January 9, 2013

Debt Ceiling Disaster - Cracy or Criminal?

"Why is the refusal to raise the debt ceiling such a threat to the good faith and credit of the United States of America? Simple. The majority party in the House is engaged in flat out fraud. That party is spending money as it promises to default on the very amounts spent." Michael Collins

Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Debt-Ceiling-Disaster--Cr-by-Michael-Collins-130109-8.html

November 15, 2012

What Did Petraeus Know and When Did He Know It?

What Did Petraeus Know and When Did He Know It?]

Michael Collins

http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Did-Petraeus-Know-and-by-Michael-Collins-121115-283.html



(Washington, DC, 11/15) The bitterness of the neocons knows no limit. They're still having tantrums after being denied the unchallenged ability to pillage and plunder at will (and at our expense). Never mind that the public doesn't want to hear it. The Congressional Republicans are jumping up and down over their big question: When did President Obama know about the affair between General Petraeus and Mrs. Broadwell? Talk about a misguided salvage operation. Their inquiries will spark some questions that they won't want asked. (Image)

The real questions concern the behavior and motivation of General Petraeus in the aftermath of the murder of the United States ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, on September 11, 2012.

When did General Petraeus know the sequence of events that preceded the murder of United States Ambassador Stevens, indicating the likely motivation for the murder?

The Petraeus CIA provided inaccurate information about events on the ground to the Obama Administration, particularly to President Obama and United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice. Did they know it was inaccurate?

If the Petraeus CIA mislead or withheld information from the White House or allowed that to happen, was it in the service of the Romney campaign or those clamoring for an attack on Iran?

Link
http://www.opednews.com/articles/What-Did-Petraeus-Know-and-by-Michael-Collins-121115-283.html

October 31, 2012

Part II - Rigged Elections for Romney

Michael Collins


Link: http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/2012/10/part-ii-rigged-elections-for-romney-2/

Part I of this series suggested that there may well have been massive vote flipping for candidate Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries (Rigged Elections for Romney (10/22/12) The article and the initial research analysis were received broadly. In addition, highly motivated citizens across the country and a team of high school students contacted the authors for help replicating the research in their states. The researchers, Francois et al., point out that this can be done with their open source techniques.

The basic argument is straightforward. If you look at precinct level voting data arranged from the smallest to the largest precincts, you will see Romney's gains increasing substantially as the cumulative vote increases. For example, Ohio and Wisconsin show this clearly as do eleven other states presented here. This extraordinary vote gain from smallest to largest precincts is so out of line, that the probability that this would happen by chance alone is often less than 1 out of a number represented by 1 preceded by 100 zeros and a decimal point, a value beneath the statistical package’s lower limits. As a result, the researchers termed the suspected vote flipping for Romney the “amazing anomaly.” (The Amazing Statistical Anomaly)

The research team's observation of Romney gains based on precinct size is not unique. It was mentioned previously regarding the Republican presidential primaries by a commenter on a political discussion forum.

Richard Charnin, posting as TruthIsAll, first noted the pattern with an analysis of the 2005 special election for a vacated seat for Ohio's 2nd district, in the House of Representatives. The candidates were the liberal-populist Democrat Paul Hackett versus a right wing Republican, Jean Schmidt. Charnin noticed that Schmidt's votes and percentages increased substantially from the smallest to largest precincts in that district. This was a patently absurd pattern of vote accumulation since the liberal Hackett wins were in highly conservative counties that rarely voted for any Democrat. (See Precincts with the most votes favored Schmidt at nearly 100%)

Vote flipping is a form of election fraud that occurs "when votes are changed [without the voter’s knowledge or consent] from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation." County election officials conduct computerized vote tabulation as precincts submit their voting results, but cannot detect the fraud because only the total number of votes is checked and vote flipping does not affect the total votes. The activity is suspected in many of the critical Republican primaries in 2012.

In each case, Mitt Romney was the beneficiary. For example, without vote flipping, Romney would have lost the Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Illinois primaries as well as primaries in other states. A comprehensive review will appear in Part III of this series.

Critics of the analysis presented in the first article claim that there is a perfectly logical expectation: that Romney would be more popular in suburbs. Hence the votes increase as precinct size increases, indicating a move to supposedly Romney favorable urban areas. Part I of this series mentioned that the research group anticipated that criticism and had factored out urban density from the analysis. The article linked to a fairly complex research analysis from the team. Here is a much simpler explanation, via example.

Mitt Romney was a candidate in the 2008 Maryland Republican primary. The race shows no statistical anomalies in vote accumulation from smallest to largest precincts for Romney.

[center][/center]

In particular, you can see that Romney's flat lined in the 2008 Maryland primary. There is no indication that precinct size played any role in his accumulation of votes. The demographic criticism fails on the basis of extensive statistical analysis presented by the research team and linked in the first article illustrated by the graphic representation above.

What is the Likely Explanation for the Amazing Anomaly?

Which step in the vote counting process best explains suspected vote flipping?

The researchers, Francois et al., maintain that the likely culprits are central tabulators used by county election departments. Typically, election precincts submit their individual results to a county-run central tabulator. The central tabulator combines the precinct totals for a county total for every candidate on the ballot. That information is then transmitted to state election officials. The candidate vote count produced by the central tabulators is the critical element in the election process.

The central tabulators are computing devices owned or serviced by private companies such as Dominion, ES&S, and Hart Intercivic. The operational details and software engineering are almost always the exclusive knowledge and intellectual property of the private companies. As a result, public officials and citizens lack the type of access necessary to monitor the vote process.

In addition the intermediate data between the precinct machines and the central tabulators is stored in a proprietary obfuscated binary format unavailable to even the county registrar of voters. That represents a loss of the “electronic chain of custody” of the votes.

Their evidence from Francois et al. is straightforward and powerful.

The researchers asked two questions: Did a county vote distribution violate the laws of probability in terms of increased vote totals for one or more candidates based on precinct size (an amazing anomaly)? And was the county using a central tabulator or not? The answer the second question moves us in the direction of isolating a locus for the process.

