county in the nation, Los Angeles County.

Bush and the gang know that they have a loyal friend in the office of Los Angeles District Attorney, Stephen Cooley, the puppet DA whom LAPD financed and installed in office in 2001. In fact, Bush and the fascist-oriented forces of the extreme right have quietly been supporting unprecedented growth of systemic corruption in Los Angeles. They have been instrumental in empowering the LAPD (the largest police force in the World) and its corrupt puppets to become the most powerful and dominant political force in Los Angeles County.

Today, the LAPD and its thugs, with full support from Washington, rule with an iron fist in Los Angeles. The criminal justice system of Los Angeles has been transformed into a repressive machinery of injustice to cover up brutality of the LAPD and its numerous daily acts of police misconduct. Nowhere else in the U.S. has the extreme right succeeded so effectively in institutionalizing corruption of a criminal justice system as it has in Los Angeles. The LAPD, its reactionary puppet DA Stephen Cooley, and its army of close to 600 puppet judges, emboldened by Bush’s active support, have been wreaking havoc against defenseless residents of Los Angeles and victims of police brutality.

Steve Cooley, who received $1 million dollar in campaign contributions from LAPD officers for his election to DA office in 2001, first closed the Rampart Scandal investigation shortly after taking office. Cooley has since refused to prosecute numerous LAPD police brutality cases during the past 5 years, including the shooting murder of Margaret Mitchell, a frail 5’1” 102-lb. 55-year-old mentally ill homeless woman by LAPD’s 250-lb. Edward Larrigan who Cooley said was justified in shooting the old African-American woman in the chest who they falsely claimed had threatened Larrigan and his partner with a screw driver.
Instead, Cooley in conspiracy with LAPD-elected judges of LA Superior Court has aggressively been seeking criminal convictions against victims of police brutality and misconduct by LAPD.

Legally, a criminal conviction bars the victim from filing future civil rights suit against LAPD, and therefore permanently closes any potential investigation of the case. One such case is that of Mrs. Maria Lashgari, a 35-year-old wife and mother, whom Cooley and corrupt LA judges have held incarcerated and separated from her family for more than three years without a conviction on charges fabricated by LAPD. Cooley and his LAPD masters insist that the mother must plead guilty before she can be freed to go back to her husband and her 6-year-old son whom she has not seen for more than three years. Today, the mother continues her resistance by bearing inhumane and torturous conditions at the overcrowded, uninhabitable, and disease-infested Twin Towers jail.

While insisting to continue to keep an innocent mother incarcerated without a conviction for more than three years, Cooley and LAPD-puppet judges finally succeeded, in December 2004, in quietly overturning the criminal convictions of the only three LAPD officers who had been convicted on November 15, 2000 in Rampart Scandal by a Los Angeles jury of felony obstruction of justice and evidence fabrication. The overturning of the unanimous felony verdict of a Los Angeles jury against three corrupt LAPD officers and letting them go free represents the depth of the LAPD’s control and domination of the Los Angeles criminal justice system during Bush’s rule. The ramification of the overturned felony criminal convictions of LAPD’s Ortiz, Liddy, and Buchanan is frightening and shocking since it reveals that the only individuals who went to prison as a result of Rampart Scandal were the two officers who broke the LAPD’s code of silence and blew the whistle on Rampart Corruption Scandal, former LAPD officers Rafael Perez and his partner Nino Durden.

The protection and support provided by Bush and forcers of the extreme right to the growth and empowering of the LAPD and its thugs as an institution of repression have been calculated and multi-faceted. On the one hand, there has been a quiet and gradual reversal and undoing of the reforms imposed upon the LAPD as a result of the federal lawsuit (USA v. LAPD) of November 2000 by the previous federal administration. In that lawsuit, former US Attorney General, Janet Reno, declared that, “LAPD routinely engages in false arrest, excessive force, and unlawful violations of constitutional rights of persons in Los Angeles.” One of the first acts of Bush was to fire the US Attorney in Los Angeles (Alejandro Mayorkas) who had filed the federal lawsuit against the LAPD. Then, Bush quickly replaced him with Debra W. Yang, a former LAPD-sanctioned LA Superior Court Judge.

In a series of other calculating moves, Bush and reactionary forces have quietly been appointing LAPD-sanctioned LA Superior Court Judges to the federal bench in Los Angeles. Since LAPD and its thugs have gained control of local courts of LA, the Federal District Court in Los Angeles is the only judicial forum left for victims of LAPD brutality to seek redress and justice. Six of the eight life-time federal judges Bush has appointed to the Federal District Court in Los Angeles since 2001 are former LAPD-sanctioned Judges of LA County who all had been receiving, and some continue to receive, official illegal bribes from LA County government defined as “extra monthly benefits.”

