Archive for the 'Russia' Category

Obama NATO speech Ukraine Stanford MIT Harvard undermine on Russia

March 26, 2014

Obama is giving a speech to NATO March 26, 2014 on US and NATO policy towards Russia on Crimea and Ukraine.  Obama has made it US policy to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to Russia.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s and the major investment banks have chosen to undermine the policy of President Obama and of the United States.  Obama’s policies are supported by both parties in Congress. Thus Stanford, MIT, Harvard, Moody’s, the banks have chosen to undermine the broad policy of the US government to isolate Russia and apply sanctions to get Russia to stop on its current course as Obama says.

Obama is invoking his grandfather who fought in Patton’s army in World War II.  But Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. are undermining this policy, in effect opposing a policy that Obama equates with Patton’s army.

NATO has deployed forces to the East including to the Baltic Republics which are NATO members.  Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Moody’s and the banks are thus undermining the US policy to avoid Russia invading the Baltic Republics and thus triggering a crisis with NATO.

Stanford SIEPR Agenda Day organized by John Shoven of Stanford and James Poterba of MIT to honor Stanley Fischer the day after he concealed information from the Senate Banking Committee and the Securities Exchange commission was done to undermine the US credibility with Putin.  Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. know that Russia has used plagiarism kompromat for decades to get its way.  They know Putin believes these are silver bullets that let him do what he want and have leverage over Obama from the Stanley Fischer and earlier Larry Summers’ appointments.

Stanford knows that Russia has posted kompromat on Darrell Duffie who is head of Moody’s.  They know Russia Today has gloated over Moody’s putting the US on credit watch in 2012 when Duffie was head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s with oversight over the credit rating of the United States government.

Darrell Duffie is head of the MIS Committee of Moody’s which oversees ratings of financial securities including the bonds of Russia.

Director since October 2008

Darrell Duffie, Ph.D., age 59, is Chairman of the MIS Committee and is a member of the Audit and Governance and Compensation Committees of the Board of Directors. He is the Dean Witter Distinguished Professor of Finance at Stanford University Graduate School of Business and has been on the finance faculty at Stanford since receiving his Ph.D. from Stanford in 1984. He has authored books and research articles on topics in finance and related fields. Dr. Duffie is a member of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York Financial Advisory Roundtable, and the Board of The Pacific Institute of Mathematical Sciences and is a Fellow and member of the Council of the Econometric Society and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. He is Chairman of the Market Participants Group on Reference Rate Reform.  Dr. Duffie served as a trustee of iShares Trust and a director of iShares, Inc. from 2008 to 2011 and was President of the American Finance Association in 2009.

Holdings: 23,307 shares

Duffie “dynamic asset pricing theory” “provisional manuscript”

This document gives Russia leverage over Duffie by virtue of misconduct during the course of his work at Stanford, supervising a Ph.D. thesis of a Chinese student.  This was posted in 2005.  Duffie joined Moody’s MIS Committee in 2008 supposedly to be a trusted outside person who was independent.

The above is draft and preliminary. Comments and corrections welcome. This is hypotheses and speculation. Please restate as questions.  All other disclaimers apply.



Edward Snowden reveals that NSA monitored Russia Medvedev communications

June 16, 2013

NSA targeted Dmitry Medvedev at London G20 summit

Leaked documents reveal Russian president was spied on during visit, as questions are raised over use of US base in Britain

Ewen MacAskill, Nick Davies, Nick Hopkins, Julian Borger and James Ball
The Guardian, Sunday 16 June 2013 15.47 EDT

This article appears to be just about from where and/or how Russia sent communications. It does not appear to be about the content of the communications. These are presumably encrypted.

Snowden is now going to reveal information of substance? This is still about how the communications game is played as opposed to actual substance unknown to the public.

Will Snowden expose that Russia used kompromat to get IMF loans in the 1990s from Lawrence Summers and Stanley Fischer? Did DOJ under Clinton, Bush and Obama cover this up? If so, Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill would leapfrog over Woodward and Bernstein, Guardian would leapfrog the Washington Post and Edward Snowden would leapfrog Deep Throat.

Does the NSA have a file on Russia Plagiarism Files? Does Snowden have it? This would change history.

This is a discussion of a story of public interest. Please restate all statements as questions. This is hypotheses or speculation. All other disclaimers apply.

Russia used plagiarism files to get atomic know-how

October 27, 2006

This is draft and will be reformatted and cleaned up over time.

This is hypothesis and speculation. Statements in the positive should be understood as restated this way.
Russia used its files on plagiarism to help it gain atomic know-how in the 1940’s, as well as build its academic network in the West starting in the 1920’s. The key incident was the plagiarism by Paul Dirac with Ralph H. Fowler’s help in 1925 of the paper by Max Born and Pascual Jordan on matrix mechanics.

The following references are from the book, “Sources of Quantum Mechanics”, edited with a historical introduction by B. L. van der Waerden. Note this is a Dover paperback book.
Heisenberg’s paper introducing the idea of matrix mechanics was received July 29, 1925 by Zeitschrift fur Physik and publised in vol 33, page 879.

Max Born and Pascual Jordan, “On Quantum Mechanics” was received Sept 27, 1925 by Zeitschrift fur Physik and published in vol 34, page 858. This was considerably after the date of receipt.

The paper by P.A.M. Dirac, “The Fundamental equations of Quantum Mechanics” was received by the Royal Society on Nov 7, 1925, and published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A vol 109 p 642. This was published before the Born and Jordan paper above.

The Dirac paper cites the paper by Heisenberg but not the Born and Jordan paper.

On page 41, van der Waerden states, “In paper 14, Dirac first gives a summary of Heisenberg’s ideas. Simplifying notation just as Born simplified it, he writes the multiplication rule in the form:

xy(nm) = \sum_k x(nk) y(km)”

Dirac supposedly had not seen the Born and Jordan paper, but he changes the notation from Heisenberg’s “clumsy notation” in the same way. However, Dirac also uses exactly the same Latin subscripts for the rule of multiplication as Born and Jordan did. Heisenberg used the notation (n, n-alpha).

On page 266, Heisenberg states the matrix multiplication rule as:

S(n,n-beta) = \Sum_{\alpha} U(n,n-alpha) B(n-alpha,n-beta)

This notation is quite clumsy as others have pointed out.

On page 280, Born and Jordan state the multiplication law as

a(nm) = \sum_k b(nk) c(km)

On page 309, Dirac states a fragment of an argument using the following equation

ab(nk) = a(nm) b(mk)

This is to show the subscripts, its part of a discussion leading up to the quantum mechanical case and has no summation.

Then below that he gives the same matrix multiplication law as Born and Jordan in Dirac’s equation 2,

xy(nm) = \sum_k x(nk) y(km)

Thus Dirac has copied the very Latin indices that Born and Jordan did. This was a clumsy job of copying.

Everyone at the time could tell what Dirac had done.
The paper was “communicated” to the Royal Society by R. H. Fowler, who was married to Rutherford’s daughter,<a href=””&gt; Eileen.</a>

Rutherford’s top assistant was Peter L. Kapitza, also spelled Pyotr Kapitsa.Kapitsa was possibly consulted and may even have been the one to tell Rutherford what had happened. Rutherford was director of the Cavendish Lab.

At the Cavendish at that very time was one J. Robert Oppenheimer.Niels Bohr was in correspondence with Fowler at the time over these papers. Bohr is probably the one who sent the paper to Fowler, who gave it to Dirac who then copied it. Fowler then rapidly published it to get out before Born and Jordan.

The result was to keep Born and Jordan from sharing the Nobel Prize with Dirac or Heisenberg, both of whom got the Nobel Prize, but not Jordan ever. In the fall of 1954, Born got the Nobel, after the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings in April 1954. At those hearings, Bethe likely kept Teller from telling this story.

Niels Bohr Collected Works Vol 5, p338 Letter Nov 26, 1925 from Bohr to Fowler: “From Heisenberg I have just heard that Dirac in Cambridge, independent of the work of Born, has made some important contributions to the mathematical formulation of the quantum mechanics. I should be very thankful if you could give me some closer information about his work, or if he possibly should have a spare copy of his paper which he would be kind enough to lend me.”

Bohr then talks about a paper he is working on where he would review this work.We note that Bohr does not offer a copy of the Born and Jordan paper to Fowler. Instead, he refers to it as if Fowler knows what he is talking about.

The Collected Works indicate its the papers above discussed in this letter. Since Bohr doesn’t offer to send Fowler the Born and Jordan paper, we know from this letter that he and Bohr both know that he already has a copy. This means someone sent him the copy already. That would either be Heisenberg or Bohr.

The Born and Jordan paper was submitted and received by Z. fur Physik back in September 1925. But Dirac doesn’t cite that paper. Note that Bohr already says “independently” in this letter without having gotten the paper.

Why does Bohr feel the need to introduce this word already? Because he is indicating he won’t make an issue of it being a copy of what Bohr has already sent Fowler. He is willing to avoid a scandal or fight.

Niels Bohr was a friend of Rutherford before Fowler married Rutherford’s daughter or had even met her or Rutherford. Bohr is indicating he won’t break this bond.
Dirac had sent his paper to Heisenberg. The Heisenberg to Bohr letter was dated Nov 20, 1925, see page 225.

Dirac gave conflicting accounts of his knowledge of both Heisenberg’s lecture on July 28, 1925 in Cambridge. Page 317 of the book Helge Kragh, Dirac A Scientific Biography has a paragraph on Dirac’s multiple inconsistent statements. <a href=””&gt; This paragraph can be seen on Amazon inside if one is a member.</a>

It may be necessary to go through the setup oneself. One can search on Kapitza Club. The top of the page is “Notes and References to pp. 9-14.” Dirac in 1962 said, “He [Heisenberg] gave a talk about a new theory at the Kapitza Club in the summer of 1925, but I wasn’t a member of the Club so I did not go to the club.”

However, Dirac presented at the Club Augus 4. In 1972, Dirac said he did attend the talk.
Klaus Fuchs was the assistant of Max Born in Edinburgh in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. He became assistant to Hans Bethe at Los Alamos.

Oppenheimer went from Cavendish in 1925 to get his Ph.D. under Max Born in 1926. Bethe and Oppenheimer knew that Born had been plagiarized by Dirac. They also knew that Niels Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 to keep him quiet by Rutherford who was President of the Royal Society in 1926.

Peierls had brought Fuchs with him to Los Alamos.

Fuchs was a Lutheran refugee from Hitler, which meant he was probably a strong communist who was known to the regime because he was in demonstrations a lot, which in fact was the case.

Bethe and Fuchs were refugees together at Bristol before Bethe went to Cornell and Fuchs went to Edinburgh.