Fortunately, Wisconsin has a number of counties that do not use central tabulators. One of those counties, Outagamie, is the sixth largest county in the state.

Tabulator versus No-Tabulator Counties in Wisconsin - Milwaukee Compared to Outagamie

The entire state of Wisconsin displayed the amazing anomaly of Romney gains as precinct size increased. Central tabulator counties make up the vast majority of votes and voting precincts in the state. This graph below, from Part I, displays that phenomenon. It is worth reviewing briefly. The slope of Romney's line is an amazing anomaly. As you can see with the red oval, the anomaly produces a trend that leads to victory for Romney. Without the amazing anomaly, Romney would have lost Wisconsin by 53,991 votes: Romney 34.29%, Sanorum 41.14%.

[center]t[/center]

The graphs below show candidate vote accumulations from the smallest to largest precincts in the county. The graphic representation of the vote accumulation in Outagamie (left) is well within the realm of statistical probability. The graph of Milwaukee County, below right, shows the amazing anomaly for Romney, as seen above, for the entire state. These two graphs represent the same election, same day, same state.

(Note: An outside volunteer independently downloaded the data from Wisconsin’s counties and came up with the exact same results. (Click for larger images)
(Click here for Excel of Wisconsin by precinct with amazing anomaly calculations)

In Outagamie County, WI Santorum won with 10,673 votes to Romney's 9,750. Romney won Milwaukee County 48,424 to Santorum's 28,491. Several other no-tabulator counties in Wisconsin fail to show an amazing anomaly increase for any candidate from smallest to largest precincts.

Milwaukee County, on the other hand, used ES&S electronic voting machines and an ES&S Unity Server central tabulator as part of the county elections division. In Milwaukee County Romney's vote totals and percentage for precincts increased at a highly improbable rate from the largest to the smallest precincts.

[center][/center]

In non-central-tabulator counties, precinct workers report the election data to county elections officials, who then enter the data on an Excel spreadsheet and display directly on their county website. They also transmit that data to the state elections officials. As a result, there is no opportunity for private parties to manipulate the vote count in a central tabulator.

Voting in Outagamie County is done on a mix of paper ballots and optical scan voting machines, which have a real paper trail, the optical scan forms that voters fill out. There is no observable amazing anomaly occurring in precincts using either paper ballots (with some optical scan machines) or optical scan machines only. (See pdf from volunteer for all Wisconsin counties by paper ballot versus voting machine results for the amazing anomaly.)

Iowa and New Hampshire

The Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary also display the amazing anomaly. Each showed signs of suspected vote flipping.

The Iowa Caucuses are run by the Republican Party. After meeting in precinct areas for debate, Iowa Republicans cast their ballots for candidates on paper ballots. These are counted at the caucus site and transmitted to the Republican Party, which then tabulates the vote.

There was little in the way of transparency in the Iowa central count that produced the final result. The Republican hierarchy chose to conduct the count in total secrecy and, possibly, out of state in Kansas. Party officials said the secrecy and mystery location resulted from fears that some Occupy movement would disrupt their counting.

Fortunately for citizens, Watch the Vote 2012, a voting rights activist group, was present to monitor the caucuses. They had a presence in approximately half of Iowa’s counties.

That allowed a check of the relationship between precinct size and vote accumulation for each candidate. The records also allowed a check of precinct totals against those produced by the secret tabulation of precinct totals.

The precinct voting by activists did not match up with the party data presented. Edward L. True, a caucus participant, was wise enough to photograph his caucus count. It was different from the party count; the discrepancy resulted in a recount that changed the outcome from a Romney to a Santorum victory. The finding was too late to do any good but it made an important point.

The New Hampshire primary was also monitored by the WatchTheVote2012 activist group. They monitored hand counts at voting places. This allowed a comparison of hand counts, created without any computerized intervention, with the count of the central tabulator for the state provided by a private company, LHS Associates.

The hand count precincts showed no amazing anomaly, while the central tabulator producing totals for precincts revealed the amazing anomaly, progressive and highly improbable vote gains for Romney as precinct size increased.

[center][/center]

The results from these two states demonstrate that central tabulation does not necessarily require computer involvement to produce highly questionable results. In this case, questions persist due to secrecy and the potential for human interference. In the case of New Hampshire, citizen diligence and involvement made the difference in detecting irreconcilable differences between no-tabulator results and results produced by a central tabulator that appear to make no sense. .

Are Central Tabulators Vulnerable to Hacking and Manipulation?

The best way to hack a central tabulator is to buy an elections equipment company. These privately held, unaccountable firms provide the majority of voting systems in the United States. ES&S acquired Premier, successor to the ill-reputed Diebold franchise, but was forced to sell it to Dominion. These two plus Hart Intercivic dominate the market for elections systems, from voting machines to central tabulators to service contracts for full election management.

What better place to control an election outcome, tailor made for whomever.

These firms sell or otherwise provide equipment with the provision that the software behind the machines is their sole intellectual property. County and state election officials are unable to inspect the software at multiple levels due to this restriction. This is truly secret voting outsourced to private firms who operate behind the scenes and have limited accountability. There is no true public accountability.

In his Ars Technica article on the subject, “Miscounting the Vote,” Jon Stokes outlined methods of attacking a central tabulator. These apply today. Blackboxvoting.org has demonstrated the vulnerabilities to system hacks, even showing how a trained chimp could perform the task.

Francois suggested his own variations on hacking a central tabulator in an effort to update Jon Stokes.

"Method #1: Using an optical scan voting form, DRE, or absentee ballot, encode the form or use the keyboard to issue commands to the central tabulator (CT). Therefore the VOTE ITSELF is used to hack the CT. For example: the Riverside 2012 General election includes 20 elections. Fill out the ballot for each of the first 10 elections as follows: 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2 This ‘wakes up the CT’. Then fill out ‘3, 1, 4, 2, 2, 1, …’ which commands the CT as follows: ‘in election #3 flip candidate #1 up; in election #4 flip candidate #2 up; in election #2 flip candidate #1 up’ and so forth.

