The Neocons, Cocaine, Los Angeles and the Niche Market Idea

Surely the 80’s neocons did not expect to extend their cocaine sales to all of America – so how did they plan to restrict the product’s growth? How did they plan to contain the cocaine product to minority neighborhoods of America?

Nowhere in the annals of history or even the “news current events” can one find neocon planning extolled. So, how did the neocons plan to limit the expansion of the cocaine product in America?

Early during the neocons sale of cocaine to minority neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California, there were resports of fancy cars queued up at curbside in minority neighborhoods seemingly engaged in some kind of commerce. Was this the beginning of some kind of niche market idea?

Did America’s federal government(1980 neocons) make it easy for America’s minority citizens to develop a cocaine habit? Did that cocaine habit spread from the minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles California to other American cities with large minority populations. Were large white majority populations also exposed to the cocaine habit?

How did the 1980’s neocons plan to limit the deadly effect of the illicit drug cocaine? During this period of time, there were comments about “lights on late” in the “basement” of the White House. This was during the “Iran-Contra affair” so the neocons needed to do planning away from curious American eyes.

Perhaps one could say that methadone clinics are all that is available to try to contain the effects of the neocons selling cocaine to American citizens living in minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California.

And what was the neocons motivation for selling cocaine to minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California? They needed money to finance an adopted war in the jungles of South America. The American tax-payer cut funding to Mr. Reagan’s South American jungle war. Mr. Reagan picked a minority neighborhood to ply his drug  trade because he would have gotten into BIG trouble selling cocaine to America’s white majority neighborhoods.

Ethics, laws and the like all took a back-seat to the neocons’ political activities. And surfing America’s natural fault lines(racial,etc.) have sustained their brand of politics. They lowered America’s standards in everything.

Lowered standards in ethics and lowered respect for law could well have enabled the motivations for the 80’s neocons venture into drug peddling to its own citizens. It looks like the neocons placed no constraints on the growth of that illicit business.

And now the current day neocons wants to make the seller of illicit drugs to American citizens a “CZAR” of the Republican party. Only a moron or perhaps a neocon could understand that.

President Eisenhower was a Republican – but he was a real Republican and was well-qualified to be called G.O.P.. Drug dealers(cocaine) don’t qualify for the G.O.P. acronym. But you would never know that by reading the “current events” from the neocon press.

Which Do You Think the Neocons Would Oppose?

Democrats seek to extend emergency jobless benefits

The Washington Post

By Lori Montgomery

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Congressional Democrats are struggling to revive a plan to extend emergency unemployment benefits for millions of jobless workers. Although House leaders say they will pass the measure as soon as Wednesday, its fate in the Senate remains uncertain. …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/29/AR2010062905388.html

OR

Goldman Sachs’s Blankfein Receives $9 Million Bonus for 2009

Bloomberg

Businessweek

By Christine Harper and Michael J. Moore

Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) — Goldman Sachs Group Inc. gave Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein a $9 million all-stock bonus for 2009, about half the award granted by JPMorgan Chase & Co. to CEO Jamie Dimon, even as profit reached an all-time high and the shares doubled….

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-06/goldman-sachs-s-blankfein-receives-9-million-bonus-for-2009.html

What “Great Recession”? Does a $9 million dollar bonus have a place in a Great Recession? Perhaps one can start to see why the Great Recession had trouble “registering” in America. A high level American political source never publically admitted to a “R-E-C-E-S-S-I-O-N”.

President Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address admitted that the economy needed to add more jobs – not necessarily for everyone but for those WHO WANTED TO WORK. So to provide jobs for those who wanted to work the financial industry was de-regulated.

The de-regulated financial industry became its own WATCH-DOG. Step number 3(de-regulation) of Ronald Reagan’s VOODOO ECONOMICS went to work. And by December of 2007 America’s economy had crashed. America knew that something was “bad wrong” but the neocon leadership was quiet. And the neocon press did not ask the neocon leadership to SPEAK UP.

The neocon press became a significant asset to the right-wing politics of the neocons. Controlling the “current events” fed to a news market can have either a positive or a negative effect on the truth as that market sees it.