All LA County Judges have received the illegal “extra monthly benefit” (presently around $5,000 per year) since at least 1997. Chief Justice of the State of California (Ronald George) has described the monthly bribes as “double-dipping.” (See LA Times, 08/20/2000). Today, while slashing vital life-saving medical programs for the poor, the corrupt LA County officials continue to pay around $30 million annually in illegal bribes to the 600-member LAPD-infested army of LA judges.

REMOVE COUNTY JUDGES RECEIVING ILLEGAL BRIBES & BENEFITS!
STOP CORRUPT LA COUNTY OFFICIALS FROM BRIBING LA JUDGES!
REMOVE & PROSECUTE LAPD PUPPET DA COOLEY!
STOP BUSH FROM APPOINTING LAPD JUDGES TO FEDERAL COURT!
CLEAN LA COURTS & BEGIN PROSECUTION OF LAPD BRUTALITY!

knock..knock..
who’s there?
CRASH!
you betchyo
ASS!

THIS STORY is so spurious

i ALMOST think it was created by Israeli COINTELPRO operatives

Q: what do you do when your multi-billion dollar defence corporation is facing a federal investigation into ethics violations?

A: hire a federal judge as your general counsel

Q: what do you do?..you’ve been playing step and fetch for conservatives as a federal judge..you are SUMMARILY passed over
when Supreme Court appointments are being handed out..and now the whole administration is on the rocks?

A: you look for a ’singular opportunity’ being consiglieri to arms dealers facing indictment

Mr George Bush,
President of the United States of America

For sometime now I have been thinking, how one can justify the undeniable contradictions
that exist in the international arena — which are being constantly debated, specially in political
forums and amongst university students. Many questions remain unanswered. These have
prompted me to discuss some of the contradictions and questions, in the hopes that it might
bring about an opportunity to redress them.

Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ (PBUH), the great Messenger of God,
Feel obliged to respect human rights,
Present liberalism as a civilization model,
Announce one’s opposition to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and WMDs,
Make “War and Terror” his slogan,
And finally,
Work towards the establishment of a unified international community – a community which
Christ and the virtuous of the Earth will one day govern,
But at the same time, Have countries attacked; The lives, reputations and possessions of people destroyed and on
the slight chance of the … of a … criminals in a village city, or convoy for example the entire
village, city or convey set ablaze.
Or because of the possibility of the existence of WMDs in one country, it is occupied, around
one hundred thousand people killed, its water sources, agriculture and industry destroyed,
close to 180,000 foreign troops put on the ground, sanctity of private homes of citizens
broken, and the country pushed back perhaps fifty years. At what price? Hundreds of billions
of dollars spent from the treasury of one country and certain other countries and tens of
thousands of young men and women – as occupation troops – put in harms way, taken away
from family and love ones, their hands stained with the blood of others, subjected to so much
psychological pressure that everyday some commit suicide ant those returning home suffer
depression, become sickly and grapple with all sorts of aliments; while some are killed and
their bodies handed of their families.

On the pretext of the existence of WMDs, this great tragedy came to engulf both the peoples
of the occupied and the occupying country. Later it was revealed that no WMDs existed to
begin with.

Of course Saddam was a murderous dictator. But the war was not waged to topple him, the
announced goal of the war was to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. He was
toppled along the way towards another goal, nevertheless the people of the region are happy
about it. I point out that throughout the many years of the … war on Iran Saddam was
supported by the West.

Mr President,

You might know that I am a teacher. My students ask me how can theses actions be
reconciled with the values outlined at the beginning of this letter and duty to the tradition of
Jesus Christ (PBUH), the Messenger of peace and forgiveness.

There are prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that have not been tried, have no legal representation,
their families cannot see them and are obviously kept in a strange land outside their own
country. There is no international monitoring of their conditions and fate. No one knows
whether they are prisoners, POWs, accused or criminals.

European investigators have confirmed the existence of secret prisons in Europe too. I could
not correlate the abduction of a person, and him or her being kept in secret prisons, with the
provisions of any judicial system. For that matter, I fail to understand how such actions
correspond to the values outlined in the beginning of this letter, i.e. the teachings of Jesus
Christ (PBUH), human rights and liberal values.

Young people, university students and ordinary people have many questions about the
phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them.

Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a
new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times.

Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did no exist. The show old documents
and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

I tell them to study the history of WWI and II. One of my students told me that during WWII,
which more than tens of millions of people perished in, news about the war, was quickly
disseminated by the warring parties. Each touted their victories and the most recent battlefront
defeat of the other party. After the war, they claimed that six million Jews had been killed. Six
million people that were surely related to at least two million families.

Again let us assume that these events are true. Does that logically translate into the establishment of the
state of Israel in the Middle East or support for such a state? How can
this phenomenon be rationalised or explained?

Mr President,

I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
- Many thousands were killed in the process.
- Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
- Hundred of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, towns and villages were destroyed.

This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing
for sixty years now.
A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses
while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate
Palestinian figures and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is
unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.

Another big question asked by people is why is this regime being supported?
Is support for this regime in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ (PBUH) or Moses (PBUH)
or liberal values?
Or are we to understand that allowing the original inhabitants of these lands – inside and
outside Palestine – whether they are Christian, Muslim or Jew, to determine their fate, runs
contrary to principles of democracy, human rights and the teachings of prophets? If not, why
is there so much opposition to a referendum?

The newly elected Palestinian administration recently took office. All independent observes
have confirmed that this government represents the electorate. Unbelievingly, they have put
the elected government under pressure and have advised it to recognise the Israeli regime,
abandon the struggle and follow the programs of the previous government.

If the current Palestinian government had run on the above platform, would the Palestinian
people have voted for it? Again, can such position taken in opposition to the Palestinian
government be reconciled with the values outlined earlier? The people are also saying “why
are all UNSC resolutions in condemnation of Israel vetoed?”

Mr President,

As you are well aware, I live amongst the people and am in constant contact with them -
many people from around the Middle East manage to contact me as well. They dot not have
faith in these dubious policies either. There is evidence that the people of the region are
becoming increasingly angry with such policies.

It is not my intention to pose to many questions, but I need to refer to other points as well.

Why is it that any technological and scientific achievement reached in the Middle East
regions is translated into and portrayed as a threat to the Zionist regime? Is not scientific
R&D one of the basic rights of nations.

You are familiar with history. Aside from the Middle Ages, in what other point in history has
scientific and technical progress been a crime? Can the possibility of scientific achievements
being utilised for military purposes be reason enough to oppose science and technology
altogether? If such a supposition is true, then all scientific disciplines, including physics,
chemistry, mathematics, medicine, engineering, etc. must be opposed.

Lies were told in the Iraqi matter. What was the result? I have no doubt that telling lies is
reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to.

Mr President,

Don’t Latin Americans have the right to ask, why their elected governments are being
opposed and coup leaders supported? Or, why must they constantly be threatened and live in
fear?

The people of Africa are hardworking, creative and talented. They can play an important and
valuable role in providing for the needs of humanity and contribute to its material and
spiritual progress. Poverty and hardship in large parts of Africa are preventing this from
happening. Don’t they have the right to ask why their enormous wealth – including minerals –
is being looted, despite the fact that they need it more than others?

Again, do such actions correspond to the teachings of Christ and the tenets of human rights?

The brave and faithful people of Iran too have many questions and grievances, including: the
coup d’etat of 1953 and the subsequent toppling of the legal government of the day,
opposition to the Islamic revolution, transformation of an Embassy into a headquarters
supporting, the activities of those opposing the Islamic Republic (many thousands of pages of
documents corroborates this claim), support for Saddam in the war waged against Iran, the
shooting down of the Iranian passenger plane, freezing the assets of the Iranian nation,
increasing threats, anger and displeasure vis-à-vis the scientific and nuclear progress of the
Iranian nation (just when all Iranians are jubilant and collaborating their country’s progress),
and many other grievances that I will not refer to in this letter.

Mr President,

September Eleven was a horrendous incident. The killing of innocents is deplorable and
appalling in any part of the world. Our government immediately declared its disgust with the
perpetrators and offered its condolences to the bereaved and expressed its sympathies.

All governments have a duty to protect the lives, property and good standing of their citizens.
Reportedly your government employs extensive security, protection and intelligence systems
– and even hunts its opponents abroad. September eleven was not a simple operation. Could it
be planned and executed without coordination with intelligence and security services – or
their extensive infiltration? Of course this is just an educated guess. Why have the various
aspects of the attacks been kept secret? Why are we not told who botched their
responsibilities? And, why aren’t those responsible and the guilty parties identified and put
on trial?

