2011

The Connection link :Oil-Politics& Investment-Banking explained a connection on "Hello basis"of a "select'' group of
some very powerful men who positioned themselves in the "Right Places" at the "Right Times;  do you suppose
the conversations among theses, very smart, connected-men were  about  the latest fashions-in- men-clothing,   
leading up to one of the most  critical financial downturns in America  history?  Especially since the downturn
could have devastating affect on their businesses;  I don’t think so;

The referenced years:  2006-2008.  The Men and their industry-connection: Henry Paulson, U.S.Treasury
Secretary-president Bush-Goldman Sachs; Robert Malone BP's North America CEO-President-George Bush-Vice
president Dick Cheney; Peter Sutherland BP's Chairman and Goldman’s Sach's (International) Chairman; John
Browne, BP's CEO and on the Board of Goldman Sacks
- Vice President Cheney;  Morgan Stanley-Oil-BP- investment
Banking ; JP Morgan-BP-Investiment Banking;

2006-2008, the Oil prices increased to the highest in  U.S. History;  with all of theses brilliant minds on hello
basis, it is impossible for me to-believe that  BP-"The Oil Industry"- Goldman Sachs-Morgan Stanley- and-JP
Morgan  did-not know, by the fourth quarter of 2006, that the US  was in a recession.

I cannot believe the information about the deteriorating financial state of the economy was not shared among
referenced individuals as early as the forth quarter of 2006; it can only make One wonder if the fact that the oil
industry's knowing this information, immediately decided “lets get all the money out of the people that we can
get before the
news of the recession is revealed to the public. ;that is what happened based upon the dates that
oil prices rose to a historical high before they dropped at the public announcement that the US was in a
recession.

I believe the oil companies also knew that a financial downturn was in the making and positioned themselves,
beginning the first quarter of 2007.  Oil rose, but slowly, from
March of 2000 at $34.00  per barrel to December
2006 at $63.00 (5 years 6 months it rose $26.00). However from December 2006 to July 2008 (1and 1/2 year it
rose$ 84,00). Oil more than doubled in price,  rising  from $63.00 per barrel to
$147.00 per barrel.

However, after the financial meltdown could no longer be hidden between July 2008 and December 2008 (six
months)the per barrel price had dropped from  $147.00
to 33.87 per barrel. It was during this six month period
that Henry  Paulson was informing the tax payers that $700 billion dollars would be used to bail out select
institutions, or the US
economy would totally shut down.

Within six months all the reasons that the oil companies had used in prior years, March 2000 to July 2008 to  
increase  oil prices had disappeared. Additionally,  what was even more amazing  was: all-of- the-reasons that
had led the oil companies rush to more than double the price of oil per barrel, from $63.00$ December, 2006 $
147.00 July, 2008 had also disappeared.....

It appeared that the thinking might have gone something like: ( we in this paragraph references the oil industry
and "Select" investment banking executives )  We have a better chance at increasing the oil prices while
President Bush is in office. His administration will give us a gage on just how far the oil prices can rise and fall. In
other word, we can raise the barrel prices as high as $147.00. This will raise  the pump prices close to  $5.00 per
gallon. We can collect billions of dollars in profits out of the people before the federal government start talking
federal bailouts; Then we will drop the pump prices just below $2.00 for a few weeks, gradually leveling out
about $3.00.    With that, we will still look good to the people; that will give the appearance of: look at us ( Oil
Industry and "Select" Investment banks) we lost money also. The people will be so happy that the price of gas at
the pumps range between $2.00-$3.00 they want make a fuss about previously having paid $4.00-$5.00 per gallon
at the pumps..... Then we will gradually work the pump price to about $4.00 and leave them to float between
$3.50 and $4.30.  2011 that is just about where pump prices have settled into, even though the barrel prices are
ranging around $80.00 to $90.00. In third grade English whether that was the oil and select investments bankers
thinking, It is what happened....... It is what it is...

( Another note referencing the powerful connection:"Oil industry under fire"
Soaring earnings prompt calls for a windfall profit tax, but will big oil end up having to pay ?October 28, 2005: 2:51 PM
EDTBy Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer "Sen. Byron Dorgan has introduced a three-year tax of 50 percent for any
profit oil companies make for oil sold above $40 a barrel. But even the North Dakota Democrat admits it's an uphill battle for
the bill. "This is not a very hospitable political environment to challenge the oil industry," Dorgan told CNN/Money. "We have
a president and vice president who come from the oil industry and they're not interested in doing anything that runs counter
to the interests of major integrated oil companies.")



                                                                      Page  2


It has been proven that Goldman Sachs was privileged to "Select" information that allowed them to position
themselves, and avoid some losses during the 2008-2009 financial meltdown. However It is speculative that the
oil industry went beyond that, and actually earned profits while most other industries failed to brake even. After
my research for this writing, even, trying to convince me of anything different reminds me of when I was
growing up on the farm in Mississippi.

On the farm under age 10, I spent a lot of time listening to my Grandmother and the old people talking; I
remember often when  one person would relay an incident, in which, that person had told them a lie, but the
teller of the lie told the lie as truth... At this point, the person who was lied to, asked the one who told  the lie as
truth: “Do I look like a fool to you? I must look like a fool for you to expect me to believe that lie as truth"
....


Now again March 2011, it is obvious that the Oil industry is going in the same direction, using the same methods
again as they did from 2006 to 2008.  From my business experience, I speculate that Every day that the oil prices
are above $2.70 per gallon, more business in general are put on struggle mode just to break even. Every day the
prices are over $3.50 per gallon many are not breaking-even, and at  $4.00 per gallon, many small businesses
will probably be out of business in less than 12 months.  The US economy is still on life-support. The true-
numbers of the US  unemployment supports that. I do not think the Federal government have enough money,
time, or man-power to-investigate and prove what to me is obviously true. However, because the economy is
still on life-support-resulting from the 2006-2008 recession, the Federal government must stop the oil/
speculation before it brings the economy, even lower than, it's knees this time financially. I break down
speculation in Third-Grade-English later in this chapter.

According to Steven G. Jerstad and Vernon L. Smith, a Professor of Economics at Chapman University and the
2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics
His article From Bubble to Depression? Shows from his research that the
housing bubble peaked in the year 2006

A memo dated May 30, 2006 references President Bush Nomination
Henry Paulson as
Treasury Secretary:

“The past eight years (from 1998 to 2006)., Hank  served as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Goldman
Sachs Group It's one of the most respected firms on Wall Street”. President Bush said. “He has a lifetime of
business experience; he has an intimate knowledge of financial markets and an ability to explain economic
issues in clear terms. He's earned a reputation for candor and integrity. And when he is confirmed by the Senate,
he'll be a superb addition to my Cabinet.”  Per President Bush’s Memo dated May 30, 2006.



                                                                                  
 Page 3


From 1970 to 1972, at the pentagon,  Paulson was staff assistant to the secretary of Defense. From 1972 to 1973
he worked in the administration of
President Richard Nixon as assistant to John Ehrlichman. This gave Paulson
valuable –hands-on-political -experience from the-top early in his career.

Paulson joined Goldman Sachs in 1974 becoming a partner in 1982. Continuing to move through the ranks at
Goldman to become the Chief Executive  Officer by 1994. .
” His compensation package, for 5 years was U.S.
$46.74 million, including the US $16.4 million “projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over $600
million" according to Forbes

Keep in mind “ The collapse of the U.S. Housing bubble, which peaked in 2006, caused the values of securities
tied to U.S. Real estate pricing to plummet, damaging financial institutions globally. Questions regarding bank
solvency, declines in credit availability and damaged investor confidence had an impact on global stock
markets,” and Paulson is summonsed by President Bush to the white-House as the “ Financial Fix it Man” May,
2006

“Needless to say Mr. Paulson is really smart. I sincerely respect, admire and appreciate that. He  accumulated
hands-on political experience very early in his career. Based upon his rise in Goldman Sacks; he knows the
working of the financial world beyond any doubt, so if the country is getting in trouble financially “who” better to
call and quick, but Henry Paulson. It appears President Bush did that as soon as he was made aware that
"Something Had Happened", and the country’s financial world was in deep- trouble like a train running down hill
at a thousand miles per hour and no one can, or knows how to apply the breaks .