And being able to select which effect, based upon politics, has been of great use to the neocons. If the political performance of the neocons, by all civilized standards,  is a train-wreck then the neocon press is likely to stay quiet about the quality of the political performance of the neocons.

When the neocons’ political opposition makes the neocon leadership performance look like a train-wreck the neocon press turns on its propaganda latch.

After twenty-some-odd years of massive political screw-ups America should be sick of the neocons. Even when the neocon press and certain elements of America’s press call them G.O.P. America’s “common-sense” latch should filter that out.

The neocons performance against labor and in favor of Big Business is obvious. The neocons would rather see a single man get a $9 million bonus than to see  9 million Americans get a $1 bonus. There are too many Americans. The condition of  “too many Americans”  remind neocons of socialism while fascism does not seem to bother them at all.

A fool and his country are soon parted.

UK Torture Inquiry ‘to be launched’

Cameron ‘agrees torture inquiry terms’

BBC News

David Cameron has agreed the terms of a judge-led inquiry into claims British agents were complicit in the torture of terror suspects, the BBC understands.

The PM is understood to have agreed it could offer compensation if it shows they were tortured and UK agents knew.

The Tories and Lib Dems have long urged an inquiry into UK resident Binyam Mohamed’s claims that security services were aware of his torture.

The former Labour government insisted the UK did not use or condone torture….

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/politics/10453024.stm

A blogger over at U.S. News and World Report recently commented on an increasing independence of Britain from the United States of America. The blogger reasoned, or something, that it was President Obama’s fault. That kind of political reasoning is S.O.P. for neocons, their mouth-pieces and the neocon press.

Even a moron could likely reason that if you expect to receive civilized treatment you ought to give civilized treatment. Trying to civilize the world has been “hard”. What with “Attila the Hun” and the neocons brandishing brute strength as the arbiter of right and wrong – the world has had tough sledding.

The blogger over at U.S. News and World Report noticed that the British seem to be “slipping” away from America’s(neocons) way of doing business. And he blamed President Obama for that.

The above post shows that the British are considering attacking the fall-out from the neocons’ war on terror. Recall that when America attempted to investigate America’s role in possible terror atrocities on terrorists – a neocon came out of retirement – “squealing like a stuck pig”.

And with 66% of Americans who are likely to vote in the next election believing what the neocon press tells them, America backed off what the British are now considering doing.

The neocons, with one exception, are in a class by themselves.

Al Capone’s Product Was Illegal Whiskey

If Al Capone were with us today, he would likely be dealing with a different product – likely cocaine.

Whiskey is legal today so Al Capone, if he were with us today, would likely deal with a different product. The new product would likely have some of the same legal/illegal attributes that the early whiskey product had. What could be an equivalent product today?

Cocaine!

If Al Capone were with us today, he might select cocaine as his product of choice.

But Al Capone is not with us today. Is there someone or something of National recognition and standing that might also display a character similar to Al Capone’s character? Is there someone or something, in a legal setting, that would sell illegal drugs to America’s citizens.

Yes!

The original neocons did just that. And Mr. Reagan, under whose administration illegal cocaine sales happened is now up for “titular” head of the Republican party after it was taken over by the neocons.

Of course it would border on blasphemy to have chosen Dwight D. Eisenhower as the head of what the Republican party has morphed into.

And the neocons have the NERVE to associate the word “PURITY” with what they have done. Could this word, purity, refer to the quality of the cocaine they sold?

The neocons have played a role, in the sale of illegal narcotics, that is similar to the role Al Capone played in sale of illegal whiskey. Is there someone of the statue of Elliot Ness who could check the behavior of the high ranking modern day sellers of the illegal drug cocaine? As is the case through-out the neocon rein, the high rankers got away free.

Does the thought of Mr. Ness patrolling the Halls of the neocon White House seem un-believable? Does the thought of America forgiving a high ranking entity that sold illegal drugs to America’s citizens seem un-believable?

Did newspapers during Al Capone’s day fail to “TELL AMERICA” of the problem with the sale of Illegal whiskey? How are the neocon newspapers of today doing?

Does it make sense for a country, not on its way to Hell, to approve of a political party with a “rap sheet” that reads like something you might expect from Mr. Capone himself?

Are we there yet?

Hell, I mean.

And Now It’s the Turn of the Judicial Branch

Finally the US Supreme Court has that “neocon touch”.

America’s neocons caused more problems than they solved. They were able to get away with much illegal activity because other politicians failed to hold the neocons accountable. America’s pre-2006 Congress became a rubber-stamp for the Executive Branch. Working together, the Executive and the Congressional Branches came as close as one could imagine to wrecking the world. The neocon press saw no wrong.

It was the Judicial Branch that stood by America in those early latter-day neocon days. It tried to contain the wild swings of neocon behavior. It tried to protect America.

But now things are quite different with America’s Supreme Court. Although the latter-day neocon’s Executive Branch fell short on getting a White House Attorney on the U.S. Supreme Court, it still has accomplished its wish to “roll America’s Supreme Court back”. It has defined America’s 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The neocon branded United States Supreme Court just messed with a City of Chicago ban on handguns. An article on the BBC’s website said:

Justices said the US Constitution protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence.

And we also see this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10438332.stm

That statement, of course, cannot be “decoded”. All one can hope for is a “best guess” of how to interpret that statement. A group of neocons would guess one way. A group of Republicans(pre-neocon) might guess another way. And a group of Democrats might guess the same way that the group of pre-neocon Republicans guessed. All but the neocons would likely have no higher calling than America. And that would leave fascism out.

The latter-day neocons did not show competence in the Executive Branch. The latter-day neocons did not show competence in the Congressional Branch. And now the Judicial Branch has finally been infected. The wrecking of America continues.

The U.S. Supreme Court likely focused on one part:

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”

And that could leave states with a whole range of “Arms” that they have to deal with. Could a street gang be called a “well regulated militia”?

Actually it is said that the neocons sale of cocaine to minority neighborhoods of Los Angeles, California paved the way for street gangs to purchase high quality Arms that they now have a right to bear? Are they well regulated?

How about the militias that roamed America’s wooded areas? Are they necessary to the security of a free State? After the neocons came to power, those militias faded from the press view. Did they decrease in number? Did they increase in number? Are they considered “friends” of the neocons? Has “Blackwater” – under a new name participated in neocon politics?

And Palin wants to “get them in her sights…”. Perhaps now her quarry might be able to “return her fire”.

A fool and his country are soon parted.

Big Business Has Big Interest In the Internet

The Internet idea was developed in America by the American government. All 300,000,000 Americans “own” the Internet

Of course there is no single owner of all the components that make up today’s Internet but the idea started with President Eisenhower, a Republican who might not even qualify to be a member of today’s neocon Republican Party. Anyone who thinks President Eisenhower remotely resembles Ronald Reagan needs to brush up on history from the history books – not today’s neocons’ “current events”. President Eisenhower created an “ATTA-BOY”.

While the neocons have not created much of anything that made sense, they have been vocal on managing the Internet:

Powerful Senator Endorses Destroying Computers of Illegal Downloaders (Orrin Hatch)

If the laptop computers could have  been fitted with those exploding batteries at that time, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch might have given America something to remember him by.

The above idea did not develop into American law but the prized Internet continued to be the target of Big Business. Senator Orrin Hatch was again involved in an Internet fracas but this time he appears to have “mellowed” somewhat. The below post comes from Slashdot.

Politics: Sen. Bond Disses Internet ‘Kill Switch’ Bill

GovTechGuy writes

“Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has introduced his own cybersecurity legislation with Sen. Orrin Hatch, and he had some harsh words for a competing bill sponsored by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security….

And Big Business speaks of creative control over the Internet:

News Corp will charge for newspaper websites, says Rupert Murdoch

Current days of free Internet will soon be over, says media mogul

The Internet belongs to the American people who should receive many ATTA-BOYS from Internet users the world over. Much of the news content that  America gets via the Internet comes free of charge. That is a small “thank you” to the American people who allowed their tax dollars to create something that is revolutionizing world communications.

America purchases products and services it wants. America does not purchase products and services it does not want. Trying to “MAKE” America purchase something it does not want is a no-no. Buying up the news world(whatever happened to the word “MONOPOLY”?) in order to force a particular “current events” mindset on America should fail and will fail if America turns its “common sense” latch on.