"From that point, the CT software knows exactly what to do. It won't bother with candidates with less than 10% of the vote. But, it will flip progressively as a function of precinct size and try to flip just enough to win, etc. By communicating commands through votes, NO INTERNET to the CT connection is required. No local accomplices at the County level are required. The ‘fix’ could have been programmed in the CT software as far back as decade ago, with no knowledge of this year’s political candidates.

"Method #2: Using a DRE only, enter any kind of odd entry. For example, enter 5 over votes in a sequence to ‘wake up’ the CT. The voting machine rejects them all and then turns into a special, secret maintenance mode. At that point, commands will be directed to the CT at the end of Election Day when the election data memory cards are transferred, physically or electronically and vote counting begins.

"In a variation of method #2, embed a command for vote flipping in a voting machine or other fraud prior to the election. Have the activation react on the receipt of a code word or phrase like ‘All hail the king.’ That activation triggers any vote flipping or other fraud desirable.

"Method #3: Use a power line communication and chips to transmit anything you want to a compromised central tabulator. Again, this alleviates the need for an Internet connection to the CT." Francois, October 30, 2012

Between private firms operating in secret, one a foreign firm, and demonstrated vulnerabilities, there are reasons for serious concern. These elections belong to us but our officials are unable to determine the accuracy, fairness, and security of the process.

A Second Look at Explanations for the Amazing Anomaly

The research group's conjecture is that central tabulators are the locus of the amazing anomaly for Romney in the 2012 primaries. The comparison of no anomaly results in Wisconsin no-tabulator counties is convincing evidence. Data recently acquired by François et al. replicates the presence of the anomaly in the Wisconsin statewide count. Furthermore, it seems to indicate that partial or full use of paper ballots predicts an anomaly-free result. Further work on this just-received analysis will be forthcoming.

In addition to the suspected role of county-based central tabulators, there are other factors that lead to unexplainable election results.

First and foremost is the absence of open elections with every step of the process available to citizens for examination and evaluation. Watching the vote count is guaranteed in many state constitutions but it is rarely if ever offered. The ability to watch elections is denied outright by proprietary software and hardware held behind a corporate firewall of "intellectual property." Even with that restriction, citizens have to right to be present at vote taking and counting. That is often a struggle and always incomplete when electronic voting and tabulation are involved.

The fundamental cause of the suspected amazing anomaly and any of the other forms of election fraud is a fundamental disregard of the rights of citizens to vote and know that their vote counted.

Ironically, the politicians (supported by regulators and academic consultants) who make decisions about election systems are the very same people who are elected again and again by these flawed approaches, software, and equipment. Our public elected and appointed officials are the ultimate virus in the electoral system. It needs a good cleaning.

END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.

Very special thanks to Jill Hayroot for her contributions.

Research group articles on the amazing anomaly:

Republican Primary Election 2012 Results: Amazing Statistical Anomalies, August 13, 2012
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/Amazing%20Statistical%20Anomalies,%20Version%202.1

2008/2012 Election Anomalies, Results, Analysis and Concerns, September 2012
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2008_2012_ElectionsResultsAnomaliesAndAnalysis_V1.61.pdf

Full Excel of 2012 Wisconsin Republican Primary with amazing anomaly analysis
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/?attachment_id=5297

Wisconsin counties showing amazing anomaly and type of election equipment used - paper ballots versus optical scan voting machines.
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/otherananalyst.pdf

Rigged Elections for Romney (Part I)
http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/2012/10/rigged-elections-for-romney/


The Money Party

June 25, 2012

Unanswered Question Remains about Sandusky Case

[bockquote]Unanswered Question Remains about Sandusky Case

By Michael Collins


Sandusky behaved as if he were immune from punishment for his swaggering displays of deviance. Why else would he tempt the fates with the shower rapes unless he knew that fate wasn't involved; unless he knew that he had enough power to defy the most powerful people at the university, including Coach Joe Paterno?



Link:http://www.opednews.com/articles/Unanswered-Question-Remain-by-Michael-Collins-120625-269.html

[/bockquote]

May 28, 2012

Rupert Watch, Tony Blair Lying at the Leveson Inquiry

[link:http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120528/rupert_watch_tony_blair_lying_at_the_leveson_inquiry|
Rupert Watch, Tony Blair Lying at the Leveson Inquiry]

By Michael Collins



(Washington, 5/28/2012) Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair testified before the Leveson Inquiry today. He retains that familiar fatuous exuberance for failed policies and continues to deny the deadly lies he told in over a decade as Prime Minister. He was, as always, quite literally unbearable.(Image: Niecieden (1))

President George W. Bush had major problems selling his disastrous invasion plans for Iraq. The public smelled a rat. Strong majorities of both Democrats and Republicans (2) opposed a preemptive invasion without confirmation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by UN inspectors (3). That was during December 2002 and January 2003. Bush needed something special to push his diabolic plan over the top.

Blair's government released two fraudulent intelligence papers during the critical period just before the March 2003 Iraq invasion, the September 2002 (4) report and the Iraq or Dodgy Dossier (5) in early February 2003. Rupert Murdoch's media cartel led the charge for war. He headlined stories about both bogus reports including the outrageous claim that Iraq could launch chemical weapons at the invaders within 45 minutes of an attack and the big lie (6) about Iraq seeking uranium from Niger to develop nuclear weapons..

Blair and Murdoch worked together to provide Bush with the credibility to tell the most disastrous lie ever told by a president:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." George W. Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2003 (7)

Tony Blair is guilty of the very same crimes (8) as Bush: murder, assault, and fraud by lying to the people to justify a preemptive attack that resulted in deaths and injuries, traumas and displacements, with a total cost that has helped ruin the U.S. economy - $3.0 trillion (9). Rupert Murdoch and his minions share that guilt as the public relations shop for the road to perdition.

This is the true context for Blair's testimony before the Leveson Inquiry on "The relationship between press and politicians."

Blair Testifies at Leveson

During the morning hearing, Blair was questioned by Queen's Counsel (QC) Robert Jay who carefully laid the foundation for key questions. Blair also began laying his own foundation, a staccato mantra of answers to questions not asked.