Bethe and Oppenheimer let Fuchs be at Los Alamos despite his being a security risk and in fact likely spy, because Fuchs knew this unpleasant history. So did Peierls. To expose Fuchs when he got to Los Alamos would mean to expose this history.

Peter Kapitsa knew the whole story. He was Rutherford’s top assistant in 1925 and 1926. He was an eyewitness to how Rutherford made Niels Bohr a Fellow to keep him quiet about Fowler’s involvement.

Fowler was Rutherford’s son-in-law. The Fowler and Bohr families were house guests with each other. That meant Fowler’s wife, i.e. Rutherford’s daughter.

Born wrote to Bohr asking for a Rockefeller stipend for Jordan in 1926. By making Bohr a Fellow of the Royal Society, Rutherford made it easier for Bohr to get Rockefeller foundation money. Max Planck at Berlin, Arnold Sommerfeld at Munich, and others were also made Fellows in 1926 all at the same time. Albert Einstein was already a Fellow.

This meant more Rockefeller money for those given this honor. The victims were given nothing. Instead the lab directors and institute directors were given the Fellow positions, and they used it to get Rockefeller money. They then kept Born and Jordan from complaining.

The pattern of not giving the victims anything shows up in later instances. Perhaps this was copying this case or just it makes sense. Dirac got the Nobel Prize in 1933, but Born and Jordan did not. The plagiarists get prizes and awards and recognition, but the victims don’t. Born could have used that recognition when he had to flee Hitler in 1933.

Stalin brought Kapitsa back to the USSR in 1934, by not letting him leave from his annual summer vaction in the USSR.

Rutherford tried to get Stalin to give Kapitsa back up, i.e. let him return to England. Stalin wanted Kapitsa as a witness against Rutherford, Fowler, and Dirac. Rutherford wanted him back just as much for the same reason. Stalin won.

Dirac won the Nobel Prize in physics in fall 1933. Kapitza took his next vaction to Russia in the summer of 1934. It was then that Stalin kept him.

This was the first chance Stalin had to keep Kapitsa in Russia after Dirac won the Nobel Prize. At that point, Kapitza was too valuable as a witness against Niels Bohr, Dirac, Fowler and Rutherford to let Kapitza leave Russia. Later that would include Oppenheimer who had been at the Cavendish in 1925 and Born’s Ph.D. student in 1926 and went along with this over the years.

The following are from vol 3, “Collected Papers of Kapitza”.

Page 20. Peter Kapitza, wrote an obit of Rutherford published in Nature vol 140, page 1053 in 1937. Kapitza states, “Fairness in acknowledging the originality of the work and ideas of his pupils kept a very healthy spirit in the laboroatory,…”

Page 22. “Text of a lecture at the N.D. Zelinskii University of Physical Chemisty, Mosocw 14 November 1937.” “Recollections of Professor E. Rutherford”.

Page 34:”Rutherford could not stand any careless work and unfair competition. When any of his disciples manifested even the slightest lack of conscience in anything–be it by an incorrect representation of their results or by not quoting the source of their ideas and so by attempting to represent their work as an original whereas in fact the idea of the work was taken from elsewhere,–Rutherford lost interest in such men.”

Kapitza is saying this actually happened. Everyone knew what he was talking about.

“Rutherford himself was extremely accurate in giving credit where credit was due.”

This was said in 1937 and published in 1938. R.H. Fowler was still alive. Fowler had been the one to get the Born and Jordan unpublished paper from Bohr most likely, since Bohr wrote him in 1925 asking for a copy of the Dirac paper but not sending Fowler the Born and Jordan paper, but mentioning it, and it was still unpublished.

He would only do that if he had already sent a copy to Fowler. Kapitza was at the Cavendish lab and was an eyewitness to these events, as was Oppenheimer. But Kapitza was likely consulted by Rutherford and may have been the one to tell him what had happened.

These were strong words to get back to England in 1937. Presumably, Kapitza had had many dinners with Rutherford, his daughter and Fowler. Now he was putting in the needle. But this was required.

Stalin wanted this. Kapitza got Landau and Fock out of prison because he was an eyewitness to these events whom Stalin needed.

Lindemann was an adviser to Churchill on scientific matters. Lindemann was a Fellow of the Royal Society.

There was a letter from Kapitza to Bohr in London at the Russian embassy in 1944 before a meeting between Bohr and Churchill.

Bohr showed it to the British, and it asked Bohr to come to Russia for a job. In effect, to come to Russia to direct their atomic energy program is a possible reading.

Lindemann was in a position to tell Churchill that Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1926 because Dirac had plagiarized Born and Jordan in 1925.

Jordan was then in Germany. Lindemann could tell Churchill that Kapitsa was at Rutherford’s lab and may even have known that Kapitsa was involved in finding a solution.

Kapitsa was made a Fellow later in the 1920’s, but a full Fellow, not a foreign one, even though he was still a Soviet citizen. This was unique. Bohr met with Churchill to tell Churchill to give Russia the secret of the bomb. Churchill reacted very angrily.

“The Bomb A life” by Gerard J. DeGroot on pages 135-36 tells of Kapitza’s resignation from the Soviet bomb project on 3 October 1945. Kapitza wrote to Stalin resigning and complaining of Beria.

In effect, Kapitza wanted Beria removed from the bomb project. Kapitza was then put under house arrest. “Under the circumstances, his treatment was remarkably lenient. A lesser scientist would have been shot. That was certaintly what Beria wanted.”

A footnote tells us that Beria and Kapitza met after this and Beria gave Kapitza a double-barrelled shotgun.This was in 1945. At this point, Niels Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Hans Bethe, Max Born, Klaus Fuchs, Corson, and others were still alive and many still had influence.

If Stalin killed Kapitza he would lose his eyewitness to the 1925 events. Now he was worth more than ever. That is why Kapitza dared to write a letter in Oct 1945 saying Beria should be removed from running the bomb project.

Stalin didn’t degrade Kapitza nor let him suffer poor treatment. He needed him alive and a credible witness.

Terletsky from the USSR met with Bohr in December 1945 to ask questions on atomic know-how. He brought with him greetings from Joffe and Kapitsa to Bohr.

No real information was given by Bohr. But they were using the Kapitsa leverage again to put pressure on the whole physics community in the West including Oppenheimer and Bethe.

Oppenheimer and Bethe at times both opposed the US developing an H-bomb after the war.

In the FBI investigation after the arrest of Fuchs in 1950 and then again in the April 1954, Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings, Oppenheimer and Bethe kept this information from the investigation.

Oppenheimer and Bethe had allowed Bohr into Los Alamos knowing this history. They had kept it all from the security people. They had not told security when Bohr pushed for giving the bomb secret to Russia while at Los Alamos nor after the Dec 1945 meeting. That was all relevent for the Fuchs investigation, since Fuchs was Born’s assistant, as had been Oppenheimer.

Max Born visited Russia and the top scientists in 1945.

“Born meets Edward Neville da Costa Andrade, Hal Anger, Vladimir A. Fok, Victor Frenkel, Julian Huxley, Abram F. Joffe, Irene and Frederick Joliot-Curie, Peter and Anna Kapitza, Theodore von Kármán, Grigorii S. Landsberg, Irving Langmuir, Duncan A. MacInnes, Serge Prokofiev, Jean Perrin, Meghnad M. Saha, Harold Spencer-Jones, and Igor Tamm.”

<a href=””&gt; This includes Fock, Kapitza, and Tamm. </a>

Klaus Fuchs was still an unouted spy. He had been Born’s assistant before the war. Many of the Russians had visited Born in Germany in the 1920’s.

At that time, Born may have formed a link with the Soviets to fight Hitler and because he felt betrayed by the English in the plagiarism.

Corson was an undergrad student in Edinburgh in the 1930’s and then worked on the bomb project. Corson plagiarized Fock in 1946, and Fock exposed this in a letter in 1947. Corson was at the IAS at Princeton.

Oppenheimer became director in 1947. Born wrote an introduction to one of Corson’s books a few years later.
In 1946, Corson plagiarized Fock in a publication in Physical Review. Corson
was a close friend of Klaus Fuchs from Edinburgh in 1938. Corson was in effect an undergrad student of Max Born there.

Corson worked on the atom bomb project during WWII but not on bomb design. Corson presumably thought he could use this history to get away with plagiarizing Fock because he thought the Russians and Americans would both be afraid to nail him on this and have this all come out.

The Russians in general, and Beria and Stalin in particular, didn’t see it that way. They couldn’t let Corson use this as reverse leverage against them. So they had a letter signed by Fock that was very harsh published in Physical Review.
<a href=”″&gt; Fock Letter </a> on Corson’s duplication of Fock’s 1932 paper. The text is viewable for those at a university library or with a subscrition. However, even w/o a subscription one can see the institutional memberships.

Also <a href=””&gt; refers to Corson Fock case. </a>
<a href=””&gt; Quotes Fock Letter </a>

In the April 1954 Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings this entire history was concealed. The hearings could have investigated many issues if told of them.

Max Born by the time of the hearings had had Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, and Kun Huang as assistants. Fuchs was a known spy. Peng and Kun Huang returned to China after the arrest of Fuchs, as did some other Chinese. They later were credited as the fathers of the Chinese bomb.

Oppenheimer had been Born’s assistant in 1926 and got his Ph.D. in one year. Oppenheimer was at Cavendish in 1925 when the plagiarism happened there.

Born visited the USSR in 1945 after the war and met with Kapitsa and Fock. Born’s undergrad student Corson had plagiarized Fock in 1946 and letters published on it in 1947. Oppenheimer by the time of publication of these letters was head of IAS Princeton, and thus Corson’s supervisor.

Corson had been an atomic scientist during the war, but not working on the bomb, but fuel processing, something the Soviets didn’t ask Fuchs as far as we know.
Its obvious that Born’s many communist assistants and Oppenheimer as his assistant in 1926 should have been told to the investigation in 1954. One question is whether Born was trying to recruit Oppenheimer in 1926.

Born and Jordan had a falling out, and eventually Jordan became a Nazi in 1933. Did Born try to recruit Jordan as a communist in 1925, fail and then try to recruit Oppenheimer in 1926?

The 1950 FBI investigation should have been told the information and issues and been able to settle it then.
The night before Teller’s testimony in April 1954, Bethe and Teller met and debated for an hour if Teller should testify against Oppenheimer. Bethe didn’t want him to.

Its reasonable to infer that during this heated debate, they talked about the above issues. This would have made Bethe even angrier and feeling betrayed. That is partly because Bethe was on the line for this as well. Bethe had been the supervisor of Fuchs.

Bethe also already had priority issues, some of them already mentioned in print. This included his Lamb shift calculation and with respect to priority by Kita, Nambu, and Schwinger for what is now called the Bethe Salpeter equation. Weisskopf wrote Bethe a letter about the Lamb shift calculation, saying in effect that Bethe had acted inappropriately after the Shelter Island Conference.