Therefore President Bush’s hiring Pauson, as soon as he was made aware of the situation was the smart thing to
do; hoping that the situation could be fixed, before  the runaway financial  train crashed. The collateral damages
of a crash could take two to three decades to repair. Based upon Henry Paulson experience, I can agree with the
thinking that if it could be fixed, He was the man to fix it...

Additionally the urgency to prevent a financial crash as quickly as possible, or apply some bandage as a
temporary measure made common sense. Nothing could cement in history a more scared presidency than
having one of the worst recession since the 1930’s occur near the end of their second  term in office. Although  
According to  Paul Blumenthal April 1, 2009, "
Read the Bill"  The Commodity Futures Modernization Act de
regulatory bill begin in 1998 under Bill Clinton.  The bill contributed greatly to the 2008-2009 financial meltdown.

The chairman of the Commodity Futures Trade Commission (CFTC) Brooksley Born wanted her regulatory
commission to have power to oversee financial derivatives.  Born’s efforts were threatening to the financial
industry.  "The financial industry and government officials fiercely opposed  Born’s ideas.   'Greenspan,
Summers, and Senate committee chairmen all criticized her and her proposals." In the end, Born lost her battle
and, in May 1999, was replaced as CFTC chairman". The new chairman, William Rainer, was on board with the
industry leaders and the major government officials Summers, Greenspan, and Levitt".



                                                                                      
Page 4


"Leading the charge in Congress were Sens. Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Rep. Thomas
Ewing (R-IL). In May of 2000, Rep. Ewing introduced his Commodity Futures Modernization Act.  Ewing’s bill
sailed quickly through the House, but stalled in the Senate.  Sen. Gramm wanted stricter de regulatory language
to be inserted into the bill. "Gramm opposed any language that could provide the SEC or the CFTC with any hope
of authority in regulating, or oversight of financial derivatives and swaps. Gramm’s opposition held the bill in
limbo until Congress went into recess for the 2000 election" according to Paul Blumenthal "Read the Bill".

"During a lame-duck December session, while the media was focused on the recounts and court cases, Gramm
and Ewing sought to strike a compromise on the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. The day after the
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gov. Bush, December 14, 1999, Ewing introduced a new version of the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act saying what he wanted it to say. "On December 15, with little warning or
fanfare"—the
 262-page de regulatory bill, known as The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, including
Gramm's
 new  compromise version was included as a rider to the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2001.  
"It was tucked into a bloated 11,000 page omnibus appropriations conference report"  becoming law.

Under referenced,  "undesirable circumstances", ultimately, it was the Republicans who rushed to  push through
The Commodity Futures Modernization Act, the de regulatory bill that propelled the worst financial recession
since the 1930's;This also would have made  fixing the economy quick, a top priority for President Bush.....

Even more scaring  to add to the disgrace of a recession on President’s Bush clock was, two wars.  The invasion  
of Iraq  March 2003 was suppose to rid Iraqi of  Weapons of Mass Destruction and remove Saddam Husseins from
power. The war was predicted to be over in months, not years, but... "something Happened".  Actually "The Iraqi
military was quickly defeated. The capital, Baghdad, came down on April 9, 2003. May 1, 2003, President Bush
declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq in a speech given from the deck of the USS Abraham
Lincoln.

This speech is known as his "Mission Accomplished"speech, because a banner with that slogan hung in view
overhead
."  ( text from The Bush Speech)http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/01/iraq/main551946.shtml
"Something Happened",this Invasion was more of  a beginning than an ending. Iraqi's stockpile of weapons of
Mass destruction was never found. According to the Guardian's Sarah Boseley report, as of  Sept 28, 2004, ,  
About "100,000 Iraqi civilians - half of them women and children - died in Iraq since the invasion March 2003,
mostly as a result of air strikes by coalition forces." The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by
epidemiologist's at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The Washington Post reported Oct 11 2006, that the same survey team estimated that an approximate" 655,000
more people have died, both civilian and military, in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would
have died if the invasion had not occurred".

The US  Invasion of Iraq led to the capture of President Saddam Hussein, who was tried in the Iraqi court of law.
"In November, 2006 Saddam Hussein was found guilty of 148 murders, and on December 30, 2006, he was
executed by the new Iraqi government.


Violence against coalition forces and among various sectarian groups  led to the Iraqi insurgency, strife between
Sunni and Shia Iraqi groups, and the emergence of a new faction of al-Qaeda in Iraq. In 2008, the UNHCR reported
an estimate of 4.7 million refugees (~16% of the population) with 2 million abroad (a number close to CIA
projections and 2.7 million internally displaced people. In 2007, Iraq's anti-corruption board reported that 35% of
Iraqi children, or about five million children, were orphans."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Warhttp://www.
askbiography.com/bio/Iraq_War.html

As of Tuesday, Nov. 1, 2011, of the approximately 150. 000 US military personnel station in Iraq, at least 4,483
members of the U.S. Military had died in the Iraq war since it began in March 2003, according to an Associated
Press report. At least "3,525 military personnel died as a result of hostile action, according to the military's
numbers. "Since the start of U.S. Military operations in Iraq, 32,219 U.S. Service members have been wounded in
hostile action, according to the Defense Department's weekly tally".

In 2002, President Bush's chief economist, Lawrence Lindsey,  gave an estimate that the Iraq war would cost 100
to 200 billion dollars as an answer to a news reporter... Less than three months later, Mr Lindsey's services was
no longer needed as the white House staff.  The Bush administration was not pleased with Mr Lindsey's answer
of 100-200 billion dollars estimated cost of the Iraq war. At that time, they believed the cost would be less.
However, yet again "something happened"  As of 2009 their were estimates that the cost of the Iraq war had
passed the trillion dollar mark.

However, September 2011, A  Eisenhower Research project, based at Brown University "assembled a team that
includes economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts, and a physician" gave a ruff estimate 2-3
trillion as a cost for the Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan wars. According to their finding just over 6000 US solders
have died in the three wars. As of the fall 2010, 550,000 disability claims filed for the war's injuries had been filed
in Va.   
  The Brown University analysis stated:" the conservative numbers of war dead from the three wars, in uniform and
out, brings the total to 236,000".
 The study also stated that the currently (2011) there was "7,800,000.00 displaced
person and war refugees".   They said there were many unknowns, including the numbers of deaths and injures
among US contractors. To read the entire Brown University report see page ---- of the Book. Another source
using  "Reuters fact box", June 2011"( http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/much-wars-cost-report-says-4-
trillion-130934180.html)  reported that 2,300 US contractors had died as a result of the three wars, but the number
of US "contractors injuries had not been calculated"



The Brown University report showed a total number of the dead from three wars in uniform and out of uniform as
236,000 as of September 2011. According to the Guardian's (History) Health editor Sarah Boseley, October 28,
2004 the count for Iraq was "about 100,000 Civilian, half of them women and children-have died in Iraq since the
invasion, mostly as a result air strikes by coalition forces". "
The risk of a violent death is now 58 times higher than it
was before the invasion", according to the study.
. Ms Boseley stated that "The research was led by Les Roberts of
the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore. Five of the six Iraqi interviewers who went
to the 988 households in the survey were doctors and all those involved in the research on the ground, says the
paper, risked their lives to collect the data. Householders were asked about births and deaths in the 14.6 months
before the March 2003 invasion, and births and deaths in the 17.8 months afterwards." To read complete article
see page --- of the book.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/29/iraq.sarahboseley

October 11,2006 according to the Guardian's (History) health editor Sarah Boseley "
The death toll in Iraq following
the US-led invasion has topped 655,000 - one in 40 of the entire population - according to a major piece of research in one
of the world's leading medical journals".The research source again was, "produced by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School
of Public Health in Baltimore and published online by the Lancet, claims the total number of deaths is more than 10 times
greater than any previously compiled estimate".