Blair emphasized the rationale for his overall media policy on at least three, perhaps more, occasions. He had no objection to foreign ownership (read Murdoch) of British media properties. He was inclined to be a free marketer on media and thus not in favor of tight regulation. Blair argued that the "culture and rules under which people play" were the most important factors in a positive media policy.

The former Prime Minister repeated several times that he was unwilling to risk the New Labour agenda over a fight to tighten the Communications Act given the relentless attacks he could anticipate from the tabloid press.

Jay raised questions about the period between September 15, 1994 and May 1, 1997. The QC referenced a private meeting that Blair had Murdoch lobbyist Gus Fisher in 1994. Blair was clear that a Labour government would not have major concerns regarding cross-media ownership (e.g., television, newspapers, etc.). QC Jay also pointed to the extraordinary effort Blair made to attend and speak at a News Corp conference in Australia. Blair presented the meeting with his overall views on media ownership. Jay asked Blair if the meeting was used to "curry favor" with Murdoch. Blair demurred and then denied that this was the case.

Jay inquired about three calls (10) Blair took from Rupert Murdoch just before the Iraq invasion on March 11, 13, and 19. What were he and Murdoch talking about, the counsel wondered? Blair said that this was "normal" when facing such a big issue (normal talking to Murdoch?). He also noted that Murdoch had as good a read on "what was going on in the United States" as any expert he'd asked.

QC Jay then asked if there was any connection between the call with Murdoch on March 13 and the incredibly vicious personal attacks (11) on French President Jacque Chirac the next day in Murdoch's Sun newspaper. Chirac had refused to become part of the coalition of the willing to invade Iraq. There were rumors that Chirac was considering a UN Security Council veto of the vote that could be construed as legitimizing war. Blair denied any part in encouraging or even knowing of the Murdoch hatchet job.

Just before the lunch break, a man burst through the door behind Lord Justice Leveson, grabbed the judge's table, and began shouting that Blair committed a war crime by helping JP Morgan steal $20 billion from the Bank of Iraq three months after the invasion. As the man was hauled out through the same hallway, he shouted, "The man is a war criminal." This was the most direct expression of truth so far in the Leveson Inquiry. (Blair has been a consultant for JPMorgan since leaving office.)



Leveson was very upset, as well he should have been, and called for an investigation of the security lapse.

The hearing paused for lunch and resumed with Jay continuing unflustered with questions. . While Jay appeared to show no reaction to the intrusion and seemed ready to go the distance with Blair, Leveson was shaken and ended the hearing an hour early.

Comments on Blair's testimony

Rebekah Brooks' answers at the inquiry were clearly outside the recommendations for witnesses under adversarial examination. Stick to simple answers, take your time, don't volunteer information not asked. Blair's responses verged on pressured speech and had all the appearances of preemptive strikes against anything critical that the inquiry might produce.

His self-described position on media policy was wildly inconsistent with the claim that he wasn't going to risk the New Labour agenda over a fight for tighter media rules that may have offended Murdoch. As he described his media agenda time and again during the hearing, there was no conflict with New Labour Prime Minister's media policies and Murdoch's core requirements. Favoring foreign ownership of British media meant favoring Murdoch ownership. After all, Murdoch is a foreigner in Great Britain. Favoring light regulation was also music to Murdoch's ears.

So, how on earth was Blair going to risk his grand agenda by taking on Murdoch regarding media regulation? There was no conflict, therefore no risk.

Blair used plagiarized, self-serving, false intelligence information to enable the terrifying claim Bush needed to get just enough support to invade Iraq: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Hussein would soon have a nuclear weapon. The British told us so. We must invade! This was an act suitable for Le Théâtre du Grand-Guignol (12).

If Blair would participate in lies of this magnitude and deadly impact, then he cannot be believed on subordinate issues that might threaten his reputation and freedom. Today's testimony was a pack of Blair lies by a certifiable sociopah designed to score points for his tattered reputation.

It's a shame that QC Jay had his examination terminated early. In the morning session, Jay made a veiled allusion to a secret meeting (13) between former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Murdoch. In his self-deprecating style, Jay said his failed attempt at humor referred specifically to the January 4, 1981 Thatcher-Murdoch meeting. Denied for years, notes on the meeting were discovered by Cambridge University archivists. Shortly after their tête-à-tête (14), Murdoch was able to bypass the legal prohibition against a foreigner purchasing The Times of London. Then Australian citizen Murdoch made an acquisition that was to confer legitimacy on his criminal operation.

Who knows where QC Robert Jay would have gone with that theme absent the raucous entrance by the protester at stage center proclaiming the obvious?

One thing we can conclude is that Tony Blair felt the urgent need to justify his behavior with Murdoch. He must be very afraid of something.

[center]END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.[/center]

(15)
The Money Party Rupert Watch series (16)
[center]
(Image: The Ghost Writer)[/center]
By Michael Collins 2012-05-28 16:49

URL: http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120528/rupert_watch_tony_blair_lying_at_the_leveson_inquiry

May 25, 2012

Rupert Watch, Leveson Testimony Spells Doom for Cameron and Hunt

Rupert Watch, Leveson Testimony Spells Doom for Cameron and Hunt

By Michael Collins



Queens Counsel Robert Jay unearthed a devastating piece of evidence that will surely create calls for the resignation of both culture secretary Jeremy Hunt and Prime Minister David Cameron.

In afternoon testimony at the Leveson Inquiry today (5/24), Jay confronted News Corp lobbyist Frederic Michel with an email rendition of a Hunt to Cameron memo of November 19, 2010 (see testimony/full memo at end of article). Hunt is clearly cheer leading for the News Corp acquisition of immensely profitable pay TV network BSkyB. News Corp owned 39% of the network and wanted to purchase the remaining 61%. This acquisition was absolutely critical to News Corp profitability and as a sign that Rupert and James Murdoch actually knew what they were doing.

One month after he got the biased memo, Cameron appointed Hunt as the government minister in charge of approving the bid. Hunt portrayed his role as "quasi-judicial" and claimed he was an objective judge. The bid was opposed by an alliance of news organizations.