Schwinger complained the same thing. There is a footnote in his paper. Gell-man and Low also footnote Schwinger’s claim to priority on Bethe Salpeter equation.

Kita notes he was first in an obscure Japanese physics journal even before Nambu. Nambu in his reprint of his papers says he was before Bethe and Salpeter.
Bethe’s main papers on nuclear physics were written with coauthors in the 1930’s.

Fuchs corrected an error in one of Bethe’s main arguments in nuclear physics. This paper was well known at the time, but later was only cited once, by Sengupta, in Physics Review. Fuchs developed an important simple explanation of which nuclei are stable, which has been mostly ignored.

If Teller was going to unveil this whole history of how Russia uses academic misconduct to get benefits from US scientists, then Bethe would have been as much under investigation as Oppenheimer.

Bethe had been the boss of Fuchs. Bethe was a serial user of the ideas of others, and by 1954 this was already in print.
Bethe had the ability to poison the physics community against Teller. When Teller’s testimony was released in 1954, he was villified in the physics community. However, it may be that Bethe was acting behind the scenes to make this worse, because of his fear of exposure on these issues.

Teller was hated not for what he said but for what he almost said in this hypothesis. This is because he could have exposed the whole community to investigation and disrepute. It was the physics community that had covered this up. If Teller told this story, the whole community would be discredited, including all the senior atomic scientists.

In 1950, Dancoff, an Oppenheimer student from Berkeley in the 1930’s, published a paper on a method now called Tamm Dancoff. Dancoff didn’t cite Tamm.

In 1955, the Russians published a celebration of Tamm’s work. They indicated that Dancoff had failed not only to cite Tamm (1945), but also Fock and Landau Peierls from the 1930’s. Corson had copied the same work by Fock from the 1930’s, and that was what the 1947 Fock letter in Physical Review was about, saying he had done this.

Corson had been at IAS Princeton in 1947 when this letter from Fock was published with Corson’s reply.
By pushing this in 1955, the Soviets continued to push on Oppenheimer and thus on Bethe and the rest of the physics community.

Oppenheimer was Born’s assistant in 1926 and got his Ph.D. in one year. Oppenheimer had been at Cavendish in 1925. Corson was an atomic scientist and then under Oppenheimer at IAS, although Oppenheimer only arrived after the plagiarism was published but before the final publication of the Fock Letter in October 1947. Dancoff was Oppenheimer’s student.

Bohr had been under Oppenheimer at Los Alamos. Oppenheimer knew that Bohr was made a Fellow of the Royal Society after the 1925 plagiarism by Dirac and Fowler, and Oppenheimer probably knew that Bohr had sent the Born and Jordan paper to Fowler.

Thus the Soviets in 1955 were continuing to keep the heat on Oppenheimer, who was still director of IAS Princeton.
The Soviets were doing this because it was Bethe and the senior physicists who had collectively concealed this. They had concealed it when Fuchs joined Los Alamos. They concealed it when Fuchs was arrested and Peng and Kun Huang went back to China, along with others like Qian Sanqiang. They had concealed this when Bohr pressed for Russia to get the bomb during the war.

They concealed it when Bohr met with the Russians in December 1945. They concealed it during the Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings in April 1954.

Some unanswered questions are:

Was Max Born a communist in Germany in the 1920’s as a way to be anti-fascist?

Did Born try to recruit his assistants, including Heisenberg, Jordan, and Oppenheimer?

How did Born manage to have so many known communists as assistants in the UK in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Klaus Fuchs, Huanwu Peng, and Kun Huang? The latter two went back to China after Fuchs was arrested. In Born’s book, published 8 years after his death, he says Huang was afraid to write Born after this.

Was this information discussed by Bethe and Teller the night before Teller’s testimony at the Oppenheimer Security Hearing? Did Bethe persuade Teller not to tell?

Was Oppenheimer recruited as a sort of half spy by Born or Kapitza in 1925 or 1926? Was Oppenheimer recruiting spies at Berkeley in the 1930’s from his students? Was Dancoff one? Others?

Was all this kept from the 1950 FBI investigation after Fuchs was arrested? From the Oppenheimer Security Hearings in April 1954?

Was Max Born given the Nobel Prize in fall 1954 to quiet this up? Did Bohr help on that? These records are now supposed to be public. Can someone find out and post it? Who recommended Max Born in 1954?

Moreover, Max Born finally got the Nobel Prize in fall 1954. This was in part to keep him quiet and in part to give him stature if there was an investigation. Born went back to Germany from the UK in 1953, and getting a Nobel Prize would mean the Germans would be more likely to protect him from extradition if there was an investigation.

It also meant that Max Born could slip over the border into Switzerland. As a Nobel Prize winner it would be much easier for him to get sanctuary. The same applied to Sweden, Denmark, Norway or Austria.

The Soviets knew all this and were using it all to maintain pressure on the US physics community. They were also using it as general pressure on the academic community in the West and the US.

There was substantial contact between Los Alamos and RAND, with some going from Los Alamos to RAND in the 1940’s and 1950’s.

Albert Wohlstetter was a math Ph.D. who worked at RAND in the 50’s and worked on defense and nuclear strategy. Wohlstetter went to UChicago.

Paul Wolfowitz got his Ph.D. on nuclear issues under Wohlstetter and then worked in that area in DoD in the 1970’s.

Wohlstetter could have told this history to Paul Wolfowitz directly.

Jacob Wolfowitz worked in math departments, and could have learned it through that channel. He could have told his son.

The Ph.D.’s working in nuclear defense strategy at DoD in the 1970’s, may have already have heard this history as well.

Paul Samuelson listed himself as a consultant to RAND in the 1960’s on the paperback edition of Foundations of Economic Analysis. He also wrote a book in the 50’s with a RAND link. Samuelson received the Nobel Prize in 1970 and thus had the ability to nominate in economics as a prior prize winner. Samuelson would also have been a target for the Soviets to pressure to nominate Kantorovich. Larry Summers is the nephew of Samuelson. Samuelson was on Stanley Fischer’s Ph.D. thesis committee in 1969 at MIT.

There were two economics conferences in Poland in the 1970’s, one in 1972 and the other in 1974. The Soviets could have told this history to the American econ profs in order to pressure them to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics. Koopmans was at the 1972 conference and shared the prize with Kantorovich. He could have been included to sweeten the deal for the Americans.

This is a continuation of the petition to Congress to investigate Bush v. Gore, US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay, the HIID grant to Harvard under Jeffrey Sachs and Andrei Shleifer, IMF and World Bank contributions, the Marc Rich pardon, the AIPAC and Libby investigations, Plame Leak Investigation of leak of name of Joe Wilson’s wife, the decision to block Sibel Edmonds’ case, the Indian Nuclear Deal, the Russian Nuclear Deal, the Amnesty and Enhanced Legal Immigration Deal for Mexico, and related matters.

This essay discusses how Russia used its files on plagiarism to gain atomic know-how. This is part of common plan or method evidence. It may also have been used as additional pressure in the 1970’s to get the nominations for the 1975 Nobel Prize for Kantorovich of the USSR or for IMF and World Bank loans in the 1990’s from Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers.

There was a meeting in Poland in 1972 which was attended by Koopmans from the US along with others. Koopmans started out in physics in the 1930’s and likely knew this history.

This is hypotheses or speculation. All statements in the positive should be restated as questions. All other disclaimers apply.

Washington Post Comments Oct 2006

October 21, 2006

The Sibel Edmonds case shows similar information retention policies by FBI. Her case was frozen by Judge Reggie Walton who has the Libby case now. She was the FBI translator, see The 9-11 Commission and the Joint Intelligence Committee review of 9-11 both complained of lack of cooperation and being blocked. The Jersey Girls had to pressure the 9-11 Commission to be formed. That Commission didn’t disclose the July 10, 2001 briefing of Rice, who didn’t disclose it to the 9-11 Commission.⊂=AR

===Questions for George Allen Jim Webb Senate Debate
Questions: 1. Does Jim Webb oppose H1B? Is that why Sidarth joined his campaign? 2. Do they believe that Pakistan has supported the Taliban against US troops at any time from Sep 11, 2001 to date? 3. NATO’s commander in Afghanistan flew to meet with Musharraf to get him to stop this support. What should we do with Pakistan? 4. Can we allow Pakistan to have nuclear warheads on missiles on subs? 5. To sell those to other countries? 6. Do you believe Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or UAE may have had prior knowledge of 9-11? 7. Should we allow Chinese graduate students to come to the US and get know how when China has used that know how to develop a laser to block our satellites? 8. AQ Khan got his Ph.D. in Belgium and his know how for nukes in Pakistan. What is the cost of this? 9. Doesn’t this show that we lose money by giving away our know-how? 10. We invaded Iraq for WMD, that costs us 300 billion to 2 trillion if you use the Stiglitz economic cost. Doesn’t that have to be counted as cost from loss of know how? Same for Iran if we attack it. 11. Should we do a ground invasion of Iran to prevent them getting nukes? 12. Did Pakistan use its May 98 nuke test to start a program of terrorism against us and attacks on India that they pretended were terrorism? 13. Isn’t that why Iran wants the bomb? 14. Did Pakistan engage in its program of supporting terror after May 98 nuke in order to get money?

addl questions

Kunduz. Do you believe it was appropriate to let Pakistan evacuate its generals and advisers to the Taliban in Nov 2001 from Kunduz as reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker?


Bush has refused to negotiate while North Korea built nukes. Bush did nothing in that time, no blockade, no strike on their position. North Korea got stronger during the no negotiation period, and the US position went nowhere. This shows the North Koreans had the better strategy during the last few years than Bush. One issue is whether to strike North Korea’s processing plants so they can’t build more weapons. This will freeze them at their current levels. A second issue is to impose a complete blockade. A third issue is to cut China’s exports to the US by one-half and stop all Chinese immigration to the US. Do this first and if China applies pressure to North Korea, then they will be taken off. We need to be the one whose position gets stronger as talks drag on. We do this by taking away China’s knowledge transfer from the US up front and half their exports. Then they have to earn their way back to getting their exports. China and NoKo despise us as bought and paid for by Chinese lobbyists and kompromat.


Increasing the US military’s size substantially to the level it was in the first Gulf War, an all volunteer force, would help us with North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia all at the same time. Just having the bigger stick would send that message. This means rolling back part of the Bush tax cuts. Is that why Bush didn’t do it after 9-11?Is there any mistake Bush hasn’t made?