According to the article, "The findings provoked an immediate political storm. Within hours of its release, George Bush had
dismissed the figures. "I don't consider it a credible report," he told reporters at the White House. "Neither does General
Casey [the top US officer in Iraq], neither do Iraqi officials.The Foreign Office also cast doubt on the findings, stating that the
government preferred to rely on the body count of the Iraqi ministry of health, which recorded just 7,254 deaths between
January 2005 and January 2006". But the US researchers have the backing of four separate independent experts who
reviewed the new paper for the Lancet. All urged publication. One spoke of the "powerful strength" of the research methods,
which involved house-to-house surveys by teams of doctors across Iraq."

"The Johns Hopkins researchers published an earlier study in the Lancet in October 2004, which caused similar shock
waves. They say the new work validates the old and shows an alarming escalation in violent deaths.
Nearly a third of the deaths (31%) were ascribed to the coalition forces. Most of the deaths - 601,000 out of 655,000 - were
due to violence and of those, 56% were caused by gunshot wounds. Air strikes, car bombs and other explosions accounted
for a further 13-14%."

The article also stated:"For reasons involving their own safety, the doctors did not probe whether those who died were
combatants or civilians. Deaths due to disease have also risen as the conflict has damaged Iraq's health services.
The authors say their discovery that the death rate in Iraq has more than doubled from 5.5 per 1,000 a year before the
invasion to 13.3 per 1,000 a year since "constitutes a humanitarian emergency".

"Although such death rates might be common in times of war," write the authors, Professor Gilbert Burnham and colleagues,
"the combination of a long duration and tens of millions of people affected has made this the deadliest international conflict
of the 21st century and should be of grave concern to everyone."At the conclusion of our 2004 study we urged that an
independent body assess the excess mortality that we saw in Iraq. This has not happened. We continue to believe that an
independent international body to monitor compliance with the Geneva conventions and other humanitarian standards in
conflict is urgently needed. With reliable data, those voices that speak out for civilians trapped in conflict might be able to
lessen the tragic human cost of future wars." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/oct/12/iraq.topstories3To read complete
article go to page --- of the book.

The notable point of the two very reliable reach teams difference in number, over only the short period of time 2006-2011
About 5 years, One can only imagine the descriptives after 25 years .

Now more than ever true history, actual formal statements of events and facts, as they happened, needs to be written and
repeated in many sources;  because according to the New York time's, article James C. Mckinley Jr., the Texas Board of
Education on Friday March 12, 2010" "approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and
economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a
purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light".  http://www.nytimes.
com/2010/03/13/education/13texas.htmlby.Texas Conservatives Won the rights to change "the Curriculum in history,
sociology and economics courses from elementary to high school". The Republicans made theses changes, because they
wanted to look better, or" more favorable" in History. Apparently,They believed that the current "History" of events and facts
did not happen as history has recorded them. Therefore, It is extremely important that the time of  this major-change March
12, 2010, and the reason for this change be recorded in History as History. This will allow for those 25 plus years from now
to research backward prior to the year 2010 to see what the History was before the change...  


They believe the current history is slanted and the Republican look bad. Well if it's history, the facts and events  stated are
what they are.  What actually happened is history".  Knowledge of facts and events, a formal statement of such is History.....
Why it happened is also a part of history. Just because it "Aint" pretty does not make it is  a lie. It is, what "It" is....The fact
that the country is ashame of it, does not mean it did not happened. It means that it is something the Country should be
ashame of, and the country needs to remember , in order not to repeat it.

Therefore no matter how badly and ashame a large percentage of the U.S. Population might be about what was done by
the  US government during the period of 2000-2009, It is a part of the US history like slavery or the be-friending the native
American on Thank Giving, only to later slater them. It is History. Just because one decide to re tell the story to make them
look more favorable does not change the fact of events that happened. With that said, I do hope the accurate recording of
the deaths, injure and other hardships both for the US and the US led invaded countries Iraq ,Afghanistan, Iraq and
Pakistan will include the number resulting from  air strikes by coalition forces, as well as, condition created by said-acts of
war and how many by suicide bombing,   that more likely would not have been had the US led invasion had not happened.
That is history and what we learned from history.  The complete Brown university article includes more of what we need to
know about the results of  three wars. I hope that both Brown and John Hopkins continue their research for the true facts of
events of the three wars, because there is a lot that a large percentage of the US is ashamed of that happened from 2000-
2010, there is a big possibility, that  period of history would be rewritten to make the US look more favorable. I say that
because, it appears that there is little that can be done since the re writing of history have been approved to make "select"
parties look more favorable. One can only imagine the mess down the road that will create. However the period as I mention
when the rewriting the US history, boldly, begin is also history and should  be written about as often as possible as well.
That date might be the only savior in trying to unravel the mess the re writing of history to look favorable, will more likely,
cause decades from now....
.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

•        World news
One in 40 Iraqis 'killed since invasion'
US and Britain reject journal's finding that death toll has topped 650,000
•        


Then there was the waste ,"Democrats on the committee painted a picture of disorganization within the Bush
administration after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Rep. Waxman claimed $12 billion dollars were sent to Iraq
between May 2003 and June 2004 and is unaccounted for by the U.S. Government. Rep. Waxman said that 'bags
of money' were taken from the Federal Reserve in New York, loaded onto wooden palettes and put on cargo
planes that were flown into Baghdad."

"Who in their right minds would send 360 tons of cash into a war zone?" asked Rep. Waxman. "But that's exactly
what our government did," he said. "They were handing out tons of cash from the back of pick up trucks," said
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, arguing the Bush administration lacked a plan for the post-Saddam effort." http:
//abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2852426  "http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jul/07/iraq.features11


The Afghanistan. War, from my research, was to locate and punish Osama Bin Laden , who was never found.  BIn
Laden was labeled the root of the 911 disaster. On a side note Dartmouth college review, Mr Paulson amateur
college stated in one of their issues that- it seem strange that the video graphites could fine Bin Laden , the
dialysis suppliers could fine Bin Laden, but Bin Laden continued to elude the U.S. Military. And I thought WOW!--
the U.S. Military, the most expensive and powerful military in the world; Ohm, Interesting food for thought......
However Osama Bin Laden was captured and killed on or about April 30, 2011 during President Obama',
presidency.....

Billions of tax payers’  dollars was reported wasted on both wars. In  addition to the cost of the Wars to make
president Bush’s time in office even more scared if possible, there was surplus funding when he became
president in year 2000. An "Estimated
 surplus of at least $237 billion in FY2000. The 2000 surplus was projected
to be 2.4 percent of GDP - the largest surplus as a share of the economy ("GDP") since 1948"http://clinton4.nara.
gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_24_155324_2000.html.

Then there was the moral scandals:
The four solders who raped and murdered Iraq's Abeer.  She was  14 years old; her name means 'fragrance of
flowers.'

(Women's Media Center / By Robin Morgan, August 17, 2006
"Rape, Murder, and the American GI"
We must not forget the death of Abeer, who was allegedly stalked, raped and killed by American soldiers.  

We cannot let this crime, too, pass into oblivion.