G-20 Leaders Agree to Tackle Deficits Once Economic Recoveries Are Assured

Bloomberg

By Kristin Jensen and Theophilos Argitis

Jun 27, 2010

Group of 20 leaders endorsed targets to cut deficits and agreed to pursue higher capital requirements for banks once their economic recoveries take root, according to a draft of the final statement sent to reporters.

Advanced economies would aim to at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize their debt-to-output ratios by 2016. The G-20 said banks need to raise capital “significantly” and countries will be allowed to phase in new rules, with a goal of meeting new standards by the end of 2012.

“Honestly, this is more than I expected, because it is quite specific,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel said, referring to the fiscal targets. “It’s a success that industrialized countries as a group accepted this.”

The G-20 also pledged to maintain existing stimulus plans and take “concerted actions” to sustain the recovery. Recent events highlight the need to establish “properly phased” plans to rein in deficits. Emerging market economies pledged to take measures to strengthen social safety nets, raise infrastructure spending and enhance exchange rate flexibility.

The draft of the statement includes targets championed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who sought to bridge differences between the U.S. and Europe by proposing minimum deficit and debt reduction goals.

Bridge the Gap

The G-20 has to bridge a gap between leaders such as President Barack Obama who want to focus on growth and officials such as Merkel who favor budget cuts. The statement says the global recovery, which has been faster than expected, remains fragile and uneven.

Efforts to lower deficits and sustain the recovery will be differentiated and tailored to national circumstances, according to the statement.

“Here is the tightrope we must walk,” Harper told the G- 20 leaders in his opening remarks today. “To sustain the recovery, it is imperative that we follow through on existing stimulus plans. At the same time, advanced countries must send a clear message that as our stimulus plans expire, we will focus on getting our fiscal houses in order.”

Countries such as Brazil had opposed the specific deficit targets, saying it will be hard for some G-20 members to meet them without stifling economic growth.

Draconian, Difficult

“It is draconian, a little difficult, a little exaggerated,” said Brazilian Finance Minister Guido Mantega. “Some countries would not be able to do it. It is clear that a cut is needed, but at what velocity? It can’t be too fast.”

The agreement effectively endorsed the austerity plan set out by the U.K., while acknowledging U.S. concerns that countries shouldn’t be required to start cutting public spending until their own recoveries are fully entrenched.

“There is a risk that synchronized fiscal adjustment across several major economies could adversely impact the recovery,” the statement said.

The G-20, which accounts for about 85 percent of the global economy, replaced the G-8 last year as the world’s foremost international policy-coordinating forum. The larger group means developed and emerging economies are trying to find common ground amid differences in prosperity that vary from the U.S.’s $46,400 in GDP per capita to India’s $3,100.

Same Direction

European nations have led the charge on the deficits. Merkel said in an interview with ZDF television that she lobbied her counterparts at the G-8 meeting to pursue “solid” fiscal policies and defended her own plan to reduce Germany’s budget deficit by about 10 billion euros ($12.4 billion) per year.

U.S. Treasuries are having their best year since 1995, returning 5 percent through June 24, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data, as investors seek alternatives to Europe, where Greece and Spain had their credit ratings downgraded.

“European countries just had a near-death experience over Greece,” said Tony Fratto, a former Treasury and White House official under Bush. “Some are afraid of suffering the same fate.”

The G-20 said banks need to raise capital “significantly” to avoid a repeat of the global financial crisis. Banks will be allowed to phase in capital increases, with a goal of meeting new standards by the end of 2012, according to the draft.

The G-20 statement also calls for “a single set of high quality” accounting standards and executive pay rules. The leaders agreed on the need to improve oversight of hedge funds, credit rating companies and over-the-counter derivatives “in an internationally consistent and non-discriminatory way.”

On the issue of trade, the G-20 leaders said they would renew their commitment to avoid increasing or raising new barriers to trade until the end of 2013.

Outside the fence that surrounds the meeting, protests turned violent for a second day. Yesterday, protesters set fire to cars; others threw rocks at the windows of First Canadian Place, headquarters of the Bank of Montreal, and spray-painted “Bomb the banks” on the building.

Toronto police have made 584 arrests, including 100 today, Constable Wendy Drummond said today in a telephone interview.

To contact the reporters on this story: Kristin Jensen in Toronto at kjensen@bloomberg.net Theophilos Argitis in Toronto at targitis@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-27/g-20-may-stress-need-to-cut-deficits-as-leaders-split-on-urgency-of-target.html

Read the above story and you may not see a reference to the neocons’ beloved “free market” concept. You may not see a reference to “protectionism”. Those two concepts were  introduced earlier in a post about G-8 activities. Free market and protectionism seem to distract from the real problem – resuscitating capitalism.

Capitalism is ill – very ill. And the task now is to make Capitalism well – because Capitalism has done a fine job for the world. But Capitalism got into the wrong hands and it was used to satisfy personal financial GREED.

It’s not the fault of Capitalism. Capitalism like EVERYTHING else can be used for GOOD or EVIL. Rules help protect Capitalism from EVIL. When the rules are removed or an entity is DE-REGULATED, entity players are put “on their honor”. In Heaven, that would work OK.

The G-20 appears to be trying to revive Capitalism. The G-8 appears to be trying to “protect” vested interests while acknowledging a problem with economies.

Bringing in the “smoke and mirrors” of free-market and protectionism at this time, only serves to cloud the real issue of Capitalism’s near death.

And, of course, the Republican party has demonstrated(30’s) that it may not be “too good” at managing a major economy.

With the 1980 “far-right-wing” of the Republican party brandishing its “VOODOO ECONOMICS”, Capitalism did not stand much of a chance.

The G-20 seems to understand that Capitalism has a problem. It seems to know that economics is not an exact science so the problem resolution my require iterations and adjustments until the desired solution is achieved.

ATTA-BOY G-20!!

Changing the Meaning of the Word “Free”?

Speaking only from “common sense” or “common knowledge” one can see that the English language is a dynamic language.

While America’s neocons made “political changes” to certain English words, business made “business changes” to certain English words.

The word “FREE” has undergone changes in the business world. The word “FREE” is a dynamic mover of products and services. A website that advertises “FREE” products and/or services is likely to get heavy traffic. And that’s mainly because of the “traditional” meaning of the word “FREE”.

WordWeb defines “FREE” this way:

Adjective: free(freer,freest)

1. Able to act at will; not hampered; not under compulsion or restraint “free enterprise”, “a free port”, “ a free country”, “I have an hour free”, “free will”, “free of racism”, “feel free to stay as long as you wish”, “a free choice” …

Eight other definition entries follow entry number 1.

So, when I saw the word “FREE” attached to eReaders I decided to see what the “catch” was. There were two major companies advertising “FREE” eReaders.

The first eReader I visited was “FREE” IF AND ONLY IF you had an account.

The second eReader I visited was “FREE” IF AND ONLY IF you submitted your credit card number.

In both cases the items were “FREE” IF AND ONLY IF you gave personal information.

The attached conditions to the “FREE” products seemed to remove those products from the “FREE” category – so you might expect the business to tell you up-front of the conditions under which the items were “FREE”. Many would not visit the site if the conditions were spelled out in the advertisements. But then, information on site visitors is also detected and used.

“What’s the catch” is now almost a reflex action to the word “FREE”. But when you discover what the catch is – you have contributed useful site visitor information.

Recovery Is ‘Fragile;’ Nations Must Resist Protectionism, G-8 Leaders Say

Bloomberg

By Kristin Jensen and Rebecca Christie

Jun 26, 2010

Group of Eight leaders meeting today pledged to resist protectionism and engage in regional trade negotiations as they work to sustain a “fragile” global economic recovery.

The group reiterated its support for the Doha trade accord even as leaders acknowledged that it faces challenges. Leaders said they would work on a parallel track to reduce barriers to open markets and pursue bilateral and regional agreements.

“Those of us who favor liberalized trade are not going to stand still,” Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters at the conclusion of a G-8 meeting today in Huntsville, Ontario. While the larger trade accord faces difficulties, “I would never go so far as to say Doha is dead,” Harper said. …

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-26/group-of-eight-leaders-say-recovery-fragile-vow-to-resist-protectionism.html

Loosing sight of the Problem – as defined by common-sense

The problem is the crashing of one of the world’s great economies due to America’s neocons de-regulating America’s financial industry. A domino effect of failing Western World economies followed. That has to be on the mind of world leaders.

The G-8 was at full “capacity” during America’s neocons execution of its de-regulation of its financial industry. And one of the really strange things about that industry is managers still expected multi-million dollar bonuses for creating a Great Recession. That’s a problem that needs solving.

Another real strange occurrence was mistaking a “Great Recession” for an “economic downturn”.

Who is trying to “fix” a Great Recession with protectionism? Who would want to introduce protectionism while trying to recover from a Great Recession?

Nobody! Nobody!

The world is trying to fix the Great Recession by concentrating on WHAT CAUSED THE GREAT RECESSION – GREED!

The Bush team took the controls off the financial industry and told it to produce jobs. And perhaps 66% of Americans who are likely to vote in the next election might be persuaded that giving that wide latitude to the financial industry would produce jobs better than the Federal Government could. But something went very, very wrong? Instead of jobs being produced – jobs were destroyed.

Where does “protectionism” fit in a solution scenario? Sure Republicans tried “protectionist” tariffs to fix their 30’s American depression. But after the tariffs the depression turned into a Great Depression possibly  because other countries countered with their own tariffs.

No modern day non-neocon politician is likely to suggest “protectionism” as the proper tool to fix the world’s Great Recession.

So, why did the G8 and not the G20 source the idea of “protectionism”? Is the idea of “protectionism” just a ploy to constrain those who want to prevent another run-away financial industry?

The G8 should certainly speak – but from a low profile. The free market talk that was spoken by the Bush team and now the G8 seems strange in light of the fact that Mr. Bush apparently mistook a Great Recession for an economic downturn.

The G20 should keep its eye on the reason why it is meeting and not be distracted by those who might have vested interest in the status quo.

The Iraq War Was Started – But Why?

Is the reason for the start of the Iraq war a secret? Access to America’s classified information is/was based upon a need to know. Does America need to explain its  “need to know”?

No matter what the clearance level, it was not policy for one bearing  a security clearance to, say, on a week-end,  visit a “security library” and peruse the classified documents there. Ones access to classified documents are/were based upon a need to know.

Does America have a need to know why the Iraq war was started? At this time the reason for the start of the Iraq war appears to be classified or unknowable. And much of America’s press seems to be satisfied with that condition.

Mr. Jack Anderson is no longer with us and it shows.

America’s press had a long history of service to America. But after 1980, a new press idea was introduced – enter the neocon press.

The neocon press, after much deriding of the liberal press, introduced its style of “news” coverage. And the 5 W’s and an H took a back-seat to political propaganda.

Applying the five W’s and an H to the “Why did the Iraq War Start”? might produce a list like the below:

Who(who was involved?): Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, Ms Condoleezza Rice(?) and the Secretary of Defense{?}

What(what happened?) The neocons attacked Iraq

When(when did it happen?) April of 2003

Where(where did it happen?) The country of Iraq

Why(why did it happen?) Now that is a mystery. To this day – its a mystery that the neocon press does not appear to want to solve.

All those involved are still alive and quite capable of asking and answering questions.

We leave the “How” out of the list because “How” does query the  skills of the “players” which we are not searching for. We are searching for information or, as Sergeant Joe Friday of the old Dragnet show used to say –facts – just the facts. And the facts, over the course of seven years(7) have not been forthcoming. And America’s press spends it time trying to prove that Britain’s new interest in its relationship with America is all President Obama’s fault. America’s press ought to introduce a new category – propaganda – in order to clean up the “opinion” category.

Britain was pulled into an elective Iraq war and it does not know why. Britain’s economy suffered when America’s latter-day neocons practiced their VOODOO ECONOMICS on America’s financial system. Britain wants to know why?

Too much of America’s press is in the hands of neocons to expect a “loud roar” from the press. But Americans can still practice “common sense” and nullify the neocons capture of so much of America’s news sources.