More Questions: Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker that the Bush admin let Pakistan airlift 2 Pakistani generals from Kunduz in Nov 2001 as well as advisers to the Taliban and even “former” Pakistani soldiers and ISI men. Do you believe that report? Others have confirmed it. Do you think this means Pakistan was fighting us after 9-11? What does that imply if true? Musharraf lied about the tribal chiefs making the truce and no Taliban involved according to Frontline’s the return of the Taliban. Is Pakistan against us? Should we let them put warheads on missiles on subs and sell those to Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc? What should we do about Pakistan?


Does this show a basic concept problem by Bush & Co?Where have they been? What do they think about? How do they spend their time? This was true from the day they took office and brushed off Richard Clarke. What is wrong with them? Why are they unable to improve any situation? Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia’s spreading extremism, China building up know how and hollowing out our industry, immigration that takes our job and physical security and they predict future terrorism from it, an Iraq war whose stated purpose is to impose an Islamic Republic and uphold religious law and courts, and the same in Afghanistan, deficits, torture, etc. Where do all these concept failures come from? A hollowed out military as well.


More questions: Should immigration be halted for a time? Do young adults have a 25 year window of job security to have children? Does job insecurity prevent marriage formation by young adults? Does job insecurity cause marriages to fail? Can teenagers, minorities, etc. get starter jobs while we have immigration? Can teenagers and college students in summer get good jobs in construction today like they could in the 1960’s? Do Americans have the lifetime job security, health insurance, work place dignity and respect from management they had before the 1965 Immigration Act? Should that Act and all subsequent versions be repealed? Did the 1965 Immigration Act undo the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Borjas of Harvard has released a study that it does in effect. See Steve Sailer, Borjas at Vdare. Do the people of any country support immigration into their country? Which countries that we have immigration from, take in as many Ameicans to that country? That take immigration of the same scale into that country? Isn’t immigration to benefit them, Jim Webb and George Allen personally and hurt us the voters? Why wasn’t immigration stopped after WTC 93 attack? Why not have WTC 2001 attack? Why should Americans die for immigration from terrorists or in street crime? Should the constitution be changed to have a national referendum so that immigration, abortion, etc. can be decided by the people and not by them?


More Questions: For each of the following countries, describe what is the main threat or problem to the US, what Bush has done, what he should have done, and what he should do now: North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China, Russia, Mexico, Cuba. Should we have a master strategy in the Middle East and Central Asia and make decisions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. based on how it helps the master plan, or should we have isolated separate plans with each country as if they didn’t fit together? Are we at war? With what or whom? Is it the same thing that attacked the Eastern Roman Empire in 633? Related to it? Do Middle East countries view their population as unproductive, so they don’t care if they die? Does that mean Mutual Assured Destruction can’t work with Iran, Pakistan, etc? Same on North Korea?


Because we let China do anything it wants when it wants it doesn’t respect us. We have given China our know-how and so they have contempt and disdain for us. We have given them our industries, so they have contempt and disdain for us. China is infiltrating the US and looking for academic kompromat on professors who write letters of recommendation or take jobs in government. China looks for dirt on profs to influence CFIUS decisions. The US has lost control of its math, physics, engineering, econ depts and b schools. China and Russia are fighting over who controls them.


North Korea isn’t a small child that is hungry, its a large teenager that has guns and drugs and is a member of a dangerous gang. The main parent, China, ignores it, and the people in the community are afraid of it. It is building weapons to threaten the police station, America, so that its guns can’t be taken away from it. It has sold guns to other similar troubled teens.


and its sibling rival is afraid of it.

time to hold its parent responsible for its behavior.

It should have condemned itself for inaction for the last 4 years, and then Bush for starting this and then going off and fighting a war in Iraq. To get North Korea to act as we want, we have to combine a situation that gets worse for it as negotiations go on with an opportunity to gain something by giving up its nukes. Since it gains by nukes now, it sees that its policies are working. Blockade it, make China blockade it by land or lose its trade and know-how transfer from us, find its offshore bank accounts and confiscate them, and do the same to countries that have bought its missile technology like Pakistan.⊂=AR


Fieldmice good comments. We make China blockade N. Korea by taking away 1/2 their exports to the US and their know-how transfer through grad students here and H1B here. We do that up front and then if they blockade N. Korea, and NoKo gives up its nukes and nuclear processing plants and reactors, then China gets its exports restorted, but not its know how transfer.⊂=AR


We can take steps that pressure China without saying so. Rather than end China’s H1B, end the entire H1B. Same with foreign grad students in science and math. End all such allowances. This way it pressures China but looks equal. The same on imports to US. Cut them across the board. Also end all foreign take overs of US, i.e. anything CFIUS would approve the answer is no. End family reunification, this again is not directed at China. Have a halt in all immigration, this again is not directed at China specifically. All of these will make China respect us and have to talk to us. Now China gets everything for nothing. It thinks it has bribed Congress and has kompromat on the Bush team. By taking these measures on a fair and equal basis and not singling out China it sends them the message that Congress is loyal to the American people instead of China’s money.⊂=AR


China is the billion pound gorilla, but the US still has substantial leverage. Taking these steps would remind them of that, but not direct it at China. They would lose their know-how transfer by our cutting off H1B and our current policy of excluding Americans in physics, math, econ, business, etc. Ph.D. programs and educating China instead of our own people. By making that universal, we don’t single out China, but it has a huge message effect. Same with cutting back low cost imports and the transfer of our companies to others. They give us very little, and we give them a lot. Right now they think they have bribed Congress into giving them what they want against the interests of the American people. Until that perception is changed, that they control Congress with money to act in China’s interests against the American people, they won’t do anything. That’s what has happened the last 4 years.


Bottomline: China needs to pay a big price for letting this happen. It has also stalled talks on Iran. Its time it paid a price.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 9, 2006 2:33:49 PM .


An arms embargo and minor trade sanctions are designed to have too little impact. This is classic Bush, a strategy that if you succeed, will fail. These sanctions if adopted are pretend sanctions to fool the US public. Bush invaded Iraq and Afghanistan to set up Islamic Republics and uphold religious law and religious court rulings. We aren’t fighting for our values in Iraq or Afghanistan, so we are guaranteed to fail. The source countries against us are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. Like North Korea, Bush gives them a pass. China’s war against us using grad students, H1B and family reunification to get our know-how and kompromat is ignored. The Bush team always design a policy response in advance that even if it “succeed” will fail. This is what they did before 9-11. Bush’s response to Tenet was to ask for the August 6 2001 PDB. As Bush said, he didn’t want policy choices for acting, just a historical document. Bush’s mind anticipates what could succeed and he instinctively avoids it for something that even if it “succeeds” will fail.⊂=AR


As Bush begins to realize a policy choice that could succeed, an immune response takes over to twist it and water it in a way that can’t possibly succeed. Bush’s “solution” is always one guaranteed to look like he is doing something, but only generates cost, death, and a worse position at the end.⊂=AR


Paul Klebnikov was also murdered. Boris Berezovsky earlier sued him for linking Berezovsky to Chechnya. This goes back to Russian politics in the 1990’s. There was an enormous amount of kompromat they had on the West from decades. Much of it was on academia, international agencies like IMF and World Bank, etc. Russia got billions in low interest rate loans in the 1990’s. There was a case US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay related to this. For a time, Chubais was on the payroll of HIID, Jan 96, after the big IMF package started in May 95 and then the loans for shares to oligarchs in fall 95. This entire era was better understood by profs and those with close links to academia, including PNAC. Janine Wedel, Tainted Transactions, on line, and David Warsh at Economic Principals covered some of it. The above is, of course, just speculation, not an asssertion of knowledge or affirmation of a conclusion.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 9, 2006 4:09:38 PM |⊂=AR


RE hankomatic1, I think you are right. From Asia Times online, Aug 31, 2006 SPEAKING FREELY
Why Pyongyang is going nuclear
By Kim Myong-chol. quote: Scene I of the first stage is the declaration of nuclear-weapons status. Scene II is to show beyond doubt that North Korea has the nuclear capability to settle the old scores with the US. quote 2: Why did Israel lose to Hezbollah? There are three critical factors: the first is mental, the spirit of martyrdom and discipline; the second intellectual, the art of war; and the third physical, weapons. The third is ineffective in the absence of the first two. This guy is a pseudo spokes person for NoKo according to Bush will ignore this just like he ignored bin Laden determined to attack in the United States.

China is the rogue state against us in NoKo and Iran. Pakistan is a Psychopathic state and NoKo is as well. Saudi Arabia and Iran are close behind. China is trying to undermine our efforts to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, missiles and submarines. They want them to spread. In China’s mind, the US is the “main enemy”. Bush has consistently shown approach avoidance to deal with NoKo, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and China. Russia too is stirring the pot, a useful idiot to powerful forces against them as well. Search on North Korea “War Is Coming To American Soil” for another article from NoKo spokesman saying NoKO determined to attack in the US.


Republicans in the House have only now woken up to the idea that they had to have a record to run on. They thought it was all decided by gerrymandering. They weren’t helped by the Senate or Bush, both of whom wanted to run on a pro immigration platform, which the country as a whole hates, and Republicans in particular do. Now they are realizing that Republicans can stay home, or just vote ballot initiatives and local races. They also have had a foreign policy that makes no sense to anyone, fight periphery wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that bring back memories of Korea, while letting Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China attack us or harm us through proxies. They are letting China get our technology by H1B, grad students who displace Americans, know-how transfer, outsourcing, Microsoft locating in China, etc. They really need to look at the consequences of their being on China and Saudi Arabia’s payroll, because its not an attractive platform for the party of national security.⊂=AR


Good point dopestar. The best way to end illegal immigration is to end all immigration. That sends a message of no amnesty ever. Illegal immigration is about expectations of amnesty. Ending all immigration sends the message of no amnesty. Combined with a fence all around the border and employer sanctions it will work. But 40 percent or more of illegals are those who overstay student or H1B or other guest worker visas. Ending all these visa programs together with family reunification, which is a path to welfare as Edwin Rubinstein at Vdare has pointed out, is the way to send the signal that there will be no amnesty, ever. We have to send that signal more heavily because the 1980’s amnesty and Bush McCain Kennedy Specter and S. 2611 undermined that signal.⊂=AR


How could Allen change the debate from the Post trying to undermine Allen to issues? Because that’s how voters saw it. Voters are not for the Post’s attack on Allen. They do want issues. Voters have job insecurity from immigration, something the Post promotes. The Post doesn’t understand voters, because its against them on immigration, the main driver of economic insecurity for young adults. This delays marriage, breaks up marriages, limits having children, and undermines our schools and communities. The Financial Times reports a Harvard prof whose research shows diversity creates extreme distrust of everyone, even the people in your own ethnic group. See Vdare blog.This has happened. Allen is for no amnesty, which is about restoring trust by stopping diversity getting worse. That’s what the Harvard research shows. Allen is on the right side of Harvard’s research and the Post is not.