Now we know, without any doubt and from Hunt's own words that he was biased in favor of approving the News Corp bid before he even got the authority to judge.

We also know that PM Cameron knew Hunt's bias and appointed him anyway.

Link: http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rupert-Watch-Leveson-Test-by-Michael-Collins-120524-808.html

May 8, 2012

Obama embraces populist themes in Ohio

Obama embraces populist themes in Ohio

By Michael Collins



When you take the right side, style trumps substance every time in politics. President Obama was on fire Saturday in Columbus, Ohio, hammering home populist themes that will define his campaign. This was his campaign kick-off. He couldn't have done a better job of stating his case as the candidate of the people, while painting Romney as the darling of The Money Party (1) (Wall Street, big banks).

PRESIDENT OBAMA: The problem with our economy isn’t that the American people aren’t productive enough -- you’ve been working harder than ever. The challenge we face right now -- the challenge we faced for over a decade is that harder work hasn’t led to higher incomes. It’s that bigger profits haven’t led to better jobs. President Obama (Full text of Obama's remarks, Columbus, Ohio, May 5, 2012) (2)

It's not your fault the president tells us, which happens to be absolutely correct. Then he nailed Romney:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Governor Romney doesn’t seem to get that. He doesn’t seem to understand that maximizing profits by whatever means necessary -- whether through layoffs or outsourcing or tax avoidance or union-busting -- might not always be good for the average American or for the American economy. Pres. Obama May 5 (3)

See the video from the Guardian (4). It will show you just how focused Obama is at this point.

This is classic populism and well done at that. Based on his record, I doubt this but that's not the point here. Obama is showing that he's an all-time big game player in the same league as Bob Gibson, Kenny Stabler, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird. This is when it counts and Obama is in outstanding form.



His choice of Ohio is apt. It is a critical state, it was hammered by the recession/depression, and thanks to the auto bailout, some plants have double and triple shifts manufacturing cars and parts. Obama spoke at Ohio State University, home to a constituency besieged by Republican plans to unleash student loan interest rates. Obama is leading in Ohio (45-42%, RCP average (5) and can only expand that lead as he reminds people, over and over, that Romney opposed the bailout. Nice move Mitt.

Obama's advantages are considerable. The rural Red Republican base will remain at 13-15% of the total, way down from the 23% in 2000. The 15% or so of Latinos who support Romney may defect to the point where Romney approaches single digits. (It certainly won't improve.) The suburban vote may split. Then it's the cities like Columbus and the big cities like Los Angeles and New York that come in. This has to be the case since the voter identification movement might remove five million people from the polling places, according to the Brennan Center (6). That's impressive by racist voter suppression standards but not enough to give Mitt a real shot at winning.

Watch for cries of class warfare and remember, it is class warfare, always has been - the ultra-rich against the rest of us.

More Obama passages from the speech and preview of the president's message (full text this link) (7):

Corporations aren’t people. People are people. Pres. Obama, Columbus, Ohio May 5, 2012 (8)

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

When some wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers, on the ingenuity of American companies. And today, our auto industry is back on top of the world. Manufacturers started investing again, adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. Businesses got back to the basics, exports surged. And over four million jobs were created in the last two years -- more than one million of those in the last six months alone. Are we satisfied? Pres. Obama, Columbus, Ohio May 5, 2012 (9)

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

PRESIDENT OBAMA: But to borrow a line from my friend, Bill Clinton, now their agenda is on steroids. This time, they want even bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This time, they want even deeper cuts to things like education and Medicare, and research and technology.

AUDIENCE: Booo.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: This time, they want to give banks and insurance companies even more power to do as they please. And now, after a long and spirited primary, Republicans in Congress have found a nominee for President who has promised to rubber-stamp this agenda if he gets the chance.

AUDIENCE: Booo.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Ohio, I tell you what: We cannot give him that chance. Not now. Not with so much at stake. This is not just another election. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and we’ve been through too much to turn back now. Pres. Obama, Columbus, Ohio May 5, 2012 (10)

-----------------
Say 'Good night' Mitt!

[center]END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.[/center]
The Money Party (11)
By Michael Collins 2012-05-07 20:37

Link: http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120507/obama_embraces_populist_themes_in_ohio

Links:
1 http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/?page_id=17
2 http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/05/video-full-text-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-in-columbus-ohio-on-may-5-2012.html
3 http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/05/video-full-text-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-in-columbus-ohio-on-may-5-2012.html
4 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2012/may/06/barack-obama-launches-campaign-ohio-video
5 http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html
6 http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/03/voter_id_card.html
7 http://agonist.org/President%20Obama%20(Full%20text%20of%20Obama
8 http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/05/video-full-text-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-in-columbus-ohio-on-may-5-2012.html
9 http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/05/video-full-text-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-in-columbus-ohio-on-may-5-2012.html
10 http://www.politicalruminations.com/2012/05/video-full-text-transcript-of-president-obamas-remarks-in-columbus-ohio-on-may-5-2012.html
11 http://themoneyparty.org/

May 3, 2012

Rupert watch - the Kiss of Death

Murdoch Watch - the Kiss of Death
First published in the Agonis[link:http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120503/murdoch_watch_the_kiss_of_death|

By Michael Collins

[img][/img]

When things don't work out, doing business with Murdoch can be the kiss of death.
No matter how hard you try, how loyal you are, if something goes wrong, you can be sure it will be your fault.

Reporting has failed to lay the proper foundation for understanding Rupert Murdoch's remarkable testimony before the Leveson Inquiry in London and his behavior of late.

Rupert Murdoch is a nihilist.

Murdoch’s television outlets in the United States stoked the fires for the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on outrageous misrepresentations like the idea that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. The war cost tens of thousands of dead and seriously injured U.S. soldiers, several (1) hundred thousand dead (2) Iraqi civilians, and $3 trillion. (Image: acb (3))

Last summer, Murdoch went full throttle to support Republicans in the U.S. Congress as they fabricated a debt ceiling crisis that seriously damaged the credit rating of the United States of America.

Murdoch’s support of the Tea Party created an utterly irrational voice in U.S. politics that prevents even the most modest necessary reforms. Created by right wing lobbyists, this pseudo party blocks every vital project, from reviving the economy to an effective, coordinated response to the crisis created by climate change.