When news surfaced that GIs allegedly stalked, terrorized, gang-raped, and killed an Iraqi woman, the U.S. Tried
minimizing this latest atrocity by our troops -- claiming the victim was age 25 or even 50, implying a rape-murder
is less horrific if the victim is an older woman. Now, Article 32 hearings -- the military equivalent of a grand jury --
have ended at Camp Liberty, a U.S. base in Iraq (U.S. troops are exempt from Iraqi prosecution). In September, a
general will rule whether the accused should be court-martialed. The defense already pleads post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD): in four months preceding the crime, 17 of the accused GIs' battalion were killed; their
company, Bravo, suffered eight combat deaths.

But as the U.S. spun the victim's identity, investigators knew her name: Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi.

The soldiers noticed her at a checkpoint. They stalked her after one or more of them expressed his intention to
rape her. On March 12, after playing cards while slugging whisky mixed with a high-energy drink and practicing
their golf swings, they changed into black civvies and burst into Abeer's home in Mahmoudiya, a town 50 miles
south of Baghdad. They killed her mother Fikhriya, father Qassim, and five-year-old sister Hadeel with bullets to
the forehead, and "took turns" raping Abeer. Finally, they murdered her, drenched the bodies with kerosene, and
lit them on fire to destroy the evidence. Then the GIs grilled chicken wings.

These details are from a sworn statement by Spc. James P. Barker, one of the accused along with Sgt. Paul
Cortez, Pfc. Jesse Spielman, and Pfc. Bryan Howard; a fifth, Sgt. Anthony Yribe, is charged with failing to report
the attack but not with having participated.

Then there's former Pfc. Steven Green. Discharged in May for a "personality disorder," Green was arrested in
North Carolina, pled not guilty in federal court, and is being held without bond. He's the convenient scapegoat
whose squad leader testified how often Green said he hated all Iraqis and wanted to kill them. Other soldiers
said Green threw a puppy off a roof, then set it on fire. The company commander noted Green had "serious
anger issues."

Who is this "bad apple"? A good ole boy from Midland, Texas.

"If you want to understand me, you need to understand Midland," says President Bush. Steven Green
understands Midland -- his home until his parents divorced and his mother remarried when Green was eight,
already in trouble in school. A high-school dropout, Green returned to Midland to get his GED in 2003. Then, in
2005, he enlisted. He immersed himself in a chapel baptismal pool at Fort Benning, Georgia -- getting "born
again" while being trained how to kill legally and die heroically. He was 19, with three convictions: fighting, and
alcohol and drug possession.

Once, the Army would have rejected him. But he enlisted when, desperate for fresh recruits, the Army started
increasing, by nearly half, the rate at which it grants what it terms "moral waivers" to potential recruits.
According to the Pentagon, waivers in 2001 totaled 7,640, increasing to 11,018 in 2005. "Moral waivers" permit
recruits with criminal records, emotional problems, and weak educational backgrounds to be taught how to use
submachine guns and rocket launchers. Afterward, if they survive, they'll be called heroes -- and released back
into society. (One ex-soldier praising the military for having "properly trained and hardened me" was Timothy
McVeigh).

The U.S. military is now a mercenary force. In addition to hired militias and "independent contractors," we do
have a draft: a poverty draft. That's why the Army is so disproportionately comprised of people of color, seeking
education, health care, housing. But the military inflicts other perks: teenage males, hormones surging, are
taught to confuse their bodies with weapons, and relish that.

One notorious training song (with lewd gestures) goes: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; one is for killing, one is
for fun." The U.S. Air Force admits showing films of violent pornography to pilots before they fly bombing raids.
Military manuals are replete with such blatant phrases as "erector launchers," "thrust ratios," "rigid deep earth-
penetration," "potent nuclear hardness."

"Soft targets"? Civilians. Her name means "fragrance of flowers."

Feminist scholars have been exposing these phallocentric military connections for decades. When I wrote The
Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism (updated edition 2001, Washington Square Press), I presented far more
evidence than space here permits on how the terrorist mystique and the hero legend both spring from the same
root: the patriarchal pursuit of manhood. How can rape not be central to the propaganda that violence is erotic --
a pervasive message affecting everything from U.S. foreign policy (afflicted with premature ejaculation) to
"camouflage chic," and glamorized gangs styles?

This definition of manhood is toxic to men and lethal to women.

But atrocity fatigue has set in. Wasn't rape a staple of war long before The Iliad? Weren't 100,000 women and
girls raped and killed in brothel-death-camps in the former Yugoslavia? Didn't warring Somali clans in the 1990s,
sometimes joined by UN Peacekeeping troops, rape "each other's women"? Weren't the five surviving Somali
women then stoned to death by Islamists for "adultery"? And weren't the earliest reports from another small,
troubled country -- of rape attacks on villages by gangs called Interahamwe ("Our Heroic Boys") -- ignored? It
was merely about women, and hardly anyone had heard of the place: Rwanda.

Yet the Pentagon is shocked. "Not our nice American GIs? Must be a few bad apples." Have we already forgotten
Abu Ghraib? The photos of sexually tortured men leaked, but photos of abased and abused women prisoners are
still classified, for fear of greater world outrage. Have we forgotten two U.S. marines and a sailor kidnapping a 12-
year-old Okinawan girl in 1995, battering, raping, and abandoning her naked in a deserted area? She somehow
survived and reported them, though her PTSD doubtless haunts still. So many military rapes have occurred in
Okinawa, Korea, and the Philippines that Asian feminists organized entire movements in protest. Incidents keep
occurring around U.S. ports and bases, including the hundreds of reported rapes of U.S. women soldiers by their
fellow GIs (plus the joint epidemic of rape and evangelicalism at the U.S. Air Force Academy).

In 1998, a landmark UN decision recognized rape as a war crime -- though this raises the question: If rape in war
is a crime against humanity, then what is it in peacetime?The International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former
Yugoslavia issued indictments and convictions on sexual-violence grounds.

Sometimes, a few nice American guys are found guilty -- as Green and his buddies might be. Then all returns to
"normal." They're sacrificed to save the ranks of those who train them to do what they did, and to save the
careers of politicians who sermonize obscenely about "moral values" while issuing moral waivers.

Robin Morgan's new book, Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right, comes out in September
(Nation Books). She is a co-founder of The Women's Media Center.http://www.alternet.org/world/48438/?
page=2http://www.alternet.org/world/40481/?page=entire) I included the author's entire article and book
referenced. The time to put in place training and rules to prevent this from happening again is during more
peaceful times. The years 2000-2008 is a period in US history that should not be pushed under the rug and
forgotten. When one  does not know history, one is more-likely to repeat it. I would hope this period is not one
the US wants to repeat....


With all that happened during President's Bush' time in the White Houses (2000-2008, I truly believe that
President Bush and company wanted to fix the financial break down, or at least put enough bandage on it to
defer the break until the next president was in office; however, that-was-not to-be... "Something Happened" the
urgency, the fall of the financial market could not wait for the new president's  arrival...  

If Paulson could-not fix the financial breakdown that I believe he was made aware of its coming as of 2006,
without the $700 billion that was ultimately approved, then it , clearly, could not be fixed. Based upon my
research for this book , I strongly believe that.

However the same research-reasoning that helped me to formulate that belief, also helped me to formulate the
belief that the referenced “incestuous” banking, oil and political circle knew that the house was on fire,
analogically speaking, yet they decided, for their personal gain, to keep adding gasoline to the blaze until there
was nothing left but the fumes validating that there had been a really serious fire...(Remember  the housing
bubble peaked in the year 2006.  President Bush Nominates Henry Paulson as Treasury Secretary May 30, 2006.
Also oil increased  from $63.00 per barrel December  2006  to $147.00 per barrel July 2008; This is validated, even
more, later in this chapter.