Bush hasn’t met a problem whose solution he can’t avoid. We are attacked on 9-11 by al Qaeda which is supported by the Taliban which is supported and funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. Bush leaves all 3 of these alone and fights a war in Afghanistan, which history shows is unwinnable, instead of with these 3, which history shows is winnable. Bush starts NoKo off with his speech, and invades another periphery country, Iraq, instead of a main enemy like Iran. Bush lets China fund North Korea’s economy which is building a nuke, and lets China send H1B, grad students, etc. here to get our know how and use it for lasers to blind our satellites. We invade Iraq and spend 300 billion dollars for WMD. Yet we train future scientists for China, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Libya, etc. We are attacked by immigrants at WTC in 93 and 2001 and at Pentagon in 2001 and Bush brings in more immigrants, and says they will cause more terrorism. In the meantime they cause street crime, take jobs, create physical and job insecurity, and increase distrust as Robert Putnam’s of Harvard’s study of diversity shows, see Vdare’s Athena Kerry for a column. Bush has proposed non-sanction sanctions on NoKo that China is already ducking.


tucanofulano gets it right, “illegals strike again”. This is part of the cost of illegals, throwing out all this fruit, plus people dying. Also restaurant ice is unclean. If you feel a little sick after lunch or that fountain sode or ice tea or water, it may be that the ice is contaminated by the bus boys’ not washing properly after the rest room. Most bus boys are illegal, so this is another illegal problem. In both cases, they don’t care about cleanliness of our food, just like they don’t care about violating our laws.


Athena Kerry at Vdare reports on another Harvard study by Robert Putnam. Putnam showed that diversity increases distrust, including of your own affinity groups. This is what is shown in the campaign, distrust is up. Maybe Congress will read this study and wake up that the reason politics is so angry is what this Harvard diversity study shows, diversity causes distrust. The 1965 Immigration Act was the distrust act. After 40 years its destroyed the bonds of trust in our society that Martin Luther King hoped to heal. This society doesn’t have anything like the trust that existed before the 1965 Immigration Act. Time to repeal it and everything since it and go to no immigration like we did in 1924. That is what led to civil rights 40 years later, the end of immigration in 1924. That built the trust that led to civil rights and the Harvard study proves it.


This is the same sort of alienation that has been building hatred of the West in the Middle East, Pakistan, and in immigrant communities in Europe and increasingly the US and Canada. Some say the US is different, but WTC 93 attack and 9-11 show there is terrorism by immigrants here from the Middle East and Central Asia. This builds and gets worse. After WTC 93 the reaction was to say the Republicans were bigots to want to stop immigration in 1996, esp against Buchanan. That produced 9-11 with immigrants who came after 1996. The MSM pre-emptively warned us on 9-11 not to hold them accountable for that immigration or be called bigot. Now they say there is no alienation here, even as the cases build up. Its time to stop immigration. A study by Robert Putnam of Harvard shows diversity causes distrust. This video game builds on that effect. See Athena Kerry at Vdare.


1NationIndivisible is right: quote: If Jim Webb wants my vote, all he has to do is make a few strong, clear statements of illegal transients, controlling visas, eliminating pac rim currency manipulation, etc. end quote. Some questions not asked are: If a person is born in China, grows up there, goes to college there, and is the child of Communist Party officials and is chosen to come to grad school in the US, is that person loyal to their parents and the Communist party or loyal to you, or to Senators like Teddy Kennedy and John McCain? Do you feel it strengthens America and diversity when children of Chinese profs who came to the West in 40’s were trained in physics and returned to build China’s bomb come here and become professors? Do you think they are loyal to their father who built the bomb, or loyal to you? Robert Putnam of Harvard did a study showing diversity creates distrust even in your own ethnic group, see Athena Kerry at Vdare. Do you distrust this study or will you act on it to end immigration?⊂=AR


There are many good comments above. Bush has said he wants minor pseudo sanctions that won’t have much effect or work. Most of Korea’s trade goes through China so searching ships won’t work. There are two articles at Asia Times from a sort of spokesperson for North Korea. search on “War Is Coming To American Soil” or go to and go to Korea. Is China letting this happen on purpose? Does China have a super Afghanistan plan of letting NoKo and Iran and other states get the bomb and fighting us, by nuclear means, terrorism and immigration until we collapse and they pick up the pieces?


From quote Kim’s message: War is coming to US soil
By Kim Myong Chol (“Unofficial” spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea.) end quote. Also quote Why Pyongyang is going nuclear
By Kim Myong-chol
. These two articles give North Korea’s view, which is that they are going to use the nukes against us in the US. Its like bin Laden. When he declared war, the MSM and US admin asked, what does he really want? On 9-11, he answered them. Its the same message and the same response by Bush. He has non-sanction sanctions, which if he gets them he knows in advance will fail. That is Bush’s inner need.


The ones who have met the Wall of Doubt are those
who doubt the need of a wall, along with ending immigration. Robert Putnam of Harvard has done a study showing that diversity creates extreme distrust, even within ethnic groups. The doubters of the Wall are showing this? See Athena Kerry at for a review of the Robert Putnam piece and a link to a FT article on it.⊂=AR


ajsmith quote Its been three months and Im STILL waiting for someone from the Webb team to get back to me with their views about illegal immigration. end quote. quote Allen has been prompt and honest whenever I asked a question. Sometimes he told me things I did not want to hear but he was honest and more importantly, he felt I was important enough to address my questions. end quote. This is exactly right. Allen is for H1B and Skil Bill which will vastly increase immigration and take away job security from engineering students like Sidarth at UVA who is for Webb and against Allen. But Webb won’t tell us or Sidarth if Webb is really aginst H1B. Webb won by 12,000 votes in June 2006 over Harris Miller an H1B lobbyist. Webb won by votes in Northern Virginia against H1B. But besides calling Miller the anti-Christ of outsourcing, Webb has not told us or Sidarth his position on H1B.


By letting the Axis of Evil arm itself with nukes, Bush is part of it. He has let Pakistan keep its nukes after 9-11 and after its advisers have been helping the Taliban for the last 5 years. He let Pakistan airlift two generals from Kunduz in Afghanistan in Nov 2001. Nato’s general has gone to Pakistan to complain about their training Taliban against our troops today. Bush let NoKo build nukes or get closer while he pursued his obsession Iraq. Bush has let Saudi Arabia and UAE fund terrorism world wide and fund textbooks that teach hate that are used in Saudi Arabia and in America. Bush by his inaction and pretending to act when he didn’t is part of the Axis of Evil himself. This has been his pattern from before 9-11 to now.


couldn’t post there.

Bush conf school violence.

Its immigration. Its diversity, Robert Putnam study see Vdare Athena

one reason people resegment by race when they can is because of the
diversity effect. People don’t want to live with people of other groups,
because it has this effect of distrust.


Bush is proposing meaningless sanctions and China wants no sanctions. They will split the difference at .5 times meaningless sanctions. This is the Bush pattern on Saudi Arabia, UAE, Pakistan, North Korea, immigration, hollowed out military, etc. This all comes from his father’s “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. After 9-11, Bush needed to restore the military to its 1991 level. That meant no tax cuts. Bush jr was convinced this is what lost his father’s election in 1992, so Bush decided to forget it. So he decided to let NoKo rearm in 2002. He decided to let Pakistan keep its nukes and support the Taliban against our troops. See Seymour Hersh on Kunduz airlift in Nov 2001, Pakistan got advisers and generals out of Afghanistan who advised the Taliban against us. This is still going on and the NATO commander went to Pakistan to talk about it. Instead of invading Saudi Arabia for its role in fomenting terrorism and extremism, Bush made a torture pact with it according to Woodward at the White House with Prince Bandar. This is who Bush is. FBI agent Deep Throat said “follow the money”, the 9-11 politician commission said, “Don’t follow the money.”⊂=AR


rpotter quote: Why does it take so long for Europe to reach the same valid conclusion with respect to N. Korea and Iran? And then act on it like a grown up! end quote. This is right. However, Bush didn’t act on it either. He let NoKo develop and he likely will give Iran a pass as well. After 9-11 he had to rescind his tax cut to deal with Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia. But he remembered that is what lost Bush sr the 92 election, so Bush jr decided to ignore the role of Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia. In Nov 01, he let Pakistan airlift generals out of Kunduz who were advising the Taliban against us. NoKo saw that in the New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh. That told them they could get away with arming. Bush signalled by letting Pakistan get away with this airlift and fighting us even after 9-11, that he was a paper tiger. He had already violated his “you are with us or against us” pledge. Bush opened the door to NoKo by the Saudi airlift from the US after 9-11. Bush let Saudi, UAE, Pakistan get away with all this and NoKo figured, why not me?


What Webb needed to do to win was to be for a moratorium on immigration, legal and amnesties. He should have pledged that in all procedural votes, and all amendments he would vote against immigration even if his party leaders wanted him to give them support on procedural votes. If he had done this, he could have created a real populist movement. All our problems flow out of immigration, job insecurity, the top 1/5 get 1/2 the income, young adults lack economic security for marriage and families, and to keep those marriages stable, etc.


The US should consider slowing down action on Chinese visa requests of all kinds, and also inspecting a higher percentage of containers from China so as to slow down its exports to the US. The President can determine based on his personal conversations with Chinese leaders that he finds them deceptive or hostile. This can be based on demeanor, tone of voice, etc. A judge has no authority to revisit as finder of fact such a finding by the president. The president can also make such choices on 3rd countries like Mexico that he thinks might be used for transshipment of goods from China, inspecting more containers. This can be done to slow down Chinese exports. Japan and other western countries can do the same.⊂=AR


Because of the loss of job security from immigration, as well as physical security, voters can’t choose based on character, but on which candidate will stop the deterioration of their job and physical security. Allen is against legalization, and Webb is for it. Estimates of illegals go up to 20 million by a financial service firm. See blog at Vdare. Immigration takes away job security because employers can fire and hire the new people. It takes away starter jobs from teenagers and minorities. It takes away safety jobs from older workers. It uses up land and other resources, so that laid off managers have less opportunity to start businesses. It transfers security and bargaining power to employers. This has gone on since the 1965 Immigration Act. Americans don’t have the luxury of being offended anymore. The loss of job security and 9-11 show that its not our nose we have to worry about, its the lack of a firm place to plant our feet.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 11, 2006 8:41:57 AM


Aid supports dictators. That is what aid from South Korea, China, and the US to North Korea have done, support a dictator. The total suffering and death is increased. Aid disturbs equilibrium mechanisms within a society. It destroys the middle class and reduces restraints on the ruling class. The result is more bad behavior from the rulers, who no longer are dependent on their own people for production. To some extent, oil wealth does that as well. The only way to restore the control of the Korean people on the rulers is to stop all aid. Then the rulers have to relax their controls on the people. This has been learned over the years in our experiences with aid to the third world. The same applies to the West Bank and Gaza. We have to take steps that make the NoKo rulers react in ways that advance democracy and restraints on them.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 11, 2006 8:52:30 AM


135ABC quote: JOHN MCCAIN HAS BECOME A POLITICAL HACK end quote. This is correct. The other postings have reviewed the many mistakes made by Bush. The biggest is that NoKo benefits from the status quo of no sanctions. Bush never realized that. China has to be held accountable by a slow down on visas and inspecting more of the containers from there. This can bring their exports down to equal their imports from the US. They use such tactics already in approving US firms in China.


lazuras169 is correct, quote This is going to be funny when he wins. end quote. The Post with their secure jobs and health benefits don’t understand the real world of losing job security and bargaining power with employers. Allen is for doing something about that, no legalization. The Post and Webb are for making it worse. Estimates of illegals are up to 20mm. Voters can’t afford to be offended if they don’t have secure jobs.