In the nations occupied by his multinational media empire Murdoch takes the path of maximum damage to the public and governance.

It was appropriate for the House of Common's culture, media, and sport committee to find Rupert Murdoch 'not fit' to lead major international company (May 1). (4)

Where were they and the majority in Parliament over the past three decades while Murdoch exceeded all limits or propriety and civility, trashed the political system in Great Britain and elsewhere, and dragged down the level of public dialog and governance to record lows?

Called to account by the Leveson Inquiry

The Leveson Inquiry (5)(the inquiry) was established on July 13, 2011, just nine days after the Guardian's Nick Davies broke the story of Murdoch's tabloid News of the World hacking the voice mail of deceased kidnap victim Millie Dowler. Prime Minister David Cameron had no choice but to bow to a furious public and appoint an inquiry.
Headed by the distinguished jurist Lord Justice Brian Leveson (6), the inquiry is examining "the culture, practices and ethics of the media." It seeks to answer the question "Who guards the guardians?" The inquiry began hearing testimony in November 2011.

It was just last summer that Rupert and son James (7) testified confidently before a House of Commons committee. The Murdoch's seemed in control of the MPs, many of whom had spent years groveling before Murdoch and his News Corporation media executives.

Last week’s Leveson Inquiry hearings were entirely different. Father and son Murdoch were questioned for hours by a professional prosecutor (8). Unlike the July 2011 appearance at the House of Commons committee, their testimony was integrated with substantial evidence, carefully gathered and presented to the public before the hearing. The Leveson Inquiry produced a 160-page pdf of emails (9) featuring Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch, and Frederic Michel, News Corporation's ubiquitous lobbyist.

What did we learn about Murdoch's treatment of the British people and system of government?

The high points were Murdoch's show of contempt for the political process and of his hyper focus on obtaining approval for the acquisition of remaining shares of the BSkyB (Sky) pay TV network. News Corporation already owned a controlling interest in Sky, 39%. (For the importance of the Sky acquisition, see Rupert watch - signaling the end, Michael Collins (10)).

Contempt for the political process

Murdoch installs and topples British governments at his discretion using the power of his media properties. Despite steadfast support for PM Tony Blair and New Labour for over a decade, Murdoch switched his allegiance to David Cameron's Conservative Party in 2010. That change was a major factor in the defeat of Blair's successor, then-PM Gordon Brown.

David Cameron's public courtship of Murdoch was without shame. In May 2007, as Conservative opposition leader, the future PM hired Andy Coulson (11) as Conservative Party communications director at the suggestion of Rebekah Brooks (12), a Murdoch insider and executive. Coulson was former News of the World editor who was up to his neck in phone hacking, about which he misled Parliament's early inquiries. (Guardian timeline (13))

In November 2008 (14), Cameron wrote a column for Murdoch's favorite tabloid, The Sun (15), attacking BBC’s leadership and its licensing fee. He said, "It’s become bloated with many of its executives overpaid." He also insisted on reduction of the fee, a move that would curtail BBC revenues and the network's ability to compete with Murdoch's media properties.

A few month later, in July 2009 (16), Cameron gave a major policy speech in which he set his sights on Murdoch's number one regulatory nemesis, Ofcom (17), the British media regulatory agency. Cameron signaled to Murdoch what would happen to Ofcom and the identity of the Conservative MP likely to become secretary of culture, media, and sport.

[quote]"Jeremy Hunt has concluded that OFCOM currently has many other responsibilities that are matters of public policy.

"So with a Conservative Government, OFCOM as we know it will cease to exist."[/quote]

The attack on BBC and plan to strip Ofcom of its powers, placing them in the hands of a sympathetic cabinet secretary ("Jeremy Hunt has concluded&quot were Cameron's way of saying that he would play ball with the head of News Corporation. It was part of Cameron's public audition for a role as a highly placed lackey.

Mr. Hunt made a fateful visit to News Corporation headquarters in New York City in August, 2009. He said he spent five days studying local television (18). Last week Murdoch testified that at this time he and son James were fine tuning the decision to buy the remainder of Sky shares.

Did Hunt indicate that a Cameron government would green light the Sky acquisition at the New York meeting?

[align=center][img][/img][/align]

Shortly after Hunt's mission, James Murdoch, then chairman of Sky, met with Cameron, promising Murdoch support for Cameron’s bid to become prime minister. Cameron did become prime minister after he formed a coalition government in May 2010. He appointed Hunt secretary of culture, tried to pair back Ofcom, and froze BBC's licensing fee for several years. As inquiry evidence showed, Hunt delivered on the biggest action item -- support for News Corporations acquisition of the remaining shares of Sky that it didn't already own.

Extensive email evidence shows that after Cameron assumed power, a robust back channel opened up between News Corporation's lobbyist, Frederic Michel, and Hunt's man at Culture, Media and Sport, Adam Smith.

The incriminating emails start in June 2010 and run through February 2011. Smith provided a blow-by-blow description of Hunt’s efforts as well as previews of upcoming decisions. Michel fed Smith instructions and got confirmation when they were implemented.

Fast forward -- April 29, 2012. The Independent ran this headline: Exclusive: Hunt on the brink as he is accused of misleading Parliament (19)

From evidence and testimony by Rupert and James Murdoch last week, it is abundantly clear that Hunt concealed his agent relationship on behalf of News Corporation. The culture secretary withheld evidence from Parliament as illustrated by the emails presented before the Leveson Inquiry. Those emails were not in his submission to Parliament. Nevertheless, they exist.

PM Cameron is also in hot water for not appointing an independent investigation of Hunt. After the testimony and evidence of last week's hearings, there is zero doubt that Hunt is a bad actor. The worse he looks, the more pressure will mount on Cameron to justify his failure to investigate Hunt's failures.

Fly too close to the media Sun King and your wings melt, then you crash and burn.

Cameron's kiss of death

Jeremy Hunt's position is simply indefensible. He withheld evidence in his possession, evidence critical to Parliament’s responsibilities. The evidence (emails) showed up at the inquiry last week.

When the evidence of Hunt's agent role for Murdoch came out last week, Hunt appealed to Lord Justice Leveson for an earlier appearance at the inquiry to clear his name sooner. The inquiry issued a statement (20) saying that "in the interests of fairness to all" there would be no change in the schedule. Why? Because the inquiry is not about ministerial conduct, Hunt's or that of any other Cameron minister.

As clear as this statement from the Leveson Inquiry was, Cameron continues to insist that the inquiry is the best forum to evaluate Hunt's actions. This signals the beginning of the end for Cameron. He's proposing a solution for the Hunt investigation that is outside the rules of Parliament in a forum that has rejected him. Upon closer examination, existing evidence will lead to even stronger condemnation of Hunt's behavior. Any new materials produced by the inquiry will bury him.

Where will that leave Cameron?

Finished!

Doing business with Rupert Murdoch is the kiss of death.

[center]END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.[/center]
The Money Party (21)


Addendum: Smoking emoticon ?

This interesting exchange occurred during testimony by James Murdoch under questioning by Queens Council (QC) Robert Jay last week (Afternoon hearing, James Murdoch, April 24 (22)). QC Jay noted that the email (below) from News Corporation lobbyist Frederic Michel to James indicated that "absolutely illegal" behavior was employed to get government plans regarding the Sky acquisition. James brushed this off with a smile claiming that the greater than symbol and explanation point indicated that "it's a joke."

[quote]Q. Robert Jay, QC: Look at the email on page 54, 01695, in the middle of the page, January, Mr Michel to you: (below)

Leveson Inquiry, Evidence, Rupert Murdoch, Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf (23)
Video: James Murdoch, Part 3, 54:00 (24) Transcripts: Page 39-40; pdf page 10 (25)
A. James Murdoch: I thought it was a joke. I think the little -- the "greater than" and the exclamation point there, or wink -- it's a joke.
Q. Robert Jay, QC: Is it? It was absolutely illegal in one sense. It's completely unethical, wasn't it?[/quote]

What emoticon is Murdoch talking about? The email above is a copy of an email sent from Michel to James Murdoch. James Murdoch says that the symbol >! is a "joke" or indicates a "wink." The following combinations of the supposed emoticon (26) written by the Murdoch lobbyist don't seem to exist: >! - >!] - ..>!]

The alternative explanation is more consistent with the behavior brought out by the Leveson Inquiry. QC Jay is correct. The text and symbols refer to "absolutely illegal" behavior. In light of that, Frederic Michel's symbol ..>!] may be a means of exclaiming the highly illegal method of acquiring the information from the government source.

Was absolutely illegal phone hacking employed to obtain information from the offices of Jeremy Hunt or other Cameron ministers?

###
________________________________________
________________________________________
By Michael Collins 2012-05-03 09:41


URL: http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120503/murdoch_watch_the_kiss_of_death
Links:
(1) http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html
(2) http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/ORB_revised_iraqi_deaths_2008.pdf
(3) http://www.flickr.com/photos/acb/5956033360/
(4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/may/01/rupert-murdoch-not-fit-select-committee
(5) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/
(6) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/lord-justice-leveson-chairman/
(7) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/21/james-murdoch-select-committee-evidence
(8) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/people/counsel-to-inquiry/
(9) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf
(10) http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rupert-watch--signaling-t-by-Michael-Collins-120422-72.html
(11) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2015573/Rebekah-Brooks-vetoed-BBC-man-told-Cameron-No10-job-Andy-Coulson.html
(12) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/29/rebekah-brooks-andy-coulson-leveson-inquiry
(13) http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/24/leveson-inquiry-jeremy-hunt
(14) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/1884401/Bloated-BBC-out-of-tough-with-the-viewers-says-Tory-chief-David-Cameron.html
(15) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/
(16) http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/07/David_Cameron_People_Power_-_Reforming_Quangos.aspx
(17) http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/public-interest-test-nov2010/
(18) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2135100/Jeremy-Hunt-held-meetings-News-Corp-day-trip-U-S-decided-bid-BSkyB.html
(19) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-hunt-on-the-brink-as-he-is-accused-of-misleading-parliament-7687530.html
(20) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17877149
(21) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticons#Common_western_examples
(22) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf
(23) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Exhibit-KRM-18.pdf
(24) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/305589-3
(25) http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Transcript-of-Afternoon-Hearing-24-April-2012.pdf
(26) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticons#Common_western_examples

April 24, 2012

Labour calls for Jeremy Hunt to resign after Leveson Inquiry evidence

Source: BBC



Labour has called for Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt to resign after Leveson Inquiry evidence appeared to show his support for News Corp's bid for BSkyB.

During evidence from James Murdoch, the inquiry discussed News Corp emails that appeared to show Mr Hunt had privately expressed support.

Labour leader Ed Miliband said Mr Hunt had acted as a "back channel" for the Murdochs and should step down.

Mr Hunt said he had "conducted this process with scrupulous fairness".

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17829360

---

This is utterly devastating to Murdoch. However, he may know that he's going to lose the regulatory battle and be forced to sell off his most prized asset, BSkyB (Sky) pay tv with 25 million viewers in the UK. What he's really up to is destroying Cameron and the Conservatives because they didn't rescue him.

Sky reaches 25 million viewers in 10 million homes. Revenues are growing at 10% a year with adjusted operating profit growth averaging around 16% of revenues. Revenues from 2012 through 2016 should top $70 billion total with adjusted operating profits around $11 billion. What happens with Sky really matters.

Despite this success, Murdoch's son James recently stepped down as chairman of the board at Sky. At the same time, News Corporation announced it would no longer seek to acquire the remaining 61% of the public limited company. Murdoch is in full retreat from his most successful venture. ...

Just as British Prime Minister David Cameron was greasing the regulatory skids for Murdoch's total acquisition of Sky, Nick Davies of the Guardian broke the Millie Dowler story of rampant phone hacking by Murdoch's flagship British Tabloid, News of the World.

Rupert watch - signaling the end (on DU)

April 23, 2012

Rupert watch - signaling the end

Rupert watch - signaling the end

By Michael Collins
From The Agonist

Rupert Murdoch's reign over the $33 billion News Corporation hinges on events surrounding the company's ownership share of Britain's dominant pay TV network, BSkyB (Sky). As Business Insider [1] said, "it's the only asset that really matters" in the News Corp collection of media properties.

As a result of Murdoch scandals, News Corp lost the chance to buy 100% of Sky's shares. More troubling for the media monarch, the company may lose the 39% interest it already holds if British regulators determine that Murdoch is not a fit and proper owner. This would fuel the major News Corp shareholder suits in Delaware [2] and New York that seek to remove Murdoch as board chairman and vastly diminish his power and that of his family and cronies.

Sky reaches 25 million viewers in 10 million homes. Revenues are growing at 10% a year with adjusted operating profit growth averaging around 16% of revenues (see 2009 through 2011 [3]). Revenues from 2012 through 2016 should top $70 billion total with adjusted operating profits around $11 billion. What happens with Sky really matters.

Despite this success, Murdoch's son James recently stepped down as chairman of the board at Sky. At the same time, News Corporation announced it would no longer seek to acquire the remaining 61% of the public limited company. Murdoch is in full retreat from his most successful venture.

Imagine how the pension fund managers and beneficiaries must feel right now. Less than a year ago, their News Corp stock was poised for a strong boost when the company increased its 39% share to 100% ownership of Sky. That's over. The failure to acquire the remaining 61% means a loss of $7 billion worth of expected profits over a five year period. That income is gone but not soon forgotten.

Announcing the withdrawal of its bid, News Corp said it was not possible [4] to conclude the Sky deal "in the current climate." What they left out was a definition of current climate. That climate is characterized by an endless series of storms in the form of legal scandals relating to phone hacking, undue political influence, police payoffs, and, most recently, alleged organized hacking and piracy of security codes from pay TV rivals.

Here's what the Murdoch scandals cost News Corp. (see graph, assumptions [5])

[center][/center]

A little history

Just as British Prime Minister David Cameron was greasing the regulatory skids for Murdoch's total acquisition of Sky, Nick Davies [6] of the Guardian broke the Millie Dowler story of rampant phone hacking by Murdoch's flagship British Tabloid, News of the World.

The public outrage was instant and enduring. Normally compliant with Murdoch's wishes and whims, British Members of Parliament actually took action. One focus was Murdoch's pending acquisition of Sky shares. The News Corp friendly review process was revised. The British regulatory agency, Ofcom [7], is still determining if Murdoch is a "fit and proper" owner of a public media property. With the flood of scandals, time is Murdoch's enemy.

When Murdoch realized that PM Cameron wasn't able to deliver on the Sky acquisition, he turned on the leader that he'd help elect. Murdoch's Times of London set up a sting [8] of a Conservative Party fund raiser who admitted that large contributions to Cameron's party would gain access and favorable treatment for contributors. This is hardly news to Murdoch. It won’t do him any good with PM Cameron who will no doubt look for an opportunity to return the favor.

The remaining 39% of Sky at risk

As the Wehrmacht retreated from Stalingrad losing almost every battle, deluded Germans tried to comfort themselves with the knowledge that there was still a homeland and a chance to turn things around. Murdoch, his family and cronies are approaching their endgame with similar delusions. That won't change the hard facts that anyone paying attention can see clearly.

The new profits anticipated from the Sky acquisition will not materialize. Murdoch realized that the deck was stacked against him with Ofcom. He withdrew his bid.

The very same government and agency, Ofcam, will decide if Murdoch is fit and proper as the owner for the remaining 39% of Sky. Why would the current climate for that decision be any better for Murdoch than the string of setbacks since the phone hacking scandal was kicked off on July 4, 2011?

By voluntarily withdrawing the Sky acquisition bid and having James step down as chairman, Murdoch told us what will happen with the Ofcom decision. He will likely lose the remaining 39% of Sky.

Rupert's last stand

Losing $70 billion in anticipated revenues with profits anticipated topping $11 billion is exactly the type of evidence the United States shareholder law suit needs to oust Murdoch from the chairman position and effective control of News Corp.

The shareholder claims are strengthened substantially by events surrounding Sky. The full weight of $11 billion in profits, they will argue, proves that Murdoch runs the corporation as a personal fiefdom for his own enrichment and that of his family and, furthermore, that Murdoch's nepotism, questionable legal practices, and political bullying seriously impact company revenues, profits, and as a result, shareholder value.

The shareholder insurgency now has material proof. Lost profit opportunities over five years from failing to acquire the remaining 61% of Sky could be as high as $7 billion. This quantifiable financial damage is necessary to bolster the shareholder case. It is certainly sufficient to prove the key assertion beyond any doubt -- Murdoch is a disastrous manager who loses money and opportunities due to his poor management.

If British regulators force Murdoch to sell off the remaining 39% of Sky, News Corp will take a major revenue and profit hit. The loss of several billion in profits in just the next five years would provide strong support for the claim that News Corp's alleged illegal, demonstrably quasi legal, unethical, and, vulgar behavior is directly responsible for huge financial losses and the diminished shareholder value.

How much more do investment fund managers and the workers who contributed to those funds have to tolerate from Rupert Murdoch? Workers take the losses while Murdoch, his family, and inner circle get richer.

[center]END

This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.[/center]

The Money Party [9]
By Michael Collins 2012-04-22 05:04


Links:
[1] http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-07-28/tech/29999890_1_bskyb-james-murdoch-net-income
[2] http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/newscorp-lawsuit-idUSS1E78C0JL20110913
[3] http://corporate.sky.com/documents/pdf/publications/annual_report_2011
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14142307
[5] http://www.themoneyparty.org/main/?page_id=3931
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/04/milly-dowler-voicemail-hacked-news-of-world
[7] http://licensing.ofcom.org.uk/tv-broadcast-licences/
[8] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2012/0326/1224313893673.html
[9] http://themoneyparty.org/

URL: http://agonist.org/michael_collins/20120422/rupert_watch_signaling_the_end