                                                                                        
 Page 5

In 2006 after 22 years, Henry  Paulson leaves Goldman as CEO to take the highest financial job in the white
house. Based upon his biography  he had mastered everything there is to know as he moved through the ranks,
and was truly the best man for the
job.  From a common sense point of view , because of the very close Knit
circle- President Bush-Vice president Dick Cheney- Henry Paulson- Goldman Sachs; Peter Sutherland-BP &
Goldman Sachs Chairman, BP's CEO John Browne and board member of Goldman Sacks;  BP-Morgan Stanley
and JP Morgan-BP; how could this group not have first-hand,  professional information that a serious financial
downturn was about to hit the US and select countries around the world as early as the fall of  2006?

For example
Kate Kelly, Wall street journal article dated December 14, 2007 explains  how Goldman Sachs
avoided the fall of many of the other investment banks that packaged mortgages into securities. "Goldman
loaded up on the Market ABX index of credit default swaps between early December-2006 and late February
2007,” According to Kate Kelly.

“However as penalty for Goldman’s crime,”Washington, D.C., July 15, 2010 — The Securities and Exchange
Commission announced that Goldman, Sachs & Co. will pay $550 million and reform its business practices to
settle SEC charges that Goldman misled investors in a subprime mortgage product just as the U.S. housing
market was starting to collapse”. Note the word
“Starting”

"The civil suit brought by the S.E.C. Focused on a single mortgage security that Goldman created in 2007, just as
cracks appeared in the housing market. That security, called Abacus 2007-AC1, enabled a prominent hedge fund
manager, John A. Paulson, to place a bet against mortgage bond" ( This is John Paulson not Henry Paulson)
In agreeing to the SEC's largest-ever penalty paid by a Wall Street firm, In addition, Goldman acknowledged that
the marketing materials for Abacus
“contained incomplete information” and that it was “a mistake” not to have
disclosed Mr.  John Paulson’s role. As part of the agreement, the bank also said it “regrets that the marketing
materials did not contain that disclosure.” (There are no other references about "John Paulson" in this article, All
references are about Henry Paulson. I do not know who "John Paulson" is.)

According to the article dated December 14, 2007  Goldman earned”
nearly  $4 billion in profit during the year
that ended November 30, 2007, according to sources familiar with the firm's finances.” Those gains erased $1.5
billion to $2 billion of mortgage-related losses.” Even though the $550 million is reported as the “largest-ever
penalty paid by a Wall Street firm,”  of the nearly $4 Billion in profit,  I would “speculate” that Goldman still
profited at least $1 billion after attorneys fees from the sub prime meltdown. That falls under "How Big
Corporation profit from being illegal".

( I explain the process of how big corporation "Profits for being Illegal" in the letter to Tony Hayward dated March
30, 2007 “Hope Rein eternally”It is included in the book.  To me that process is important, because when many
Small Businesses fail, the top executives never recover from the fall of their business. I give the details hoping
that it helps those Small Business executives to understands that there is an entirely different set of rules that
helps keeps "select" Big Corporation from failing; namely "Too-Big to Fail",  because of feared collateral
damage to the economy; with this in mind, if the government was not part of the 'Bigcooperation" business plan,
why else would the government continue to approve  the majority of merges knowing that they are creating
more of the "Too-Big to Fail" and all of the human abuse that is a part of the management system of the "Too-Big
to fail"

My point is there is a serious financial downturn discovered in 2006, Goldman Sachs realizes this and position
themselves, as early as February 2007, against the ultimate financial meltdown. Oil prices increased higher and  
faster in one year an half, after the recession peaked, than they did in the  five years (2006), prior to the
recession-peak


                                                            Page 6

Even more confusing was the report  that from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the second quarter of 2008,the
Energy information Administration(EIA) stated that  the world wide supply of oil went up,  and World-wide
demand for oil  went down. According to previous information, this scenario is when the price of fuel goes down.
However in this case, not only did the price go higher, but to a historical high.

According USA TODAY Larry Copeland and Paul Overberg:"
Drivers cut back 30B miles.  "Americans are driving
about the same number of miles as in 2005" . Americans drove 22 billion fewer miles from November 2007
through April 2008, than during the same period in November 2006 through April 2007, "the biggest such drop
since the Iranian revolution led to gasoline supply shortages in 1979-80" according to this USA TODAY report.
Yet the oil prices peaked to a historic high during this time. This validates that the oil companies decided they
had a certain amount of profit that they wanted to collect from the people. Therefore, they adjusted their prices
to accommodate their desired profit before the economy bottomed out. That is Third Grade A
rithmetic.

Because we are Global, it would make common sense that this referenced group of connected men was aware
of the financial effects that the downturn would have on the world.  It has been proven that Goldman Sachs knew
that the world was about to take a financial fall. It-has-no-been-proven that the oil companies-because                  
of-inside- information, also knew-and used-this-inside-information-to-drain all the money that they could out of
the people before-the- closet circumstances came to light, or the money pots was empty. This financial doubling
of oil prices from  $63.00 to $147.00 during one of  the most critical financial downturns in the US history applied
extreme pressure on an already sinking financial economy; this speed ed  up the country’s worst recession
since the depression of the 1930s,

Gold man's top oil analyst predicted early 2008 that the price per barrel of
oil would rise  to $150 -  $200.00  within
two years;  I do think that $200.00 was the plan, but time ran out. The public could not be keep in the dark any
longer, because the $700 billion was needed and fast to stop the runaway financial train, analogically speaking.....

If there was anything Divine about the seeded-up time of the ultimate financial meltdown by the speculators, it
was that it did-happen during the time that the President was still in office, who allowed the spending, and
encouraged the reduced regulations that enable “it” to-be. Other wise, the clock would have been pushed back.
The financial meltdown would have fallen on the next President's clock, who had nothing to do with its causes.. .

The increase in oil prices led to an increase in the prices of just about everything we use on a daily basis; the
domino effect could only hasting the ultimate fall; all facts implies that is exactly what it did. That is basic
arithmetic. Its not even complicated mathematic, and just think
Martha Stewart went to jail over inside-trading
involving  $228.000 of her own money….. I do hope President Obama will pardon her before he leaves the white
house.   "Stewart's attorneys have 10 days to file their motion to overturn her conviction last March on
obstructing justice, conspiracy and making false statements during an
insider trading investigation into her sale
of $228,000 worth of ImClone Systems (IMCL: Research, Estimates) stock in December 2001." I guess no one
ever promised that "Life would be fair, but it stills hurts when it is not....

To further validate the case of oil  speeding up the financial crash of 2008, Just in case there was something that
I did not understand, I consulted with the dictionary just to verify, exactly what the word
"speculation" means:


                                                    
                       Page 7


SPECULATION: "Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition"
CONJECTURE:  "Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork”
Supposition: belief, guess, idea, theory, possibility, hypothesis, assumption deduction, conclusion, inference,
hypothesis, speculation, conjecture.

You will note in the excerpts copied from several news articles below reporting the increase of the oil prices per
barrel-you will see the increased frequency of theses increases between  July 2006 and July 2008 .2006 being
the time acknowledged by Economic-Professional-Analysis as the time that the housing bubble peaked.

Again  remember it was May 30 2006 when President Bush hired Henry Paulson as U.S. Treasury, who seem to
be  the best financial-clean-up man- in the country.
.
Also think of the dictionary meaning of the word "speculation" as you read the news excerpts. Pay close
attention to the words in each article that are used to give a reason for the increase in the price per barrel of oil.
During this same period, the pump price per gallon, increased with the price increase per barrel. This price
increased ever thing relating to the use of oil, including the thousands of products made from oil.