The loss of downtown’s great department stores and the loss of the great local names is part of the deterioration of the Washington area. Immigration has been a major part of this. As it fragments the area, the connections are destroyed. Putnam of Harvard has done a study showing diversity creates distrust. Immigration has also created sprawl that puts people too far out to come in. The great names in local retailing were supported by loyalty. Loyalty is destroyed by distrust and as Putnam’s Harvard study shows, immigration destroys distrust.


BrainyDragon comments are very good. The clock on China’s bad behavior doesn’t start today, it started many years ago. They contributed to North Korea’s bad behavior by aid starting over a decade ago. They have intentionally undermined arms control in Korea and in the Middle East and Central Asia. The clock on their bad behavior started a long time ago. This is the marker to impose penalties. A silent slow down on visa approvals of all kinds, just don’t respond at all to the requests for student and H1B and family reunification, and more container inspection will work. They do this to US business in China already.


capitolhillstay quote And Allen helps the working man? end quote. Legalization will hurt the working man. Restoring limits on labor supply is what will help the working man. Total immigration should be zero. This will restore bargaining power the working man, including teens and minorities. It also will help middle aged and older workers who are discriminated against. Employers want young immigrants who they can control.


If Dewine had been against legalization, instead of for it, it would have helped with the Republican base for Dewine and Blackwell. McCain, Bush and Frist don’t respect the Republican base. Their lasting legacy is to be disloyal to their base.


Aid is an alternative source of supply to the leaders of Kora from their people. Aid undermines the bargaining power of the people. That is what Korea is, a country where the people’s bargaining power has been reduced down. Its just like immigration undermines worker bargaining power in the US. With zero immigration, management has to keep its current workers satisfied. This means wages, benefits, scheduling, etc. With high immigration, management can ignore workers wants and reduce wages, benefits, and working conditions. Its the same with aid in Korea. As aid goes up, worker bargaining power goes down. Its a seesaw. So by pushing aid down to zero, the bargaining power of the people will go up. Eventually that produces a new regime. That is history.⊂=AR


Putnam of Harvard did a study showing diversity creates distrust. See Athena Kerry at Vdare. America’s schools have emphasized diversity over all other goals. This has resulted from immigration from the Kennedy supported 1965 Immigration Act. Guns are a marker of extreme distrust. Distrust comes from somewhere. Why is there more distrust today in schools? Diversity is the only answer that fits.


To explain the aid freedom seesaw more clearly we can look at it from Bush’s point of view. Bush wants immigration to aid management to stick it to workers. The more immigration the more outside aid to management to stick it to workers. To give workers more power, you have less immigration, and management sticks it to them less. Which to Bush is bad. But for North Korea its good. All aid, whether outside workers, which they don’t get, or the product of outside workers, food, medicine, etc. aids management, the govt of NoKo. This then undermines the bargaining power of the people. So to stick it to management in Korea, we have to end all aid, even the products of outside workers in the form of food and medicine.


Immigration takes up public resources far in excess of return. This is especially true of illegals and family reunification immigrants. Legalization is a path to welfare. See Edwin Rubinstein of Vdare for this idea. Social Security and Medicare are imperiled because family reunification immigration and the 1965 Immigration Acts other categories have brought in low skill workers. They consume more in total from all 3 levels of govt than they contribute. They also have overburdened the schools and contributed to the violence and distrust that are the norm now in our schools. This undermines skill development and education for all.

=== Axis of Micro Nuclear Powers
An axis of micro nuclear powers will have subs off our shores and ask for 1 trillion a year in tribute. NoKo and Pakistan want to spread nuclear technology.How do we know? They’ve already done it.Pakistan has a shipyard for subs the French built for it. They have spread technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. The micro nuclear powers are too small for one to take on the US. They see strength in numbers. They want NoKo, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Turkey, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah, Lebanon, etc. to have subs with nuclear missiles off the coasts of US, Europe, Japan, China, India, Australia, Canada, etc. They are willing to actually launch to make a point and because the US wouldn’t know who launched. Their people are not productive, so if we kill their people, they don’t have to split their protection money from us with them. Their concept of war is not mutual assured destruction, because their leaders are not loyal to their people, even less than ours.⊂=AR


11kap quote: ONCE ANY COUNTRY GETS A NUKE, THATS STALEMATE. end quote. CSIS had a discussion this morning, see their website. This came to a similar type conclusion. The Democrat response to Bush by Senators Durbin and Schummer also accepted NoKo’s nuke. They blamed Bush not China. Well, countries have given up nukes, Ukraine, etc. So it can happen. This is also a reason for a ground invasion of Iran this winter. That positions us to surround Pakistan and then we can put pressure on Pakistan. We can bomb their processing plants and blockade them. We want to set up alternative supply to Afghanistan first through occupied Iran.Nukes decay. So without processing ability, they will become inert.


Ron Ben-Yishai, Ynetnews Israel has many good points. So does Jonas, Stockholm, Sweden.

We need to invade Iran and leave Iraq. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200 total. Occupation deats are 70 per month. The two drivers of occupation deaths are foreign Sunni Arab fighters, that Iranians won’t take into their homes, and Sunni Shiite historic conflict in Iraq, which is not part of Iran’s history.

Pentagon is projecting staying until 2010. At 70 per month killed, we are looking at 840 killed per year or over 3000 in 4 years. For what?

Invading Iran removes their nuclear program and also puts our army on the Pakistan border and opens supply lines to Afghanistan. We then surround Pakistan. We can then put pressure on them, including naval blockade to give up their nukes, subs, and missiles and bin Laden.

Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, etc. would like to have nuclear warheads on missiles on subs. Pakistan has all 3 of these but not all put together yet. The French built Pakistan a shipyard to make subs.

Pakistan, Iran and NoKo can sell such subs with missiles with nukes to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Libya, new Iraq, UAE, Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Egypt, etc.

They can form an alliance of micro nuclear powers. They can form a flotilla of subs off the shores of US, Europe, Japan, India, etc. They can charge us 1 trillion a year in protection. If we don’t pay they can make an example. Their people are not productive, they are a burden to them. So if we kill their people in return, it means lower cost to their rulers.

Mutual assured destruction doesn’t work with rulers who see their people as a burden not a benefit. Their concept of war is not the same as ours. Their concept of history is not the same. Charging protection money is something the Arabs have done for centuries and have tried it in every century for a long time.


MikeB’s comments on foreign grad students are right on. It sometimes happens that foreign grad students duplicate parts of published work as their own in their theses, without full disclosure by the profs or school. Here duplicate is neutral on prior knowledge by the student or immediate supervisors. This can happen even when it can be shown some profs at the school have already known of the prior work. The school is supposed to be responsible for a thesis citing prior work, even if the student or supervising prof didn’t know about it.

These situations often become well known. The hiring school also knows of the partial duplication issue it and uses these papers as references for immigration applications. They likely don’t notify immigration of this possible complication. This has been going on for decades. Those involved often cite the students subsequent publication over the prior work for decades and even in textbooks, well after its known there was a prior art work.

Russia, China, and other countries track this. Sometimes those involved get to high level posts in US government or IMF and World Bank. These are often profs who went along with it at the Ph.D. granting institution or the hiring institution. Even high level appointees at DOJ may be aware of this complicated situation. Whether this is honest coincidence the reader can consider themselves.

last two not posted.


Ignatius is right. Also chfergservice is right on Bush as a locust who has eaten our opportunities with false rhetoric. He is doing that now. We need to give China a window, but then start putting silent sanctions on it. These include inspecting so many containers from it, that its exports fall to the level of our exports to it. It also includes slowing down visa processing to the level that equals Americans going to China in each category, e.g. grad students in physics. We need to invade Iran and position our army on the Pakistan border. We need to squeeze Pakistan and North Korea to give up their nukes, subs and missiles. We need to do this before Pakistan has warheads on missiles on subs and sells them to Iran and Saudi Arabia and UAE.⊂=AR


halifar59 quote Ask for tribute as opposed to just demanding, or snatching it? Someone needs to tell King W that reasonable folk around the globe consider he and his cronnies to be at least as large a Terror as all those listed above combined. They are greedy robbers, who will resort to all forms of treachery and violence to make their corporations richer end quote. True, unfortunately. We are going to watch the tribute scenario unfold before our eyes as Bush, Blair, etc. lie into our ears. Senators Durbin and Schummer were even worse in their response to Bush, not supporting the US at all, or blaming NoKo or China at all, or Iran. Their message was surrender and submission.⊂=AR


Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic: Suppose population was stable at 300mm and we continued to have 2mm immigrants per year? People live 75 years, so 4mm die per year. Subtract 2mm immigrants, one has 2mm births. Take 2mm births/4mm deaths, one gets a genetic survival ratio of 1/2 per generation.A generation is 25 years for this purpose. So in 2 generations, one has 1/4 of the starting genes. In 3 generations, 1/8. This applies to each year’s cohort of immigratns as well as remnants of prior year cohorts. This is immigration as a pure substitution effect. Immigration’s direct effect is to increase population, its substitution effect is to substitute for genes here. Population is bounded from above, so eventually all immigration shows up as substitution effect. Thus all genes here, and all those that come here go extinct after a period of time. America is a genetic graveyard.⊂=AR


Nuclear Tribute Flotilla. This is the idea that NoKo, Pakistan, Afghanistan, UAE, Iran, Saudi, Hezbollah, etc. the expanded axis of evil, will have a flotilla of subs from Pakistan’s shipyard the French built with nuclear warheads on missiles off the coasts of US, Japan, Europe, India, China, etc. They will demand tribute. Mutual Assured Destruction only works between rich countries. Between rich and poor dictatorships it doesn’t work. The dictator benefits if his people are killed, because in these countries the excess population is a burden to the government and leads to revolts and attempts on the leader’s life. So exchanging a couple rounds with the West by the micro nuclear powers of the poor actually benefits them twice, get rid of their poor and force the West to pay. Some countries will see this as Jizyah tax, and this as the Jizyah tax nuclear sub flotillia.


joanharlin good points. This is another form of the substitution effect. We are substituting immigrants for wild life in the US. Because the US is a major source of carbon dioxide and other strains on the global environment, we are substituting short term immigrants here, for long term dire consequences to life on earth. To have a few more immigrants now, which McCain and Kennedy and Bush want to vote for them as Great Men of History, the consequence is a risk of global climate change, which could see Florida under water for example.


joanharlin quote Future generations will have to go to zoos to see the wonderful creatures that we enjoyed seeing as kids playing in natural settings. end quote. The current generation can’t imagine the Tom Sawyer Huck Finn childhoods we had back before the 1965 Immigration Act started having an impact. That’s why the play violent video games instead. They don’t know that companies were once family like. That America is gone. They don’t know what job security felt like, and never will. Young adults don’t have the 25 year window of job security to look forward to form stable families while young. Instead they drift, never knowing the America that Kennedy, McCain and Bush grew up in and stole from them.