All governments have a duty to provide security and peace of mind for their citizens. For
some years now, the people of your country and neighbours of world trouble spots do not
have peace of mind. After 9.11, instead of healing and tending to the emotional wounds of the
survivors and the American people – who had been immensely traumatised by the attacks –
some Western media only intensified the climates of fear and insecurity – some constantly
talked about the possibility of new terror attacks and kept the people in fear. Is that service to
the American people? Is it possible to calculate the damages incurred from fear and panic?

American citizen lived in constant fear of fresh attacks that could come at any moment and in
any place. They felt insecure in the streets, in their place of work and at home. Who would be
happy with this situation? Why was the media, instead of conveying a feeling of security and
providing peace of mind, giving rise to a feeling of insecurity?

Some believe that the hype paved the way – and was the justification – for an attack on
Afghanistan. Again I need to refer to the role of media.
In media charters, correct dissemination of information and honest reporting of a story are
established tenets. I express my deep regret about the disregard shown by certain Western
media for these principles. The main pretext for an attack on Iraq was the existence of WMDs.
This was repeated incessantly – for the public to, finally, believe – and the ground
set for an attack on Iraq.

Will the truth not be lost in a contrive and deceptive climate?
Again, if the truth is allowed to be lost, how can that be reconciled with the earlier mentioned
values?
Is the truth known to the Almighty lost as well?

Mr President,

In countries around the world, citizens provide for the expenses of governments so that their
governments in turn are able to serve them.

The question here is “what has the hundreds of billions of dollars, spent every year to pay for
the Iraqi campaign, produced for the citizens?”

As your Excellency is aware, in some states of your country, people are living in poverty.
Many thousands are homeless and unemployment is a huge problem. Of course these
problems exist – to a larger or lesser extent – in other countries as well. With these conditions
in mind, can the gargantuan expenses of the campaign – paid from the public treasury – be
explained and be consistent with the aforementioned principles?

What has been said, are some of the grievances of the people around the world, in our region
and in your country. But my main contention – which I am hoping you will agree to some of
it – is:
Those in power have specific time in office, and do not rule indefinitely, but their names will
be recorded in history and will be constantly judged in the immediate and distant futures.

The people will scrutinize our presidencies.
Did we manage to bring peace, security and prosperity for the people or insecurity and
unemployment?
Did we intend to establish justice, or just supported especial interest groups, and by forcing
many people to live in poverty and hardship, made a few people rich and powerful – thus
trading the approval of the people and the Almighty with theirs’?
Did we defend the rights of the underprivileged or ignore them?
Did we defend the rights of all people around the world or imposed wars on them, interfered illegally in their affairs, established hellish prisons and incarcerated some of them?
Did we bring the world peace and security or raised the specter of intimidation and threats?
Did we tell the truth to our nation and others around the world or presented an inverted
version of it?

Were we on the side of people or the occupiers and oppressors?
Did our administration set out to promote rational behaviour, logic, ethics, peace, fulfilling
obligations, justice, service to the people, prosperity, progress and respect for human dignity
or the force of guns.
Intimidation, insecurity, disregard for the people, delaying the progress and excellence of
other nations, and trample on people’s rights?
And finally, they will judge us on whether we remained true to our oath of office – to serve
the people, which is our main task, and the traditions of the prophets – or not?

Mr President,

How much longer can the world tolerate this situation?
Where will this trend lead the world to?
How long must the people of the world pay for the incorrect decisions of some rulers?
How much longer will the specter of insecurity – raised from the stockpiles of weapons of
mass destruction – hunt the people of the world?

How much longer will the blood of the innocent men, women and children be spilled on the
streets, and people’s houses destroyed over their heads?
Are you pleased with the current condition of the world?
Do you think present policies can continue?

If billions of dollars spent on security, military campaigns and troop movement were instead
spent on investment and assistance for poor countries, promotion of health, combating
different diseases, education and improvement of mental and physical fitness, assistance to
the victims of natural disasters, creation of employment opportunities and production,
development projects and poverty alleviation, establishment of peace, mediation between
disputing states and distinguishing the flames of racial, ethnic and other conflicts were would
the world be today? Would not your government, and people be justifiably proud?
Would not your administration’s political and economic standing have been stronger?
And I am most sorry to say, would there have been an ever increasing global hatred of the
American governments?

Mr President, it is not my intention to distress anyone.

If prophet Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Ishmael, Joseph or Jesus Christ (PBUH) were with us
today, how would they have judged such behaviour? Will we be given a role to play in the
promised world, where justice will become universal and Jesus Christ (PBUH) will be
present? Will they even accept us?

My basic question is this: Is there no better way to interact with the rest of the world? Today
there are hundreds of millions of Christians, hundreds of millions of Moslems and millions of
people who follow the teachings of Moses (PBUH). All divine religions share and respect on
word and that is “monotheism” or belief in a single God and no other in the world.

The holy Koran stresses this common word and calls on an followers of divine religions and
says: [3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! Come to an equitable proposition between us and
you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught. With Him
and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah, but if they turn back, then
say: Bear witness that we are Muslims. (The Family of Imran).

Mr President,

According to divine verses, we have all been called upon to worship one God and follow the
teachings of divine prophets.
“To worship a God which is above all powers in the world and can do all He pleases.” “The
Lord which knows that which is hidden and visible, the past and the future, knows what goes
on in the Hearts of His servants and records their deeds.”
“The Lord who is the possessor of the heavens and the earth and all universe is His court”
“planning for the universe is done by His hands, and gives His servants the glad tidings of
mercy and forgiveness of sins”. “He is the companion of the oppressed and the enemy of
oppressors”. “He is the Compassionate, the Merciful”. “He is the recourse of the faithful and
guides them towards the light from darkness”. “He is witness to the actions of His servants”,
“He calls on servants to be faithful and do good deeds, and asks them to stay on the path of
righteousness and remain steadfast”. “Calls on servants to heed His prophets and He is a
witness to their deeds.” “A bad ending belongs only to those who have chosen the life of this
world and disobey Him and oppress His servants”. And “A good and eternal paradise belong
to those servants who fear His majesty and do not follow their lascivious selves.”

We believe a return to the teachings of the divine prophets is the only road leading to
salvations. I have been told that Your Excellency follows the teachings of Jesus (PBUH), and
believes in the divine promise of the rule of the righteous on Earth.

We also believe that Jesus Christ (PBUH) was one of the great prophets of the Almighty. He
has been repeatedly praised in the Koran. Jesus (PBUH) has been quoted in Koran as well;
[19,36] And surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serves Him; this is the right
path, Marium.

Service to and obedience of the Almighty is the credo of all divine messengers.

The God of all people in Europe, Asia, Africa, America, the Pacific and the rest of the world
is one. He is the Almighty who wants to guide and give dignity to all His servants. He has
given greatness to Humans.

We again read in the Holy Book: “The Almighty God sent His prophets with miracles and
clear signs to guide the people and show them divine signs and purity them from sins and
pollutions. And He sent the Book and the balance so that the people display justice and avoid
the rebellious.”

All of the above verses can be seen, one way or the other, in the Good Book as well.
Divine prophets have promised:
The day will come when all humans will congregate before the court of the Almighty, so that
their deeds are examined. The good will be directed towards Haven and evildoers will meet
divine retribution. I trust both of us believe in such a day, but it will not be easy to calculate
the actions of rulers, because we must be answerable to our nations and all others whose lives
have been directly or indirectly effected by our actions.

All prophets, speak of peace and tranquillity for man – based on monotheism, justice and
respect for human dignity.

Do you not think that if all of us come to believe in and abide by these principles, that is,
monotheism, worship of God, justice, respect for the dignity of man, belief in the Last Day,
we can overcome the present problems of the world – that are the result of disobedience to the
Almighty and the teachings of prophets – and improve our performance?

Do you not think that belief in these principles promotes and guarantees peace, friendship and
justice?

Do you not think that the aforementioned written or unwritten principles are universally
respected?

Will you not accept this invitation? That is, a genuine return to the teachings of prophets, to
monotheism and justice, to preserve human dignity and obedience to the Almighty and His
prophets?

Mr President,

History tells us that repressive and cruel governments do not survive. God has entrusted
The fate of man to them. The Almighty has not left the universe and humanity to their own
devices. Many things have happened contrary to the wishes and plans of governments. These
tell us that there is a higher power at work and all events are determined by Him.

Can one deny the signs of change in the world today?
Is this situation of the world today comparable to that of ten years ago? Changes happen fast
and come at a furious pace.

The people of the world are not happy with the status quo and pay little heed to the promises
and comments made by a number of influential world leaders. Many people around the world
feel insecure and oppose the spreading of insecurity and war and do not approve of and accept
dubious policies.

The people are protesting the increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots and the rich
and poor countries.

The people are disgusted with increasing corruption.

The people of many countries are angry about the attacks on their cultural foundations and the
disintegration of families. They are equally dismayed with the fading of care and compassion.
The people of the world have no faith in international organisations, because their rights are
not advocated by these organisations.

Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of
humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the
sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the liberal democratic
systems.

We increasingly see that people around the world are flocking towards a main focal point –
that is the Almighty God. Undoubtedly through faith in God and the teachings of the
prophets, the people will conquer their problems. My question for you is: “Do you not want to
join them?”

Mr President,

Whether we like it or not, the world is gravitating towards faith in the Almighty and justice
and the will of God will prevail over all things.

Vasalam Ala Man Ataba’al hoda

Mahmood Ahmadi-Najad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

source code lifted from cnet

It didn’t take long for the idea of forcing Internet providers to retain records of their users’ activities to gain traction in the U.S. Congress.

Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an “issue that must be addressed.” Child pornography investigations have been “hampered” because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned.

Now, in a demonstration of bipartisan unity, a Democratic member of the Congressional Internet Caucus is preparing to introduce an amendment–perhaps during a U.S. House of Representatives floor vote next week–that would make such data deletion illegal.

Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette’s proposal (click for PDF) says that any Internet service that “enables users to access content” must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user’s account was closed.

It’s not clear whether that requirement would be limited only to e-mail providers and Internet providers such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable modem services. An expansive reading of DeGette’s measure would require every Web site to retain those records. (Details would be left to the Federal Communications Commission.)

“We’re still addressing some of the issues, and we will have those issues or answers before we introduce this as either an amendment or a standalone bill,” Brandon MacGillis, a spokesman for DeGette, said in an interview on Friday.

CNET News.com was the first to report last June that the Justice Department was quietly shopping around the idea of legally required data retention. In a move that may have led to broader interest inside the United States, the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.

U.S. politicians began talking publicly about mandatory data retention during a series of House of Representatives hearings on child pornography and in speeches, News.com reported earlier this month. Legislation similar to DeGette’s has been circulating in the Colorado legislature, and another hearing on child exploitation is planned for next Wednesday.

The Bush administration’s current position is an abrupt reversal of its previous long-held belief that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed (click for PDF) “serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes.”

DeGette said in a statement that her amendment was necessary because: “America is the No. 1 global consumer of child pornography, the No. 2 producer. This is a plague we had nearly wiped out in the seventies, and sadly the Internet, an entity that we practically worship for all the great things it has brought to us, is being used to commit a crime against humanity.”

For their part, Internet providers say they have a long history of helping law enforcement in child porn cases and point out that two federal laws already require them to cooperate. It’s also unclear that investigations are really being hindered, according to Kate Dean, director of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association.

MacGillis, a spokesman for DeGette, said his boss is likely to introduce her data retention proposal as a standalone measure or as an amendment to a broad telecommunications bill that’s moving rapidly through the House.

The bill (click for PDF)–best known for a debate this week over its Net neutrality sections–was approved by a House committee on Thursday and is expected to receive a floor vote next week. (DeGette had considered adding it as an amendment during the committee vote but decided against it at the last minute.)

“Our main concern on the bill is privacy, protecting the privacy of everyone out there on the Internet, but also retention of those records so law enforcement officials will have access to them, so we just need to really tinker with the language,” MacGillis said.

Child porn as surveillance excuse?
Critics of DeGette’s proposal have said that, while the justification for Internet surveillance might be protecting children, the data would be accessible to any local or state law enforcement official investigating anything from drug possession to tax evasion. In addition, the one-year retention is a minimum; the FCC would receive the authority to require Internet companies to keep records “for not less than one year after a subscriber ceases to subscribe to such services.”

Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, said: “This is an unrestricted grant of authority to the FCC to require surveillance.”

“The FCC would be able to tell Internet service providers to monitor our e-mails, monitor our Web surfing, monitor what we post on blogs or chat rooms, and everything else under the sun,” said Harper, a member of the Department of Homeland Security’s Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. “We’re seeing a kind of hysteria reminiscent of the McMartin case. The result will be privacy that goes away and doesn’t come back when the foolishness is exposed.”

The McMartin case was probably the most extreme example of the hysteria over “Satanic ritual abuse”–a widespread scare in the 1980s that children were molested, murdered and tortured, even though no evidence was found. In the McMartin preschool case, a family was falsely accused of Satanic activities and the charges were eventually dropped.

At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that’s no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation–a practice called data
preservation.

A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires
Internet providers to retain any “record” in their possession for 90 days “upon the request of a governmental entity.”

In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law
to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,
which is in turn is charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.