Note Words like:
"
worries about threats" "potential supply disruption"  " plan-to-launch a five-day strike"

It is not that I am discovering anything new; select media was reporting the information during the time , its just
that it did not appear that there was a complete- Third-Grade-English brake-down all in one -article. That is the
goal I am trying to reach in this writing. I am doing my best to show how the dots-connects using “Third Grade
English” in this articles, and the included Connection article....

Also note that during this period while the cost per barrel was doubling that the demand was down see article:
"Drivers cut back by 30B miles" By Larry Copeland and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY6/19/2008  “Americans are
driving about the same number of miles as in 2005, when the USA had 8 million fewer people, according to a
USA TODAY analysis on Federal Highway Administration data.”

“Americans drove 22 billion fewer miles from November 2007 through April , 2008 than during the same period in
2006-07, the biggest such drop since the Iranian revolution led to gasoline supply shortages in 1979-80”.  

Additionally, I am aware that there is an inflation formula, however when one industry is making billions of
dollars in profits by forcing hundreds of thousands of other businesses out of business, or into bankruptcy, that
is not inflation. Inflation have a more equal, or even
affect on all businesses.
(To see New-Articles referenced in this chapter: click here)

                                                  
Page 8

When there are rumors that can relate to oil anywhere in the world, example, rumors of something that could, or
might happen in Venezuela, the fuel prices increases: However the prices are increased based upon
speculation, there by, even, when said speculated-situation does not manifest. Guess what?  The oil companies
have your money, and they do not give it back.  

IF the government  was brave enough to do "The Math" and subtract from the oil companies every penny that
the oil companies earned based upon raising the oil prices on speculation "What Ifs"  that never manfested...The
pump prices could probably be rolled back in the U.S.  to $2.00  per gallon at the pumps for at least a year or two.  
Even with such a roll-back, the people probably would not be paid back the money that they paid at the pumps
based upon  falsely created "What Ifs.  The money that results in profits for the oil companies and investment
houses......

The roll backs to Airlines would work wonders to help balance their books. There are many people in the US who
have not taken vacations in 6 to 8 year; they were just fighting to keep the basics together, many to no avail…

This was validated by the number of  business and stores that went out of business . Money circulating in the
economy has a domino
effect. If you do not have money you cannot-spend it. This was the situation in 2007 and
2008 when the oil companies were allowed to participate in the wildest speculation. This speculation hastened
the worst  recession since the 1930s.  It appeared that in 2007-2008, China and India could afford to pay the high
prices
for oil, but large percentages of the people in the US could not... Why should the people in the US be charged based upon
the demands for oil in China and India?

Why did  the US Government just look–on while giving the oil companies and investments banks the okay to
continue speculating. The Government  pretended to slap the oil CEO’s  on the hand a couple of times. This was
to fool the voters into thinking that they were making an effort to lower oil prices. However, its clear after each
hearing, the oil prices would go,even, higher.....One could not  help but wonder who was really running the US
Government.... That is another of those I must look like a fool moments....

How can it be okay with the U.S. Government to allow one industry to raise there prices to the point of putting at
least 40-60 percent of  other industries on struggle mode just to survive, which many failed in spite of.   

Additionally, if the government was brave enough to set some guidelines on the oil companies. The oil
companies seem to be of the mind-set that they have the right to earn as much profit as they-desire-by
collecting-money from the people when ever they-desire to.   What if every company had the governments okay
to raise their prices every time there is even a threat of a crisis any-where in the world that could cut into their
projected-desired- profits...

The airlines would have on-going celebrations, if they were allowed the raise their prices every time there was a
threat of, or a manifested snow storm, or any weather condition that might cause them to cancel, or delay flights.
Farmers, Road construction workers, and many businesses that are likely to lose profit because of  
circumstances beyond their control. With most businesses that is one of the reasons  profits are necessary; they
enables companies to pay for circumstances out of their control without going out of business. Additionally in
most cases, profits allows businesses to render the same level of services regardless of  circumstances, or   
conditions in Africa or venezula........I am aware that we are global but .......

During this period,2006-2009 there were people in the U.S. who had to choose between food, paying their heating
bills, and putting gas in their cars. The fuel cost increased almost 400 percent. Very few people 's income
increased 400 percent from the year 2000 to 2007 or 2008. On the contrary during the period  2007, to summer
2010 many decreased, or totally ceased (unemployed); this lost of income increased the number of  companies
going  Out of business almost monthly, or filing bankruptcy on a monthly basis. Several airlines even folded.....


                                                                                    
  Page 9



The fuel cost has increased approximately 400 percent since the
year 1998, when the first of the large oil merger, Amoco oil and
British petroleum, based upon the FTC records (Federal Trade
Commission)should not have happened:
























































---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone that can make a difference  even  curious as to how the BP /Amoco merger happened regardless of
the FTC's stated violations charges, or why the American people are told the main reason fuel costing so much
was because we in the U.S. Consume so much, yet the less oil we consume, the more the oil cost . There is a
real problem in "Washington" when it Comes to understanding "the math" as "the math" dictates the fall or
survival of the American economy....From all appearances it seem the oil companies decide how much money
they desire to make whether the demand and consumption is up or down. Then, they adjust the oil price
accordingly. Again WOW!!!, I can only imaging what an industry perk that is.  

“Washington” can not be that blindsided "the math" speaks volumes.  
                               
                                      
                                                                                         
 Page 10


Based upon the  circumstances that motivated the oil companies to increased oil prices, and the amount of
profits the oil companies reported during the referenced time, the oil price-increased-based-upon-speculation.
What is clever about "said" Speculations is, even though, a majority never manifest, the oil companies get to
keep all of the money that they collect as profit based upon "The" lie....

The point this statement makes is that there are clearly business-rooms with reserve seats that others are never
allowed to enter. Even the U.S. Government, at this period in history, seem to have very little control over the
seating in the oil industry and Investment banking rooms..

The second point is what better business to be in, when "One" can raise their prices base upon what might
happen, collect the money from the people, and never have to give it back. Additionally,  even when "One"
collected it based upon a proven-lie. A Proven-lie, because what One said would happen, motivating the price
increase never happened..... Yet you are allowed to continue to collect money from the people  over and over
again using the same "What If" lies, or creating new "What If" lies....

How many other businesses can do that.( For those of you who are bored with the simplicity, remember this is
third grade English; that includes some grammatical mistakes, please forgive me for those; they will be
corrected before the book is published, but this writing had to be published before the Oil Industry and
Investment Banking used the killing of
Osama Bin Laden to increase oil prices another $20.00 per barrel. Thank -
you for excusing the grammatical mistakes.)

Just to break this down even further. It becomes obvious that there was no additional cost to the oil companies,
because of all the
profit earned. Now maybe that’s okay because a lot of people have oil stock. A lot of pension
funds invest in oil. So a hugh percentage of the population makes money off of the  ‘What ifs”. However unless
you have a lot of oil-investments, you are just breaking even. That is because when the oil prices increase, there
are increases in a large percentages of good made from the by products of oil. Just think of all the plastics that
we buy as one example.

Additionally, because oil is use to transport most goods and people.  Most people only have but so much money
to spend. Unlike the speculators they cannot increase their monthly pay, because it just might rain next week.
Therefore, they only have a set amount of money to spend . So the additional $100.00 that they have to spend for
fuel has to be taken from something else; this is how the fuel and investment bankers take profits that should  
fairly be earned by other businesses. In fact, that is how many other business were forced out of business2006-
2009. Money that their businesses could have earned went to the oil companies and investment Banks as
big
profits.
This ultimately causes the domino effect and the entire economy suffers.

Because the majority of people only have so much money to spend, the same $50-100 per month that created
the combined
hundred plus billions of dollars in oil profits can only reduce earnings on other business. The oil
profits were made without creating additional expense, including jobs where additional people earn the money
and circulate it back into the economy. Had that been the case, the profits would not have been the billions  of
dollars that they were. They would have been shown as Expense(The cost to do business), just the opposite,
many jobs would have been saved and the money would continued to circulate. It would have helped the
economy to  flow in a progressive manner if those billions of dollars in oil profits were spread around into the
earing of other companies.... Thats just Third Grade Arematics also....

If nothing else for who might have been forced out of business for financial reason, do not consider yourself a
failer. Some failures are by” Silent” Design. There are times when mankind must do the "Right Thing" because it
is the "Right Thing" to do, or self destruct... "Select Big corporation are privileged to rules that do not apply to
millions of other Corporation...  There are not enough laws and time to investigate and keep order when you
have so many in the highest ranks of- power and money, who are without a Moral Compass As Abraham Lincoln
said I feel sorry for the man who cannot feel the pain of the whip when it is on the other man's back. They live by
the code of their sense of entitlement. They feel no pain or shame about doing the" Wrong Thing". Laws only
work when a majority follow them. Harvard is said to be changing its curriculum.
"The culture is one of
entitlement, says 2006 Harvard B-school graduate Philip Delves Broughton, author of "Ahead of the Curve: Two
Years at Harvard Business School."

Of course we know everyone who graduates from Harvard does-not-lack-integrity, or a Moral Compass. However
there is clearly a deficiency in reference to integrity and the Moral Compass of far too-many of the Big
Corporation executives. That same lack of integrity and Moral Compass often shows-up in many of the
politicians; I don't think many of them graduated from Harvard.  In trying to change the way that business is done
in the U.S., I agree that the class rooms of Harvard is a good place to start. I hope many other schools will follow
Harvard's lead.    Prayer beginning in elementary schools, in the Old days, was intended to help instill what
integrity and having a Moral Compass was, and why they are important. Whether one like the idea of prayer in
schools or not , one have to admit that school shooting were pretty much unheard of in those days.   I do not
think that the perpetrators who are lacking a  Moral compass and  integrity know what they are. Therefore, the
executives and politicians do not understand, or care about the harm they cause to the majority of the people.  
"They are incapable of feeling the pain of the whip when it is on the other mans back" (Part of a quote from
Abraham Lincoln). So I say to Harvard and other schools, please change the curriculum, quickly......



                                       
                                 Page 11


Additionally many of the laws/ "Bills passed by the governments, often, seem to be created with loopholes
designed by those, for whom "Select"  loopholes will be used.   According to the 2000 census the US only have
310 million people. Take away the seven plus million we have in prison and the children under age 12. Then you
figure the number of really Big Corporate Board members. Just like BP's John Browne and Peter Sutherland,
there are thousands of theses same people who serve on the same boards in different industries. The dollar-
power of   “one” of them can is equal the voting power of  several  thousand people. So I would amend   “the
Laws only achieve that which it was designed to  when a majority of the powerful money-men  chooses to obey
the  laws. Versus paying to: not have the laws enforced, or going into overdrive to find a loopholes to legally
slant  the laws  for the advancement of their persona- gain.

However I do see hope for the people in the new technology systems. I believe that supporting one's select
Activist support group," Move-on", or which ever one's that you are comfortable with can help. I believe that it
takes about two thousand petitions, plus equally as many phone calls to equal every  $500.00 in campaign
contribution from those who buy their causes from government representatives. The representatives, obviously,
want to keep their jobs. Therefore when the number of voters participation is high enough, it has proven to
override some causes that favor the majority of the people, instead of the Big Corporate donors.....

Financial support is necessary to one's "trusted"  select Activist groups. The-people's TV-commercials will have
to be seen for those voters who do not have time to sign petitions and make phone calls. I am aware that a lot of
voters have been reduced to working two minimal wage jobs by the very corporation that  "The-People" are
fighting for the right to earn a living,  feel some dignity and pride in the work that they do, and the pay that they
earn.

This is the technology age. It  makes people-power easier than ever to organize. Maybe people-power is the
Divine plan for what is best for the majority of the people.  Could this be the only way to avoid the assassination
of a leader who is truly for the majority of the people, not just the "Select "few".  Have you notice through
history, the single leaders who seem to want what is best for the majority of the people including the poor, is
almost, always assassination by one's who do not want that system of fairness and peace. To name a few: Jesus
Christ, Gandhi, Dr Martin Luther king, John  F. Kennedy and of course many others who supported their belief.

No one makes it along everyone have some help some one gives them a chance  or open  a door.
Many of the
rich, and a large percentage of the middle class (that are in that 39 percent) want to boost that I made it
on my own, let the poor and near poor do the same. They forget that a family member, a friend, an old
boss, or someone gave even the person who opened a door for them a chance. Often the poor or near
poor acquaintances , family and friends are also poor. Therefore if the government does not give them
a break, there is no one else to .

The wealthy and some of that middle group will say the poor is just lazy and do not deserve to benefit
from their tax dollars. That maybe be true, but they have to realize that a lot of people feel that a lot of
the wealthy and middle class are lazy and do not deserve the gifts that they receive from connect
family, friends and acquaintances just by being in the room. Many of those  wealthy-connected are in
government; actually thats how they became wealthy, using the tax payers dollars. With that I think the
best that can be expected is that the political  pendulum swings both ways often enough to keep a
balance. Now the US is swinging heavy toward Corporate with wealth controlin.g That is not good for
the majority of the U.S. people and it is not good for the survival of the United States of America as a
country......

America was not built on robots where the employees were recorded and watched like prisoners. They were
hired and respected to do a job, and they did their jobs well. That is how
America became the America that we
loved, and so did many none-Americans love. I do believe that, as the fighters most Americans are, we can get
our dignity and pride back , but it will have to be consistent work. The enemy, a system created while We-The-
majority- People-were-sleeping, never-sleeps........

To be fair, because of the Global system of co mangling money even when a U.S. President want to chastise a
big corporation for their wrong doing the U.S. President is setting themselves up to be chastised by other of his
stature around the world.. For Example in a July 2010 news conference in reference to the BP's April 2010 Gulf
Oil Spill, President Obama criticized BP, by saying that
he would fire Tony Hayward, I think that President Obama
meant it. I do-not think that statement was “Show Time”. However, because President Obama is the U.S. CEO He
was chastised by the point men in Europe, because BP is a European company. Moreover,
President Obama was
chastised because of the global money involved. BP’s stock was falling, this was hurting pension fund. However,
the BP Gulf spill had extremely negative effects on the lives of many people in the US.

Direct Quote according
to Nick Assinder / London Friday, Jun. 11, 2010  Article   "Britain to Obama: Stop Bullying Us Over BP"
"Since the oil started leaking after an explosion on April 20, BP's shares have lost 40% of their value. That has
potentially dire consequences for some of the country's biggest pension funds with huge stakes in the company
— the National Association of Pension Funds estimates that U.K. Pension funds' exposure to BP is about 1.5% of
the funds' total assets, which are worth more than £800 billion (about $1.18 trillion). And Obama's public
statements on BP, many Britons feel, aren't helping matters"

President Obama actually saved BP from financial ruins. Strangely the Only person to reference that was Tony
Hayward......
The setting-up of the $ 20 billion fund, a trust fund to cover the Deepwater damages. It gave
investors and idea of  the BP "bottom".That was the sort of fund that saved the asbestos and tobacco companies
from demise back in the day. For Obama to be able to set up the $ 20 billion fund in this political eliminate is a big
feather in his cap. Now the Big Corporations, because they are bigger, own and operate a much larger
percentage of the government, then they  did, back in the day, when asbestos and tobacco companies were
sued for: knowing that their products were killing people, but kept producing them. Of course you will see Tony
Hayward is not a favorite in my life when you read
my letter to him dated march 2007

                                                    

                                     


                                                             Page 12  


(Show time politics to me is when there is something out of control like the oil-prices that hurts a majority of the
people, but increases the bottom line of select corporations. The politicians are aware of this, but, for various
reasons, feels that they must favor the Corporation's cause. However, to get votes(save their job) the politician
makes a big speech chastising the bad-things that the Corporation is doing.  At the same time, the politician
knows that  their speech is only "Show time" . Its like apologizing to the person that you have to chastise, before
you make the public showing. Then after you have made the public showing, you meet again, with the
Corporation executives behind closed curtains, and ask: How did I do Boss?

Example "Oil industry under fire"
Soaring earnings prompt calls for a windfall profit tax, but will big oil end up having to pay? October 28, 2005:  
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer

"The profits have led even some Republicans who are normally seen as friends of the oil industry, such as
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to call for hearings into the profits gushing
from the nation's energy producers."

"Oil and gas companies are enjoying record profits. That is fine. This is America," Hastert said in a statement.

"However, there have been allegations of price gouging in the wake of the hurricanes. This is unacceptable, and
any company who does it will be prosecuted," he added. "Our oil companies need to do more to inform the
American people about what they are doing to bring down the cost of oil and natural gas."

In 2005 oil per barrel was around $50.00 and $60.00 per barrel around the time Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
and House Speaker Dennis Hastert called for a  hearing of oil Industry executives. December 2006 oil peaked at
about $77.00 per barrel and July 2008 147.00 per barrel. That is an example of "show time" Politics when in the
end the Big Corporation wins.

Many people in the U.S. have BP stock. Many American people and businesses in the gulf area, near the BP gulf
spill were dammed. Yet, when BP is, rightfully, and deservingly chastised by the U.S. President for BP’s
negligence and entirely different group is dammed. It’s an example of  “Dammed if I do, and Dammed if I don’t”;
that is the price we pay when spindle/corporation/BP and wheel/political/ Government all turn as” one” act
toward a single-linked-goal; Financial-control.... That is the system that is larger than "Life" We are living in the
day of Corporations-controlling and running the world, not governments.  Now with the Gulf spill, we have no
idea how that is going to affect the overall economy for years to come.

Additionally the introduction-of-just-how much-truth-to-tell when it is bad news for a company like BP, and that
news is going to cause "Select" company's Stock to fall. Based upon our Global-one-world- of- money co
mangling , there is going to be some group damned by the truth. A big majority of the people may never really
know the true damage of the BP spill.......I speculate that a Global- law will be created to designate that "All
Truth" that could cause the stock of "Select" big Corporation to fall, be sealed (not revealed to the public) for 100
years from the date of the circumstances creating "Select Truth"  

I do understand, but I disagree,  when I hear people complaining about too much “Big” Government control. It
would be easier to understand had they not experienced 2007 to the present 2010. Do they realize just how bad
things would be, without even a somewhat-often-apparent-dysfunctional Government regulating a few things.
Even if it is just to keep their good government jobs with the top of the line medical benefits. It is also amazing
that so many people are unhappy with President Obama because of the slow recovery of the economy. I find
that laughable. With the robot system that we have created, including many legal systems, its almost impossible
for  "One"to, even, clean up One's own personal-financial-mess in two-years. How can one expect within two-
years,  any US President to-fix a broken basically dysfunctional US economy, including inheriting two wars from
a previous administration in two-years....One does not need an Economic degree to understand that.

I do not agree with everything President Obama allows. For example, the continuation of mergers, creating more
Too-Big-to-Fail . Therefore, the "Too-Big-to-Fails" can be as reckless as they choose with both employees and
money.   Whats the government going to do. They cannot come in and operate "Said Businesses" when "Select"
Businesses can shut down 60 percent of the economy.  For example "Comcast" could pretty much do that  even
before the merger....    That is an example of  the Big corporation running the government.  Earlier in the
comcast-NBC negotiations,  a little "Show time" politics was aired. However based upon the number of big
select Corporation mergers that the Government have-not-approved over the last 20 years, I do not think that
they ever had any intension of  disallowing the Merger of Comcast and NBC. Additionally while the mergers are
on the table, the politicians can collect more campaign-funds from the companies wanting to merge.  Like I said
just because it ain't pretty, does mean it ain't true........


                                      
                                    Page 13


Take the Health care reform and the financial reform, that President Obama was able to get passed in a watered
down virgin, just to get them passed; regardless, they are definitely much better than the U.S. had before.  Yet, I
will bet, as I am writing this part of the book in the year 2010, that the financial industry and health industry have
hired thousands of people who are figuring out loopholes. Theses loopholes will guaranteed that “Said”
companies end up with the same dollar profits, or more as they had before the reforms. It seem to be
acceptable  for particular industry's to name their profit and then either the people pay, or the Government pay;
actually  they are one in the same  As a country farm girl, the greased pig theory comes to my mind again …."
They" are extremely difficult to catch and "They" are almost impossible to hold.
.
The Health and financial reforms to include other reforms that are designed to benefit the majority of the people
simply says to those Industries "They" that "They" have to make necessary changes their profits remain the
same or increase.

How can the "They" be of that mind when "They" saw what happened and the country remains on life-support in
critical condition. The country is  far from the recovery of the financial, oil, Energy, and housing industry
regulating themselves. Actually what inspired me to get this waiting out to the public ahead of the publication of
the complete book is that the oil industry doing the same thing that they did in 2006 - 2008.
How The Incestuous-Marriage of Oil and Investment- Banking  
Speeded-up-the-2008-2009, Recession-Meltdown:
why-Unnoticed?

9810345
B255403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
In the Matter of
The British Petroleum Company p.l.c., a corporation,
Amoco Corporation, a corporation, and
BP Amoco p.l.c., a corporation.
Docket No. C-3868
COMPLAINT


IV. VIOLATIONS CHARGED
First Violation

22. Respondents Amoco and BP each own terminaling facilities that service each terminaling market, and are
competitors for terminaling of gasoline and other light petroleum products in each terminaling market.

23. The effect of the proposed merger, if consummated, may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create
a monopoly in the terminaling of gasoline and other light petroleum products in the terminaling markets in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, in the following ways, among others:

a. By eliminating direct competition in the terminaling of gasoline and other light petroleum products between Amoco
and BP in each terminaling market;

b. By increasing the likelihood of, or facilitating, collusion or coordinated interaction between providers of terminaling
services in each terminaling market; each of which increases the likelihood that the prices of terminaling services for
gasoline and other light petroleum products will increase in the terminaling markets
.
Second Violation

24. Respondents Amoco and BP are actual competitors in the wholesale sale of gasoline in each gasoline market.
25. The effect of the proposed merger, if consummated, may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create
a monopoly in the wholesale sale of gasoline in the gasoline markets in violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as
amended, 15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45, in the
following ways, among others:

a. By eliminating direct competition in the wholesale sale of gasoline between Amoco and BP in each gasoline
market;
b. By increasing the likelihood of, or facilitating, collusion or coordinated interaction between Amoco, BP and other
wholesale sellers of gasoline in each gasoline market; each of which increases the likelihood that the prices of
gasoline will increase in the gasoline markets.

V. STATUTES VIOLATED

26. The agreement and plan of merger between Amoco and BP constitutes a violation of Section 5 of the Federal
Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

27. The proposed merger, if consummated, would constitute a violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended,
15 U.S.C. § 18, and Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 45.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Federal Trade Commission has caused this complaint to be signed by the Secretary
and its official seal to be affixed, at Washington, D.C. this nineteenth day of April., 1999.
By the Commission.
SEAL Donald S. Clark
Secretary
Docket No. C-3868