Jeeter2 quote No President has addressed the fact that China and Russia 24 hours a day 7 days a week work against us, and still believe the cold war is in full swing. end quote. Correct. Why is this? During 1990’s Russia got billions in low interest rate IMF loans. They had detailed knowledge on the Clinton profs at IMF and US govt distributing the loans and decades of interaction with them including requesting they nomination Kantorovich for the 1975 Nobel Prize at a conference in Warsaw in 1972. Jacob Wolfowitz knew of this history from 1952 onwards. The neocons got the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during Clinton impeachment hearings and hearings on loans to Russia. This info was also available to use during Bush v. Gore. Porter Goss, Chris Cox, etc called Gore, Talbott and Summers a Troika running away with US policy. Was there kompromat? This is just speculation. Was something used during Bush v. Gore? Did they try to influence the court or Gore? This is just a hypothesis.


jrush18 quote North Korea is an unwilling partner with China and would love to become independent from China but can not because of the sanctions placed on it by the West. end quote. This is an interesting hypothesis. tnusaira has a similar comment. In the case of NoKo, we’ve pushed 6 party talks that China has undermined. NoKo and China do have friction. China has indicated it won’t support meaningful sanctions. The only reason to have the multiparty talks is if we have already decided we want sanctions or war and want to get others to join us. As to Iran, now is clearly the time to invade them with the army in Iraq. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200, occupation deaths are 70 per month. We should hit and run on Iran. We should reduce Chinese exports and immigration to the US to the levels that go in the reverse direction. This can be done informally.


shaboobiastuff quote would bush jr. be blaming bush sr. for everything? end quote. He blamed Bush Sr. for not going to Baghdad. This blinded Bush jr to thinking about Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia on 9-12 or North Korea. It also blinded him to warnings before 9-11. Because the small army we had on 9-12 was enough for Iraq, Bush didn’t have to think about increasing it and giving up his tax cuts.


cynthiaandrews | Oct 12, 2006 12:43:35 AM quote Also, I have a problem with an increase in H1B visas. My children are making career training decisions based on this, instead of choosing what they would like to do. end quote. This is another form of the substitution effect discussed under Unpleasant Immigration Arithmetic. Young adults need a 25 year window of job security to get married, have families, and stay married. Job insecurity is the number one limit on family formation and stability. Young adults need to be able to learn math, science, engineering, business, etc. The only profession not H1Bed in large numbers is law. So what happens? Americans flood law school, and the substitution effect is transferred into the depression of lawyer job security. Many J.D.’s end up in a gray temp market that does shadow legal work at extremely low rates.


The integrity and independence of the legal profession is also stressed by this.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 12, 2006 2:42:25 PM


Possible answer to joetran9373 question. Bush is seeking meaningless sanctions. By getting the UN to agree to them, Bush gets the imprimatur of the UN to pretend he is doing something when he isn’t. This covers up that he caused this to get worse by his axis of evil speech. Bush can’t go to war with Korea, because then people would blame all the deaths on Bush for his axis of evil speech. NoKo, China and Russia understand that. So they prevent the Security Council and the 6 party talks from doing anything. They want NoKo and Iran to have nukes. They are providing nuclear technology to Iran, and probably have provided some intermediate technology to NoKo. They want the US to be inundated by an axis of micro nuclear powers, and for one of those to turn into a nuclear war with the US and that power that lowers what’s left of us down below them as a great power. They want revenge.


To finish thought on why Bush goes along with a weak UN resolution. Russia and China know that Bush needs a security council resolution to pretend he is doing something when he isn’t. They know he has to have a pretend UN resolution to cover up that he can’t do anything because any deaths would be blamed on his axis of evil speech. They use this entire logic to bargain Bush down further on the UN resolution. Bush has to take any UN resolution, because Bush needs a shambolic resolution from the UN for public relations. So they use that to bargain him down further. China is laughing at us. This is what they wanted. Same on Iran. Russia is laughing at us too.


The US and West have to set things up so that the tendency is for things to get better for them. They do the opposite. We educate China’s youth in physics, not ours. This opens up ways for things to go bad for us, and good for them. We have immigration, they don’t. This gives them spies here, our know-how, academic kompromat, and the ability to prevent our children, including children of FBI agents, judges, etc. from getting into physics Ph.D. programs where they can find out what is going on. We give them aid to pump up their population size and support dictators. We do everything that increases the number of ways things can go bad for us, and reduces the number of ways it can go good for us. We have soft profileration of reactors, technology, know-how. We wait too long to react. We fight ourselves instead of them. We don’t educate ourselves on foreign ideologies. We call ourselves bigots and miss that leaders and people in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia hate us. We are fools. Our leaders are disloyal and think of self enrichment or the pages dorm or junkets paid for by Chinese law firms to Asia. China writes segments of our laws and gives them to lobbyist firms who put them in the US code to govern buying our technology, our H1B and Skil Bill, etc.


The US and West have to set things up so that the tendency is for things to get better for China, NoKo, Saudis, Pakistan, Iran, etc. They do the opposite. We educate China’s youth in physics, not ours. This opens up ways for things to go bad for us, and good for them. We have immigration, they don’t. This gives them spies here, our know-how, academic kompromat, and the ability to prevent our children, including children of FBI agents, judges, etc. from getting into physics Ph.D. programs where they can find out what is going on. We give them aid to pump up their population size and support dictators. We do everything that increases the number of ways things can go bad for us, and reduces the number of ways it can go good for us. We have soft profileration of reactors, technology, know-how. We wait too long to react. We fight ourselves instead of them. We don’t educate ourselves on foreign ideologies. We call ourselves bigots and miss that leaders and people in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, China, Russia hate us. We are fools. Our leaders are disloyal and think of self enrichment or the pages dorm or junkets paid for by Chinese law firms to Asia. China writes segments of our laws and gives them to lobbyist firms who put them in the US code to govern buying our technology, our H1B and Skil Bill, etc.⊂=AR

Last post was garbled. We need to set things up so they tend to get better for us and not for China, etc. That means our physics phd programs are 100 percent American, etc.

By OldAtlantic | Oct 12, 2006 4:47:24 PM

===This is just a holding action to prevent things getting worse at a fast speed. It doesn’t really put much pressure on North Korea. Its to give Bush a way to say he has done something. Bush won’t do anything military because the deaths would be blamed on his axis of evil speech. Russia and China know that and use that to bargain him down. They know he just needs a public relations stunt from the Security Council to cover up his inaction.


I agree with Jeebie. quote Negative population growth will profit all American citizens in more ways than then just the environment. end quote. quote A moratorium on all immigration is also needed. end quote. quote A little pain now will stop the horror of 500 million people living here if SPP happens. end quote. All are exactly right. Bush, Kennedy and McCain need to be asked on these repeatedly along with Unpleasant Immigration Arithemetic and the substitution effect, and all its manifestations discussed above.


New strategy: Hit and Run. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were under 200. Occupation deaths are 70 per month. Iraq is not a threat. They can’t come here and kill us if they can’t come here, i.e. stop immigration. Invade Iran while we have Iraq as a base. 2 drivers of deaths in occupation in Iraq were foreign Sunni Arab fighters, that Iranians won’t take in, and Sunni Shiite rivalry in Iraq, not a factor for civil war in Iran. In Iraq, secular govt was in place and bad, in Iran its a theocratic govt that is bad and in power. So people will want a secular republic, unless Bush insists on Islamic Republic a third time. Leave army around this time, take the theocratic leaders to Gitmo. Invading Iran may help Iraq more than sitting in Iraq and dying. Position our army on Pakistan border to make them denuke and deLaden. Don’t worry about occupying Iran if it gets ugly.⊂=AR

Caricature is good. Also GOP, group of pharisees. Allen is that. He uses the Confederate Flag to send a message to his base that he is with them, while he supports Skil Bill and Amendments to S. 2611, path to legalization and welfare, that made it worse, knowing it would pass and he would pretend to vote against the final version.⊂=AR


Johathan75 is completely right. This is the pressure that keeps people out or makes them go back. There is pressure to come in from outside. There has to be greater pressure from inside to push them out. Estimates are 1 to 2mm a year or more cross the border or overstay student visas a year. Bush is bringing in 15,000 Saudi males as part of this. 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi males. Vdare has reported a financial firm has estimated that total US population is 327 million not 300mm, and that means 27 mm more illegals, for a total somewhere in the 40 to 50 million range. Not enforcing the laws, even without amnesty, makes this worse.⊂=AR


Clinton is smart and articulate as the above point out. But he also let Pakistan and India do nuclear tests in spring 1998. His administration gave billions in low interest rate loans to Russia in the 1990’s while Russia had detailed information on the professors at IMF and Treasury in control of it. Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father knew of that history from 1952 to 1981 when he died. Clinton agreed to the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 while US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay, LTCM bailout hearings, loans to Russia, and Clinton impeachment hearings were all under way. The above is a hypothesis and speculative interpretation.


Bush’s answer to 9-11’s 15 Saudi hijackers is 15,000 male Saudi students. Bush wonders why he is losing at the polls. Pakistan was allowed to airlift its generals out of Afghanistan in Nov 2001 while advising the Taleban against our troops. This is according to Seymour Hersh. Bus wonders why he is losing at the polls. Bush and Congress allowed Pakistani immigration to continue, even as the FBI was sending the message these people are dangerous and the legal system can’t protect us. Bush said a terrorist incident again was a certainty, duh, because he keeps on bringing in the same terrorists all over again. terrorist immigrants attacked WTC 93, reaction bring in more terrorist immigrants, WTC 01 and Pentagon, reaction, bring in more terrorist immigrants. Now Congress and Bush are in trouble.

Bush and McCain call us bigots to want to stop immigration. Well maybe even bigots don’t like being killed by the bin Laden ideology of peace.


There is an article, The War Against White Trash
By John Derbyshire at Vdare. Its about a case in the UK but similar things happen here. A 14 year old was arrested because she was assigned to a study group of 5 Pakistanis who talked in Urdu and wouldn’t talk with her, and she asked to be put in another study group. The teacher had her taken out of class. The principal, Antony Edkins, who is possible Pakistani, had the girl arrested. The reason that Bush, Kennedy and McCain want illegal immigrants is the War against White Trash. These are people they call bigots. They want to take their jobs and economic and physical security. That is why they continued immigration after 9-11. That’s why Blair keeps it going in the UK. Its the elite alliance against White Trash. And anyone who lives in America, is automatically included in White Trash, regardless of race in the Bush, Kennedy, McCain world.


Lurker37 is right. Moreover, as the article on the UK case shows, if we don’t speak up now, the MSM and the Senate and Democrats will take away our right to live in our own land. That is what is happening in the UK. That is what is happening here. The religion of the elite is immigration. Its a religion that, strangely, harms the non-elite in every way possible and makes us afraid and insecure in our jobs and in our speech. The time to speak up is now, while we can. If you want immigration stopped, you have to ask. Write your Senators. Resarch their votes at Americans for Better Immigration and others sites by searching on immigration votes Senator Allen, etc.


Now my comment on Fisher: quote from Fisher the extent of the rage that flowed back from readers seemed a bit of an overreaction. end quote. The Post needs to be less thin skinned when it exposes its own ridicule within for people who vote for Allen and don’t want their jobs, lives, and speech taken by immigration, and want America to stay the way it is, not the suicide mission the MSM want.

seamonsters_5 is right. Moreover, her wearing the veil was meant covertly to convert Christian children in a Christian school. This shows that the West won’t survive because its leaders don’t want it to. If people want to keep their freedom and security they have to ask for it. This veil case isn’t about this woman’s freedom. Her movement is about taking ours. The Pakistani principal who put Codie Stott in jail because she complained that 5 Pakistani boys in her study group were talking in Urdu with each other, probably about her, and wouldn’t talk to her in English. This isn’t just odd things happening, this is a real war to take us over and get rid of us. Its not just odd incidents of bureacracy. Use of the legal system as a tool is deliberate on the part of the groups that funded this case in the UK where legal action is expensive.


mattyj | Oct 20, 2006 9:17:28 AM, jkoch | Oct 20, 2006 11:26:44 AM, and others along similar lines are right. The high probability of good results due to continued American presence is not a known known in Rumsfeld speak. However, Iran is a known known problem, which can be solved by a ground invasion using the army in Iraq. Battle phase deaths in Iraq were 200 and occupation deaths are 70 per month. We can solve the known known Iran nuclear problem at lower cost than continuing occupation of Iraq. This is a known known win win. We also get our army in Iraq to the Pakistan border where the known known problem of Pakistan’s nukes and support of terrorism could then be solved.


The Asia Times reports that S. Korea has rebuffed Rice on sanctions on North Korea. These would include stopping aid and trade. The US may be left with nothing but the military option. Since S. Korea has failed to help us on the economic option, they have only themselves to blame if we are forced to use the military option. America can’t let S. Korea have nukes that can hit us. The leader of NoKo will fire his missiles when he gets old or feels his grip on power fading. He has personally decided to launch his weapons on the US, Japan, South Korea and possibly China just before he dies. The US has to attack before then. South Korea has only itself to blame for its casualties by its decision to block the non-military path to denuking NoKo.


Borjas of Harvard has done a study showing that the 1965 Immigration Act took away economic opportunities from marginal workers in the US. Borjas shows this led to higher crime. This is discussed at This murder is part of the cost of immigration. It doesn’t show up in government statistics that way. McCain and Kennedy and Bush call those who want to stop immigration bigots. They think Americans are bigots who don’t deserve to be able to walk their streets safely or fly on planes safely, or sit in buildings safely. We have to speak up and ask for our job, physical and speech security. The Founding Father said we have to fight for those in every generation.

(in McCain speak, ,this was the death of a bigot, since all Americans
killed by crime are bigots in his mind, who deserved it.)


South Korea is intentionally undermining the economic option. By implication, S. Korea is intentionally leaving us only the military option. S. Korea knows NoKo will build nukes that can hit the US. S. Korea knows they will do this. S. Korea knows that NoKo’s leadership is insane and wants to go out with a blaze of glory that will live in history. So all this is intentional on South Korea’s part.⊂=AR

(S. Korea is also intentionally undermining US efforts to get
China to put sanctions on North Korea.)


Macacagate has run out of steam, along with Mailboxgate, etc. Allen’s stock options are a sleeper issue, because in combination with his cosponsorship of Skil Bill and H1B raise an additional issue. The company Allen has stock options in Commonwealth Biotechnologies likely benefits from Allen’s H1B and Skil Bill actions.
These programs take jobs from Americans to give lower wage jobs to foreigners. It also lets companies have greater bargaining power over intellectual property rights of employees. Thus Allen was benefiting himself in insider legislating.⊂=AR


Larry Summers joins DE Shaw as MD

October 21, 2006

Washington Post reports that Larry Summers is joining hedge fund DE Shaw as a managing director.

Speculation on whether Russia used academic kompromat to pressure low interest rate loans in the 1990’s from Fischer and Summers was posted at Washington Post.

The following is speculation. Larry Summers and Stanley Fischer arranged billions in low interest rate loans for Russia in the 1990’s. Boris Berezovsky was the main oligarch for Russia. He had a Ph. D. in math from Moscow State University and was a manager at the Institute of Control Sciences.

There were incidents at UChicago in 1952 and MIT in 1969. The latter involving Fischer and Samuelson the uncle of Summers. There was a conference in Warsaw in 1972, where Makarov of USSR may have put pressure on US profs, some still alive, for Arrow and Samuelson, uncles of Summers to nominate Kantorovich for the Nobel Prize in economics in 1975. This was part of a larger history by Russia to use such methods starting in 1925.

Russia may have used this again in the 1990’s to pressure loans from Summers and Fischer from IMF and then use those for loans for shares. LTCM may have realized this and traded Russian government bonds. The USAO Mass investigated Harvard starting in 1997. All of the above may have been concealed from it.

Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul’s father knew of incidents up to 1981. Paul may have used this to get the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 during the USAO Mass investigation, and hearings on LTCM bailout and loans to Russia.

Yoo or others may have passed this to Silberman to Scalia during Bush v. Gore and used it against Gore. Above is speculation.

See following for more information.

Russia Used Plagiarism Files to Gain atomic know-how.

The above has a detailed analysis of texts in physics in quantum mechanics on whether Dirac and Fowler plagiarized Max Born and Pascual Jordan and then whether Kapitza knew it and Russia used that to help pressure Niels Bohr in 1944 to advocate to turn over atomic know how to Russia. In a meeting with Churchill after Bohr got a letter from Kapitza at the Soviet embassy in London, Churchill got very angry. Lindemann, Churchill’s scientific adviser likely told him the details. Kapitza had published an obit of Rutherford in 1937 coyly implying that there had been plagiarism at Cavendish Lab. Fowler was Rutherford’s son in law and was involved.

Russia’s Plagiarism Files: Summaries and links

The Washington Post: A Wikipedia Of Secrets

This starts with the 1925 incident and reviews quickly the possible use for atomic know how spying by Russia and also China. It covers in detail, including internet searches the 1969 MIT incidents where Summers’ uncle, Paul Samuelson duplicated in part the work of a 1966 UCLA thesis received at MIT in 1966 by Prof Karl Shell who chaired a session at which it was presented by its author Nils Hakansson. Hakansson also presented his paper at Harvard in early 1969. Hakansson was on faculty with Yale from 1967 with Stiglitz who edited the first two volume of Samuelson’s papers.

A paper extending this to uncertain lives was submitted by Hakansson from Yale to a journal and published in 1969. A similar chapter appeared in Stanley Fischer’s thesis in 1969 without citation. Fischer later cited the Hakansson paper in a 1972 publication. This article then continues to discuss briefly India and Pakistan’s potential knowledge of this entire history starting with Bhabha at Cambridge England in 1927.

The PM of India gave a speech at Moscow State University in 2005 name dropping many of those involved in the physics and econ cases, including Kapitza and Kantorovich.

More on loans to Russia, US v. Harvard, etc.

David Warsh at has extensive materials on the Harvard case but not these other issues of plagiarism, etc.

A recent summary is

The Light Gray Curse

Note that Warsh suggests the possibility of kompromat but doesn’t discuss what it might be. Warsh also doesn’t depart from, although he doesn’t uphold either, the standard story of the 1990’s that professors from Harvard, MIT, and University of Chicago took over and ran Russia and that Russian intelligence accepted that meekly. I.e. at the same time as they were running Aldrich Ames (tried 1994) and Robert P. Hanssen (arrested 2001) and finding moles in Russian intelligence, they also accepted with meekness that these profs would control and run Russia is the standard history.

The standard history, i.e. from Harvard and the government, is that Russian intelligence, which used profs like Klaus Fuchs and Bruno Pontecorvo to get the secret of the atom bomb, had no files on academia in the US, including unouted communists or spies, and simply accepted meekly that Harvard profs would run Russia. Warsh doesn’t say he acceps such a fairy tail, but he doesn’t go beyond suggesting the possibility of kompromat either.

Note that in 1994, Sudoplatov published a book accusing J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi and Szilard of being quasi agents by going along with Russian intelligence activities. The US profs in physics reacted with fury and were on PBS’s The News Hour to denounce this book. Sudoplatov was retired in Moscow. He had been a top Soviet spy in WWII. He was responsible for the execution of Leon Trotsky in Mexico.

Yet according to Harvard econ dept, etc. Russian intelligence meekly accepted Harvard econ profs like Shleifer, Summers and Fischer taking over and running Russia. According to Harvard econ dept, Russian intelligence despite its great successes simply accepted that Harvard econ dept would run Russia from the HIID grant and from IMF (Stanley Fischer) and US Treasury (Larry Summers). Harvard econ in effect said to the USAO Mass that Russian intelligence never made any attempt to use any files it might have to influence Summers, Fischer and Shleifer but just let them take over Russia without doing anything to stop it. According to Harvard econ, Russian intelligence meekly accepted that Shleifer, Summers and Fischer would run Russia while at the same time it was running as spies Aldrich Ames, a high level agent in US CIA’s counter-intelligence and Robert P. Hanssen a high level US operative in counter-intelligence, both against Russia.

2 Former Treasury Chiefs Add Clout to Hedge Funds”
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, October 21, 2006; Page D01

Comment page link is here.
All other disclaimers apply.

%d bloggers like this: