Sunday, January 11, 2009

The Collapse of Bend, Continues...

Well, it's coming fast & furious now, Folks.

A seeming swarm of layoffs from all corners. Epic Aircraft & Jeld-Wen should come as no surprise. But Cascade Heatlhcare? That stuff is supposed to be immune, right?

No, seems when you do not have money, that visit to the doctor that used to be required can become "elective" pretty quick. You won't see a lot of folks out China Hat Road way clogging St Chas waiting rooms.

Nope, nothing is immune, not healthcare, not recreation, nothing. We've seen store closings of little guys (Westside Video, Bond Street Market, childs clothing seller Bonkerz), big guys (Office Depot, Linens N Things), and we'll see more in the near future of all kinds (Gottschalks, Cessna, City of Bend, The Bulletin, Les Schwab).

Retail is just the "face" of a slowing economy. There's plenty of "back office" type businesses closing; little public face, but quite a few jobs lost just the same. Even our little local Gubmint is in a constant state of layoffs.

We're at 10% unemployment, businesses are closing so fast it's hard to keep count, we've watched our local medians drop from $396,000 to $226,000. OK, this is the shit storm this blog has been yammering on about for 2 years as INEVITABLE. It's here. This is it. And NO, it is not even close to ending. The damage is not even close to being done.

So what would you do, if your own personal life looked this shaky? Do you fall back on (hopefully) saved up reserves? Do you keep piling up the money in a Federally Insured bank account, if you're lucky enough to still have a job? Do you scale back your eating out? Do you scale back the wine from $40/bottle to $15? Do you actually, God forbid, start cutting some of this stuff out entirely?

Or, do you borrow to the last of your ability and buy a new SUV? Do you expend the last of your reserves on building a fence around your back yard? Do you go for broke, and throw it all down on a new investment house with negative cash flow for as far as the eye can see?

See, to me, the answers to these questions are just ridiculous. It's pretty obvious. You STOP spending. OK, you do that whether you still have an income source or not. There are some people who do this innately. They're called Rich People. Well, they are at least financially insulated. People I know who are doing well right now have been saving their pennies. And I mean pennies. They don't make a King's Ransom. But they do save, quite a bit more than most people. They aren't really "cheap", they just have "lean" tastes.

But not our City Council. Not our local Paper. No.

No, they are advocating that we all spend as much as we can as fast as we can.

Yeah, we'll get great stuff, like a shed to house our broken down bus fleet. Or some blown up rock out in the Juniper Ridge badlands.

Costa is trying to convince us that we should run out and BUY cars with incentives that actually don't exist West of the Rockies. And by gum, with medians in the low $200's, "Some interest rates also at historic lows, could drive buyers back into Bend market".

Uh huh. Read the piece, and you'll find that "Some" interest rates applies to Bill Gates' FICO, not yours. Costa just doesn't get it.

Brucey posted in the comments that we're getting 100+ NOD's a week. That's 100 people (well, maybe not quite, but you get the idea) who will not be able to buy shit on credit for 7-10 years. You can lower the rates to ZERO (or less), and these people WILL NOT get extended one cent.

The Fed can (and has) pushed the interest rate/monetary policy string as far as it can (rates at 0%), and nothing has changed. What's funny is that this country is simply returning to "normal". We're returning to fairly "normal" credit restrictions.

But there's the rub. For about 7-8 years we extended credit to "non-normals", people who could NOT afford it. No income to afford the debt service. So how did it go on for all those years? Easy, simply "co-mingle funds", ala Summit 1031. Make "refi" money your New Income Stream. All that nasty old loan debt, is replaced by an even bigger loan, and what's great, is I Get Paid To Do It! Old $350K loan replaced by $500K refi loan and 2 years from now with a crooked appraisers help, I get another $175K, ad infinitum. Presto, Huge Income, No Work, Forever.

Well, the Minsky Moment arived on this Enormous Teetering Edifice, and the whole thing began toppling the middle of last year. And NO WHERE did it stand taller, grander, more magnificently than Bend Oregon. No where. It literally DEFINES this place. Scam piled on graft piled on deceit piled on fraud piled on schemes.

No where in the USA is the local economy more exposed to the crushing forces overwhelming our national economy than right here. I've said it before, Sit Back And Witness The Horror, Ladies And Gents. You are about to see an entire small city rip itself to pieces.

The Hollern/Moss/Costa Triad is crumbling. Hollern drank the Kool-Aid and bought Ironhorse & Yarrow. Moss financed that, and much, much more. Costa is in a 100% Dead industry, and is desperately trying to hold the buggy-whip edifice that is The Bend Bulletin together.

Again, you are about to witness a town completely implode on itself like nothing that has happened to any major town in the USA in 80 years. It's going to happen right here. This town will be the stuff of Legendary Collapses. This town will be the stuff of future editions of "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds".

You're seeing it now. Our unemployment rate is at 9.9%. That's just amazing, but it will get Far Worse. It's going to get worse than you or I thought possible. The Viscious Cycle of the Great Deleveraging will take down HALF this town.

Of course, Costa will tell you with the Last Dying Breath of The Bulletin that Aspe... errrr uh, sorry, Bend is made up almost completely of multi-millionaire transplants from Saudi Arabia, Dubai or somewhere, and so employment doesn't really apply to this place.

Ummmm, OK, a little test. I work for a living. Do you work for a living? Do most of the people you know work for a living? Of course, I do know retirees around here. But not many, certainly not many in proportion to the number of people I know who Have To Work For A Living. This is a WORKING TOWN. Employment DOES matter.

And Bend has NEVER had a decent employment base. This place is built on low-wage shit jobs. And those are being lost in waves. No big deal, it's always been that way. But now we're losing the small, core base of family-wage level jobs. Fuck Gottschalks, we're losing jobs at St Chas & Les Schwab corporate.

Head over to BendBB (anon proxy ONLY!), and check out recent price changes. Used to be that you'd see only a few price cuts in the double digits. Now their practically ALL double digit percentage cuts in price. And it's worse than it appears. Some of those homes have been flipped between Realtors like the crack-whores of RE that they are. Desert Skeeze listings can be counted on to have changed hands several times.

When you look at the DOLLAR CHANGE in prices, you are looking at INCOME REDUCTIONS. These reductions USED to be INCOME GAINS, and these gains fueled Deschutes County growth for the better part of 30 years. This place slowly but surely went from one of the most undervalued to The Most Overvalued RE market in the country. The whole REFI-AS-INCOME game was played NOWHERE more intensely than it was here. And it was played far, FAR longer. In fact, a very precious few can attest to even pretend to remember the Bad Old Days of the laste 70's. This Game has been going on for 3 DECADES in Deschutes County. Not 5 years. Not 10 years. 30 YEARS.

Don't think the Great Unwinding will be over here when the rest of the USA is done, it won't. Here's the point:

There won't be a recovery here. Not in the way you think about it.

Remember last year, early, when the market started cracking here? People who dodged the bullet renting (Timmy, etc) started talking about buying at fantastically lower prices? Like "$250K"?

OK, so we all know NOW that is a suckers game. It's become clear. But that Speculative Mindset is STILL HERE. The idea that I will BUY AT THE BOTTOM in Bend.

And what? What comes after? It's unspoken, but it's there...

Yes. That little SPECULATIVE VOICE that tells you that YOU will make a great deal on a house... and then... the market will recover... AND YOU WILL GET RICH! Yeah!

OK, this very vague and almost unspoken mindset subtley infects EVERYONE HERE. Everyone reading this blog probably has some deep-seated desire to scoop up the bargain of a lifetime at what seems to be a ridiculous bargain prices.

BEWARE. OK. This is NOT going to happen.

Here's a little chart from the Jap Bubble:
You can see that once the collapse began, it was still going strong 17 YEARS later. Bend is going to have a Hockey Stick decline. It'll fall for years & years. And then it'll just flatline. Dead as a doornail, no Big Recovery, no Return to Normal, no Speculation, no Good Times.

The malls will be half empty, as will downtown. Most of the STD's ringing the Eastside will have been sold off piecemeal, and will have weed-infested half-built shitshacks sitting on them. HALF the retail will CLOSE. HALF the restaurants will close, at least. Cascade Business News is GOING TO CLOSE. The Bulletin is GOING TO CLOSE. Either Lowes or Home Depot will close. All these consumerist fueled nightmares are going down.

There isn't going to be a recovery here. It'll be like living in a depressed little version of Detroit, where the Heyday is over. Never to return. You will need your little shit job to pay for the little shit house on your little shit lot. And you will not make any money EVER on it. EVER.

I'm telling you folks, you will NOT recognize Bend in 10 years. Many, if not most won't be able to recognize it, cuz you'll have left.

OK, if you are thinking of buying RE, I ask you to think again. We're NOT EVEN CLOSE to fair value. Values are PLUMMETING. Rent-to-own ratios are STILL ridiculous. This town is going to go bankrupt. Industry & retail are being GUTTED as we speak. We're in a precarious period where it looks like a place you'll "want to be" for the long haul. But it's not going to be for long. Would you want to live in inner city Detroit at any price?

Because that's what Bend is becoming. And medians BOUGHT at $225K will seem like a HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE ERROR in judgement 7-10 years from now. Medians aren't going to $125K for no reason. They are going there, and they will STAY THERE, for abundant reasons.

No local incomes to support anything more. Burns-style entertainment. No restaurants. No fun places. Completely uncertain job prospects. No opportunity. Just straight depression. You WILL NOT want to be here.

What to do:

  • Keep renting. Do NOT buy.
  • Pile up the cash. Don't BUY ANYTHING.
  • Cling to a paycheck as long as you can. If it's already gone, YOU LEAVE town.
  • List your EXCESS RE Now. And you mark it down BELOW MARKET. It'll be 20% lower in 12 months.
  • Start looking for INCOME PROSPECTS outside of Bend. Keep your eyes open.
  • Sell your cars. Sell your other toys. Sell your crap. Keep the money.

Speculative Bend is done. Over. We're in Survival Bend now. No one makes DEALS anymore. No sexiness, no flash. What 's befallen Summit 1031 will BEFALL THIS TOWN. Utter collapse, with NO HOPE OF RECOVERY EVER.

It's time to HUNKER DOWN.
DO NOT BUY ANYTHING
CONSERVE YOUR CASH.
REMEMBER THE FOUR B'S

IT IS OVER
"I just come from Bend Orygun, where they done titty fucked me atop Volo till I couldn't take it no more! I'm certainly glad I stayed as long as I did, with no visible ill-effects!"

664 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   601 – 664 of 664   Newer›   Newest»
MrBruce said...

Obama’s Team: Pro Biz, Pro War

MrBruce said...

Hail to the Chief - We're going to fucking mess BUSH, and now OBAMA will destroy the world.

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

I’ve always been a fan of George Bush, on the simple grounds that the American empire needs taking down several notches and George Jr has been the right man for the job. It was always odd to listen to liberals and leftists howling about Bush’s poor showing, how he’d reduced America’s standing in the family of nations. Did the Goths fret at the manifest weakness of the Emperor Honorius and lament the lack of a robust or intelligent Roman commander?

On Bush’s Jr’s fitful watch Latin America edged nervously out of Uncle Sam’s shadow. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia boldly assert their independence and thumb their noses at Uncle Sam. Twenty years earlier, and even when Bush Sr sat in the Oval Office, the “strong leadership” craved by Americans of all political stripes would have seen Chavez and Morales briskly toppled, their estimable reforms swiftly aborted and the kleptocrats handed back the keys to the presidential office by the CIA and their local right-wing allies.

Barely a month went by in Bush Jr’s second term but that some liberal or left pundit would predict a US attack on Iran. Lurid scenarios were drawn of the US and its local ally, Israel, unleashing the bombing sorties to Iran’s nuclear complex. It turns out that the Israeli high command made numerous requests for clearance for its planes to overfly Iraq on their way to Iran, but were adamantly nixed by George Jr.

Jr’s greatest single trumph in reducing America’s standing was his insistence that the assembly elections in Iraq go forward as planned, in December of 2005. Bush Sr., it will be recalled, shrank from finishing off Saddam Hussein in 1991 because it would most likely have meant the Shia would take power, to the great benefit of Iran. When the invasion of 2003 did topple Saddam, seasoned counselors advised Bush Jr to suspend the elections the Ayatollah Sistani had insisted upon, for exactly the same reason.

But the 43rd president obstinately rejected these counsels, saying that he’d promised Iraqis the gift of democracy and nothing would deflect him from this course. The elections took place on December 15, 2005, in a mortal blow for U.S. objectives in Iraq and a larger disaster for it in the entire region.

Was this doggedly incompetent saboteur of empire an “accident” of history, born of hanging chads in Florida in 2000 and the ruthless competence of James Baker in outmaneuvering Al Gore’s efforts to claim the White House amid the Forida recounts?

Blame first his mother, Barbara Bush, an unpleasant creature who never forgave George Sr for dragging her from behind the lace curtains of respectability in Connecticut to West Texas where she endured the miseries of a frontier wife, helpmeet to a failed wildcatter. She let her hair go white, grieved for the daughter that died and snarled at the lads while her faithless husband gadded about the world. It was Barbara who gave George his petty, mean-spirited vindictiveness and George Sr who passed on the relentless philistinism. Blame Laura who took in hand the lay-about cokehead of the Houston years and nudged him into politics.

But no one ever took Jr seriously as a contender on the national scene until Republicans, aghast at the prospect that John McCain might seize the nomination in 2000, seized on Bush as the man who would save them from this fate. They scarcely dared dream that he might actually become president. That required the campaign skills of Al Gore, looming over the barely articulate Bush in so loutish a display of arrogant ill-manners in that first debate that Americans gallantly rallied to Bush’s cause.

Somewhere in late 2003 blaming everything on Bush became a national pastime and alibi. He took the hit for fifty years of venal failure by the city fathers of New Orleans and the legislators of Louisiana to protect their city. He’s even had to shoulder the blame for the Wall Street meltdown and the subprime crisis, for which Congressional legislators and overseers can far more justly be held responsible.

Blessed blunder dogged his every step, and where he scanted on some necessary incompetence Dick Cheney was at his elbow to ensure disaster was not averted. Bush made so half hearted an effort to “reform” Social Security – the last defense of older Americans – that Wall Street, the instigator of the “reform”, remembered with profound nostalgia the man, Bill Clinton, who was well on the way to destroying Social Security without even a yap of alarm from the watchdogs, until the Lewinsky scandal forced him to abort the mission.

Bush leaves America a poorer but in some ways a better place, more conscious of its blessings. Just as it took bad King John to force the drafting of the Magna Carta, on Bush’s watch Americans have learned, amidst the threat of losing them, that they have constitutional protections. A commander in chief who made Jerry Ford sound like Demosthenes has given them a fresh sensitivity to language, even the dream that they might have a president who can speak in whole sentences.

Bush passed his final White House years in morose seclusion, despised by all, obeyed by none – a welcome rebuke to the concept of “unitary power” and an omnipotent executive.

Now Obama proclaims his mission of renewing America, always a sinister prospect. We’re heading back in to the high country of moral uplift, and dispiriting talk of America’s “mission”. I live in hopes of an acrid manuscript from Laura Bush, blaming everything on Dick Cheney.

Eyewitness in Gaza

I wish that everyone entering Washington DC next Tuesday would be compelled to read Caoimhe Butterly’s eyewitness report from Gaza, published here on this site this weekend. It makes me proud to be an Irishman than this courageous woman finally managed to enter Gaza, help the inhabitants amid their frightful sufferings and relay her account of Israel’s war crimes to the outside world. Butterly passed the report to Bill Quigley, familiar to CounterPunchers for his regular reports to New Orleans. Bill and Kathy Kelley – a friend of Caoimhe - have also been sending us their reports. Incidentally, our CounterPunch book by Harry Browne, Hammered, about the Catholic Worker action against the US plane at Shannon, and subsequent triumphant acquittal by a Dublin jury, features both Butterly and Kelly.

Talking of war crimes by the Israelis, clearly their bombing Thursday of UN and Red Crescent warehouses indicates an accelerating effort to starve the Palestinians into surrender, meaning death right now, particularly for the young and old.


On The Threshold of the Age of Obama

So far as the progressive Obama base is concerned, it’s been one bitter pill after another, starting with Rahm Emanuel (the only man in the Illinois congressional delegation to vote Yes to the war on Iraq), moving on to Hillary Clinton (another Yes on the war), Robert Gates, and the whole economic team. There was a brief ray of hope when Larry Summers didn’t return to Treasury. Then he bobbed up as director of Obama’s economic recovery team, formally known as the National Economic Council, based in the White House.

Contrast these desolate choices with what the progressives were given in the dawn of Clinton time. He didn’t turn out to be much good, but Wisconsin Rep. Les Aspin, at the time he was nominated as secretary of defense, certainly had a reputation as a Pentagon critic. Environmentalists were exuberant when Bruce Babbitt, former head of the League of Conservation Voters, was given the Department of the Interior. It’s true that Babbit did not match such expectations, but when he was nominated, the mining and cattle lobbies were mad with fury. At HUD there was Henry Cisneros, always in trouble but fairly progressive; at Labor – Robert Reich; at Agriculture – Mike Espy and EPA – Carol Browner. As surgeon general, in contrast to Obama’s pick of a TV doctor and serf of the drug industry, we got Jocelyn Elders, a radical black woman who spoke her mind and was finally axed by Clinton for being honest about sex ed. We got Lani Guinier at the Justice Department, a terrific choice swiftly betrayed by the man who picked her, Bill Clinton. As number 2 at Health and Human Services, there was Peter Edelman, one of only three people in the Clinton administration who resigned over the onslaughts on the welfare system five years later.

Of course, as now, big business kept its mitts firmly on the essential levers: Treasury, the Fed.

What is Obama’s progressive base getting by way of reward? The pickings are very slim. The whole raison d’etre of Obama’s campaign in the primary phase – the period when the progressive constituency has to be allured – was to turn the page not only on Bush time but on Clinton time, to move on.

MrBruce said...

Terribly Bloodied, Still Breathing

By CAOIMHE BUTTERLY

Gaza

The morgues of Gaza's hospitals are over-flowing. The bodies in their blood-soaked white shrouds cover the entire floor space of the Shifa hospital morgue. Some are intact, most horribly deformed, limbs twisted into unnatural positions, chest cavities exposed, heads blown off, skulls crushed in. Family members wait outside to identify and claim a brother, husband, father, mother, wife, child. Many of those who wait their turn have lost numerous family members and loved ones.

Blood is everywhere. Hospital orderlies hose down the floors of operating rooms, bloodied bandages lie discarded in corners, and the injured continue to pour in: bodies lacerated by shrapnel, burns, bullet wounds. Medical workers, exhausted and under siege, work day and night and each life saved is seen as a victory over the predominance of death.

The streets of Gaza are eerily silent- the pulsing life and rhythm of markets, children, fishermen walking down to the sea at dawn brutally stilled and replaced by an atmosphere of uncertainty, isolation and fear. The ever-present sounds of surveillance drones, F16s, tanks and Apaches are listened to acutely as residents try to guess where the next deadly strike will be- which house, school, clinic, mosque, governmental building or community centre will be hit next and how to move before it does. That there are no safe places- no refuge for vulnerable human bodies- is felt acutely. It is a devastating awareness for parents- that there is no way to keep their children safe.

As we continue to accompany the ambulances, joining Palestinian paramedics as they risk their lives, daily, to respond to calls from those with no other life-line, our existence becomes temporarily narrowed down and focused on the few precious minutes that make the difference between life and death. With each new call received as we ride in ambulances that careen down broken, silent roads, sirens and lights blaring, there exists a battle of life over death. We have learned the language of the war that the Israelis are waging on the collective captive population of Gaza- to distinguish between the sounds of the weaponry used, the timing between the first missile strikes and the inevitable second- targeting those that rush to tend to and evacuate the wounded, to recognize the signs of the different chemical weapons being used in this onslaught, to overcome the initial vulnerability of recognizing our own mortality.

Though many of the calls received are to pick up bodies, not the wounded, the necessity of affording the dead a dignified burial drives the paramedics to face the deliberate targeting of their colleagues and comrades- thirteen killed while evacuating the wounded, fourteen ambulances destroyed- and to continue to search for the shattered bodies of the dead to bring home to their families.

Last night, while sitting with paramedics in Jabaliya refugee camp, drinking tea and listening to their stories, we received a call to respond to the aftermath of a missile strike. When we arrived at the outskirts of the camp where the attack had taken place the area was filled with clouds of dust, torn electricity lines, slabs of concrete and open water pipes gushing water into the street. Amongst the carnage of severed limbs and blood we pulled out the body of a young man, his chest and face lacerated by shrapnel wounds, but alive- conscious and moaning.

As the ambulance sped him through the cold night we applied pressure to his wounds, the warmth of his blood seeping through the bandages reminder of the life still in him. He opened his eyes in answer to my questions and closed them again as Muhammud, a volunteer paramedic, murmured "ayeesh, nufuss"- live, breathe- over and over to him. He lost consciousness as we arrived at the hospital, received into the arms of friends who carried him into the emergency room. He, Majid, lived and is recovering.

A few minutes later there was another missile strike, this time on a residential house. As we arrived a crowd had rushed to the ruins of the four story home in an attempt to drag survivors out from under the rubble. The family the house belonged to had evacuated the area the day before and the only person in it at the time of the strike was 17 year old Muhammud who had gone back to collect clothes for his family. He was dragged out from under the rubble still breathing- his legs twisted in unnatural directions and with a head wound, but alive. There was no choice but to move him, with the imminence of a possible second strike, and he lay in the ambulance moaning with pain and calling for his mother. We thought he would live, he was conscious though in intense pain and with the rest of the night consumed with call after call to pick up the wounded and the dead, I forgot to check on him. This morning we were called to pick up a body from Shifa hospital to take back to Jabaliya. We carried a body wrapped in a blood-soaked white shroud into the ambulance, and it wasn't until we were on the road that we realized that it was Muhammud's body. His brother rode with us, opening the shroud to tenderly kiss Muhammud's forehead.

This morning we received news that Al-Quds hospital in Gaza City was under siege. We tried unsuccessfully for hours to gain access to the hospital, trying to organize co-ordination to get the ambulances past Israeli tanks and snipers to evacuate the wounded and dead. Hours of unsuccessful attempts later we received a call from the Shujahiya neighborhood, describing a house where there were both dead and wounded patients to pick up. The area was deserted, many families having fled as Israeli tanks and snipers took up position amongst their homes, other silent in the dark, cold confines of their homes, crawling from room to room to avoid sniper fire through their windows.

As we drove slowly around the area, we heard women’s cries for help. We approached their house on foot, followed by the ambulances and as we came to the threshold of their home, they rushed towards us with their children, shaking and crying with shock. At the door of the house the ambulance lights exposed the bodies of four men, lacerated by shrapnel wounds- the skull and brains of one exposed, others whose limbs had been severed off. The four were the husbands and brothers of the women, who had ventured out to search for bread and food for their families. Their bodies were still warm as we struggled to carry them on stretchers over the uneven ground, their blood staining the earth and our clothes. As we prepared to leave the area our torches illuminated the slumped figure of another man, his abdomen and chest shredded by shrapnel. With no space in the other ambulances, and the imminent possibility of sniper fire, we were forced to take his body in the back of the ambulance carrying the women and children. One of the little girls stared at me before coming into my arms and telling me her name- Fidaa', which means to sacrifice. She stared at the body bag, asking when he would wake up.

Once back at the hospital we received word that the Israeli army had shelled Al Quds hospital, that the ensuing fire risked spreading and that there had been a 20-minute time-frame negotiated to evacuate patients, doctors and residents in the surrounding houses. By the time we got up there in a convoy of ambulances, hundreds of people had gathered. With the shelling of the UNRWA compound and the hospital there was a deep awareness that nowhere in Gaza is safe, or sacred.

We helped evacuate those assembled to near-by hospitals and schools that have been opened to receive the displaced. The scenes were deeply saddening- families, desperate and carrying their children, blankets and bags of their possessions venturing out in the cold night to try to find a corner of a school or hospital to shelter in. The paramedic we were with referred to the displacement of the over 46,000 Gazan Palestinians now on the move as a continuation of the ongoing Nakba of dispossession and exile seen through generation after generation enduring massacre after massacre.

Today's death toll was over 75, one of the bloodiest days since the start of this carnage. Over 1,110 Palestinians have been killed in the past 21 days. 367 of those have been children. The humanitarian infrastructure of Gaza is on its knees- already devastated by years of comprehensive siege. There has been a deliberate, systematic destruction of all places of refuge. There are no safe places here, for anyone.

And yet, in the face of so much desecration, this community has remained intact. The social solidarity and support between people is inspiring, and the steadfastness of Gaza continues to humble and inspire all those who witness it. Their level of sacrifice demands our collective response- and recognition that demonstrations are not enough. Gaza, Palestine and its people continue to live, breathe, resist and remain intact and this refusal to be broken is a call and challenge to us all.

Caoimhe Butterly is an Irish human rights activist working in Jabaliya and Gaza City as a volunteer with ambulance services and as co-coordinator for the Free Gaza Movement, She can be contacted at sahara78@hotmail.co.uk

MrBruce said...

Report From Rafah
Doctors Stopped at the Border

By BILL QUIGLEY

Rafah, Egypt.

Dr. Nicolas Doussis-Rassias and many other volunteer doctors have been waiting in Rafah, Egypt for days. Nicolas and the other physicians came to Rafah to go through the border into Gaza to help the 3000 people wounded by Israeli bombs and heavy weapons.

Rafah is a heavily armed Egyptian border crossing into Gaza, a four hour drive away from Cairo. Sonic booms of high flying jets cut through the stark blue sky. Military drones hover over the border as the air smells of burning.

"Three thousand victims of bombs and gunfire would overwhelm the medical system of New York city," Nicolas said. "Gaza now has no functioning medical system at all. Most of it has no electricity nor running water. These people are in crisis - they need medical help, so we are here to help them."

But today, instead of helping the thousands of wounded, Nicolas and other doctors are holding up a hand lettered red and blue banner outside the Egyptian border station saying - Let the Doctors Through!

Why? Doctors of Peace and numerous other doctors from around the world have been prevented from entering Gaza for seven days. They cannot get in to help through Israel nor Egypt.

Nicolasis not an anti-Israeli radical. He is a jolly 49 year old Athens doctor. Father of two children, he is the president of a organization of volunteer Greek physicians called Doctors of Peace. These doctors pay their own way and volunteer to help the victims of war and natural disasters. They have helped out in Latin America with victims of Hurricane Mitch, in Sri Lanka with tsunami victims, and the victims of wars in Lebanon, Serbia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

But the borders of Gaza are sealed off preventing basic humanitarian and medical assistance from entering.

Richard Falk, the UN Special Reporter on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, pointed out the human rights violations of the sealed border: "Israeli actions, specifically the complete sealing off of entry and exit to and from the Gaza Strip, have led to severe shortages of medicine and fuel (as well as food), resulting in the inability of ambulances to respond to the injured, the inability of hospitals to adequately provide medicine or necessary equipment for the injured, and the inability of Gaza's besieged doctors and other medical workers to sufficiently treat the victims."

The people of Gaza have been cutoff from basic medical and humanitarian resources for a long time by an ongoing blockade by Israel, but everything is much worse in the last few weeks.

Falk, like many others, also condemned the rocket attacks launched from Gaza against Israel. More than a dozen Israelis have died since the war began, as have more than 800 Gazans. But Falk's harshest words were reserved for the catastrophic human toll from the Israeli airstrikes and "those counties that have been and remain complicit, either directly or indirectly, in Israel's violations of international law."

Frida Berrigan pointed out that "During the Bush administration Israel has received over $21 billion in U.S. security assistance, including $19 billion in direct military aid. The bulk of Israel’s current arsenal is composed of equipment supplied under U.S. assistance programs. For example, Israel has 226 U.S.-supplied F-16 fighter and attack jets, over 700 M-60 tanks, 6,000 armored personnel carriers, and scores of transport planes, attack helicopters, utility and training aircraft, bombs, and tactical missiles of all kinds."

Palestinian medical officials say more than half of the 800 dead and 3000 wounded are civilians. Denial of humanitarian and medical assistance to civilian casualties is a clear violation of basic human rights.

The people of Egypt are challenging the denial of medical help for Gaza. Halfway through our drive from Cairo to Rafah, we saw a hundred young Egyptians sitting in the middle of the highway protesting Egypt's inactions.

After seven days, the border is starting to open a little. The Egyptian Red Crescent was allowed to deliver supplies to the border today and some of the waiting doctors were allowed in. With great show, two dozen Egyptian ambulances were allowed to enter the border area - only to be parked inside to wait for the injured to make it to the border. Two ambulances left Rafah with patients inside.

Doctors of Peace were still not allowed in today. Some physicians, tired from the seven day blockade, have started to return home.

Nicolas is going back to the Rafah border crossing tomorrow to try again. Why? "Because there are 3000 injured people who need help. I am going to keep trying."

Bill Quigley is a human rights lawyer and law professor at Loyola New Orleans. He is in Egypt as a human rights representative of the National Lawyers Guild, the Society of American Law Professors, the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and the War Resisters League. Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence and Audrey Stewart are also in Egypt and contributed to this article. His email is quigley77@gmail.com

MrBruce said...

hree Simple Proposals
Gaza Seen From Paris

By JEAN BRICMONT and DIANA JOHNSTONE

There are surely millions of us, invisible to each other, enraged and powerless as we watch the massacre of Gaza and listen to our media describe it as a "retaliation against terrorism", "Israel’s right to defend itself". We have reached a point where answering the Zionist arguments is both useless and unworthy of humanity. So long as it is recognized that the shells landing on Ashkelon are likely to have been fired by descendants of the inhabitants of that region who were driven out by the Zionists in 1948, talk of peace is a smoke screen for continued Israeli assault on the survivors of that great injustice.

What then is to be done? Yet another dialogue between "moderate" Arabs and "progressive" Israelis? An umpteenth "peace plan" to be ignored? A solemn declaration from the European Union?

All such mainstream gestures are mere distractions from the ongoing strangling of the Palestinian people. But more radical demands are just as futile. The call to create an international tribunal to judge Israeli war criminals, or for an effective intervention by the United Nations or the European Union will accomplish nothing. The real existing international tribunals reflect the relationship of forces in the world, and will never be used against the cherished allies of the United States. It is the relationship of forces itself that must be changed, and this can be done only gradually. It is true that Gaza is a dire emergency, but it is also true that nothing really effective can be done today to stop it, precisely because the patient political work that should have been done before still remains to be undertaken.

On the three modest proposals that follow, two are ideological and one is practical.

1. Get rid of the illusion that Israel is "useful" to the West.

Many people, especially on the left, persist in thinking that Israel is only a pawn in an American capitalist or imperialist strategy to control the Middle East. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Israel is of no use to anybody or anything but its own fantasies of domination. There is no petroleum in Israel, or Lebanon, or Golan, or Gaza. The so-called wars for oil, in 1991 and 2003, were waged by the United States, with no help from Israel, and in 1991 with the explicit demand from the United States that Israel stay out (because Israel’s participation would have undermined Washington’s Arab coalition). For the pro-Western petro-monarchies and the "moderate" Arab regimes, Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian lands is a nightmare, which radicalizes much of their populations and threatens their rule. It is Israel, by its absurd policies, that provoked the creation of both Hezbollah and Hamas and that is indirectly responsible for much of the recent growth of "radical Islam".

Moreover, the plain fact is that capitalists as a whole make more money in peace than in war. It is enough to compare the profits made by Western capitalists in China or Vietnam since making peace with those countries, compared to the past, when "Red China" was isolated and the US waged war against Vietnam. The majority of capitalists could not care less which "people" must have Jerusalem as its "eternal capital", and if peace were achieved, they would hasten into the West Bank and Gaza to exploit a qualified work force with few other opportunities.

Finally, any American citizen concerned with the influence of his or her country in the world can see quite clearly that making enemies of a billion Muslims in order to satisfy every murderous whim of Israel is scarcely a rational investment in the future.

Those who consider themselves Marxists are among the first to see in Israel a simple emanation of such general phenomena as capitalism or imperialism (Marx himself was much more cautious on the matter of economic reductionism). But it does no service to the Palestinian people to maintain such fictions – in reality, like it or not, the capitalist system is far too robust to stake its survival on the Jewish occupation of the West Bank, and capitalism has been doing just fine in South Africa since the end of Apartheid.

2. Allow non-Jews to speak their mind about Israel

If support for Israel is not based on economic or strategic interests, why do the political class and the media passively accept whatever Israel does? Many ordinary people may feel unconcerned by what happens in a faraway country. But this does not apply to the West’s leading opinion makers, who never cease criticizing what is wrong with the policies of Venezuela, Cuba, Sudan, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, Islam, Serbia, Russia or China. Even unproved rumors and gross exaggerations are repeated with insistence. Only Israel must be treated with kid gloves.

One explanation offered for this special treatment is Western "guilt" for past anti-Semitic persecutions, in particular the horrors inflicted on Jews during the Second World War. It is sometimes pointed out that the Palestinians are in no way responsible for those horrors and should not have to pay the price for crimes committed by others. That is true, but what is almost never said and which is obvious nevertheless, is that the overwhelming majority of French people, Germans or Catholic priests today are just as innocent of what happened during the war as the Palestinians, for the simple reason that they were either born after the war or were children at the time. The notion of collective guilt was already very questionable in 1945, but the idea of transmitting that collective guilt to subsequent generations is quite simply a religious notion. Even if it is said that the Holocaust should not justify Israeli policy, it is striking that the populations who are supposed to feel guilty for what happened (the Germans, the French and the Catholics) are most reticent to speak out.

It is strange that at the very time the Catholic Church renounced the notion of Jews as the people who killed Christ, the notion of the almost universal guilt for killing the Jews began to take over. The discourse on universal guilt for the Holocaust is like religious discourse in general in the way it legitimizes hypocrisy, by shifting responsibility from the real to the imaginary (on the model of "original sin" itself). We are all supposed to feel guilty for crimes committed in the past about which, by definition, we can do nothing. But we need not feel guilty or responsible for crimes being committed right before our eyes by our Israeli or American allies, whom we can hope to influence.

The fact that we are not all guilty of the crimes of the Third Reich is simple and obvious, but needs to be driven home to allow non-Jews to speak up freely about Palestine. As it is, non-Jews who often feel they must leave it to Jews, as the only people who have the "right" to criticize Israel, to defend the Palestinians. But given the relationship of forces between the Jewish critics of Israel, and the influential Zionist organizations claiming to speak for the Jewish people, there is no realistic hope that Jewish voices alone can save the Palestinians.

However, the main reason for the silence is surely not guilt precisely because it is so artificial, but rather fear. Fear of "what will they think", fear of slander and even of being taken to court for "anti-Semitism". If you are not convinced, take a journalist, a politician or a publisher to some spot where nobody is listening and there is no hidden camera or microphone, and ask whether he or she says in public all he or she thinks of Israel in private. And if not, why? Fear of hurting the interests of capitalism? Fear of weakening American imperialism? Fear of interrupting oil deliveries? Or, on the contrary, fear of Zionist organizations and their relentless campaigns?

We have little doubt, after dozens of discussions with such people that the last answer given above is the correct one. People do not say what they think of what calls itself the "Jewish State" for fear of being called anti-Jewish and being identified with the anti-Semites of the past. This sentiment is all the stronger inasmuch as most people who are shocked by Israeli policy are genuinely horrified by what was done to the Jews during the Second World War and are sincerely outraged by anti-Semitism. If one stops to think about it, it is clear that if there existed today, as was the case before 1940, openly anti-Semitic political movements, they would not be so intimidated. But today, not even the French National Front says it is anti-Semitic and whoever criticizes Israel usually starts by denying being anti-Semitic. The fear of being accused of anti-Semitism is deeper than fear of the Zionist lobby, it is fear of losing the respectability that goes with condemnation of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as the highest contemporary moral value.

It is imperative to free criticism of Israel from the fear of being falsely accused of "anti-Semitism". The threat of this accusation is an insidious form of moral blackmail that perhaps constitutes the only real potential source of a widespread revival of anti-Jewish resentment.

3. The practical initiatives are summed up in three letters : BDS- Boycott, disinvestment, sanctions

The demand for sanctions is taken up by most pro-Palestinian organizations, but since such measures are the prerogative of states, it is clear that this will not happen soon. Disinvestment measures can be taken by trade unions and churches, on the decision of their members. Other enterprises that collaborate closely with Israel will not change their policy unless they are under public pressure, that is, boycotts. This brings us to the controversial issue of boycotts, not only of Israeli products but also of Israel’s cultural and academic institutions.

This tactic was used against apartheid in South Africa in a very similar situation. Both apartheid and the dispossession of the Palestinians are a late heritage of European colonialism, whose practitioners have a hard time realizing that such forms of domination are no longer acceptable to the world in general and even to public opinion in the West. The racist ideologies underlying both projects are an outrage to the majority of humanity and gives rise to endless hatreds and conflicts. One might even say that Israel is another South Africa, plus exploitation of "the Holocaust" as an excuse.

Any boycott is apt to have innocent victims. In particular, it is said that boycotting Israeli academic institutions would unjustly punish intellectuals who are for peace. Perhaps, but Israel itself readily admits that there are innocent victims in Gaza, whose innocence in no way prevents them from being killed. We do not propose killing anyone. A boycott is a perfectly non-violent act by citizens. It is comparable to conscientious objection or civil disobedience in the face of unjust power. Israel flouts all UN resolutions and our own governments, far from taking measures to oblige Israel to comply, merely reinforce their ties with Israel. We have the right, as citizens, to demand that our own governments respect international law.

What is important about sanctions, especially on the cultural level, is their symbolic value. It is a way of telling our governments that we do not accept their policy of collaboration with a state that has chosen to become an international outlaw.

Some object to a boycott on the grounds that it is opposed by both some progressive Israelis and a certain number of "moderate" Palestinians (but not Palestinian civil society as a whole). But the main question for us is not what they say, but what foreign policy we want for our own countries. The Israeli-Arab conflict is far from being a mere local quarrel and has attained a worldwide significance. It involves the basic issue of respect for international law. A boycott should be defended as a means to protest to our governments in order to force them to change their policy. We have the right to want to be able to travel without shame in the rest of the world. That is reason enough to encourage a boycott.

Anonymous said...

Enough this Gaza shit I hope Israel quickly kills everyone in the world, so I can get back to Gatorade bathing.

Anonymous said...

According to the FDIC, Bank of Clark County had total assets of $446.5 million and total deposits of $366.5 million. Uninsured deposits totaled $39.3 million.

[ interesting IF true, the fact is we know that CC had we more non-performing loans than what they're mentioning, rather than deposits, and assets they should list debt to FED - to see the real picture - these numbers make CACB sound, and WHY THE FUCK did UMQUA 'get to be last man standing' - This is a case of picking winners and losers ]

First bank failures of '09
Two banks go under: National Bank of Commerce in Illinois and Bank of Clark County in Washington state.
CNNMoney.com staff
Last Updated: January 16, 2009:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The financial crisis has claimed its first two banks in 2009 at an approximate cost to the FDIC of more than $200 million.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. announced Friday that the National Bank of Commerce in Berkeley, Ill., and Bank of Clark County in Vancouver, Wash., had been shuttered.

Bank of Clark County was the first bank in Washington state to fail since 1993.

Nationwide, as the economy's problems have deepened, the number of bank failures has risen dramatically. Last year, 25 banks closed, compared to only three in 2007 and none in 2006 and 2005.

On Friday, the FDIC said that it has entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Republic Bank of Chicago in Oak Brook, Ill., to assume the deposits of National Bank of Commerce.

National Bank of Commerce had total assets of $430.9 million and total deposits of $402.1 million.

Republic Bank intends to purchase about $366.6 million of National Bank of Commerce's assets at a discount of $44.9 million, according to the FDIC, which will retain the rest for later distribution.

The FDIC said that the National Bank of Commerce's two branches will reopen Saturday as branches of Republic Bank of Chicago.

The FDIC estimates that the cost to the Deposit Insurance Fund will be $97.1 million.

Separately, the FDIC said Friday that the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Umpqua Bank of Roseburg, Ore., to assume the insured deposits of the Bank of Clark County.

According to the FDIC, Bank of Clark County had total assets of $446.5 million and total deposits of $366.5 million. Uninsured deposits totaled $39.3 million.

Bank of Clark County will reopen on Tuesday as branches of Umpqua Bank.

The FDIC estimates the cost to its insurance fund will be between $120 million and $145 million. To top of page

Anonymous said...

The reason for this study, is to learn the bellwether tale of other failures, to compare with our own House-of-Moss. That said MOSS just got an award for best-of-best, and UMQUA, talking about non-performing ASSets, but its clear the pickers of winners&losers has 'blessed' UMQUA with the blood of baby-jeebus.

**

Breaking the bank in Clark County
by The Oregonian
Sunday August 24, 2008, 2:01 PM

After nearly a decade of growth, profits at Clark County's banks and credit unions have plummeted in the past year, dragged down by a troubled housing market.

"This is the worst time I've ever seen for banking," said Jeanne Firstenburg, executive­ vice president and chief operating officer of the century-old First Independent Bank. "We call it the 100-year storm, and the bottom fell out very quickly."

The Vancouver Columbian has this story.

Anonymous said...

What to do now: How safe is my bank?

Sunday, September 21 | 6:21 p.m.

COURTNEY SHERWOOD, COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER
The bottom line:

Bad news has been coming out of big banks. There were 117 problem banks across the U.S. at the end of June, up from 90 three months earlier, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Washington Mutual, which holds more deposits than any other bank in Clark County, is apparently looking for a buyer. Financially solid Vancouver-based banks have laid off workers, stopped issuing mortgages and scaled back growth. It’s nerve wracking, but for most bank customers it’s not as bad as it sounds. Here’s what you need to know to make sure your money is safe.

Which bank accounts are safe?

-- CASH DEPOSITS: Certificates of deposit, as well as savings, checking and trust accounts are insured for up to $100,000, said LaJuan Williams-Dickerson, spokeswoman for the FDIC, which backs these accounts with the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

-- MORE INSURANCE: “Because it’s $100,000 per account and per depositor, if a husband and wife have a joint account it’s insured for $200,000. If the wife has a separate account, that’s another $100,000,” Williams-Dickerson said. “If they have four daughters and they set up a trust, that’s another $400,000 insurance - $100,000 for each on that account.”

-- RETIREMENT CASH: Cash deposits in individual retirement accounts at banks are FDIC insured for up to $250,000. The FDIC does not insure against retirement account losses in the stock market.

-- MONEY MARKET: Money market deposit accounts are insured for up to $100,000 by the FDIC. Money market mutual funds are not. After one of the world’s largest money market mutual funds lost value, the U.S. Treasury Department announced on Friday that it will guarantee the U.S. mutual funds for the next year. After that, the guarantee is gone.

What if my bank fails?

-- THE MONEY IS STILL THERE: Customers will still have access to FDIC-insured money, with no freeze and no delays, Williams-Dickerson said. ATM and debit cards will still work, and customers can still write checks.

-- LONG LINES: After a bank failure, expect big crowds at local branches. “Panic sets in, and people want a story about what is going to happen,” Williams-Dickerson said. FDIC-insured money is safe, no matter how many people line up at the bank, she said.

-- UNINSURED MONEY: If you have deposits that were not FDIC insured, you could lose money and you may have to wait to receive what cash you are due. In a savings account with $120,000, $100,000 is safe – but the additional $20,000 might be frozen for months.

-- POSSIBLE LOSSES: Owners of uninsured deposits will get a “certificate of receivership.” These entitle their holder to a share in the proceeds from the sale of the bank’s assets. Customers of IndyMac Bancorp, the Pasadena, Calif.-based bank that failed in July, could get as little as 50 cents back for every uninsured dollar in deposits, and might have to wait months to see that money.

How safe is my bank?

-- NO EASY ANSWER: “The FDIC does not make public information about problem banks,” and banks are not allowed to release their FDIC rating, Williams-Dickerson said. There is no clearinghouse with up-to-date public bank ratings.

-- TEXAS RATIO: A formula devised by bank analyst Gerard Cassidy of RBC Capital Markets has been gaining traction as one way to assess banks, according to business news site MarketWatch.com. No banks with a big Clark County presence rank as severely troubled on the Texas Ratio scale. See the “Texas Ratio” box at right for how the area’s top banks fare on Cassidy’s scale.

What should I do now?

-- CHECK YOUR DEPOSITS: If you have more than $100,000 in the bank, make sure that money is all insured. Gather bank statements and go to the Electronic Deposit Insurance Estimator at www.fdic.gov/edie, or visit your local branch.

-- MOVE MONEY: Find out which kind of money market account you have - mutual fund or deposit. Leave the deposit accounts alone. The mutual funds are safe for the next year because of the U.S. Treasury guarantee, and even without a government guarantee money market funds are very safe, said Seth Gitter, assistant professor of economics at Towson University in Maryland.

-- DON’T HOARD CASH: “If your bank goes under, the federal government will refund your money,” Gitter wrote on his Blog of Diminishing Reserves. “What if all the banks go under? Then the money under your mattress is probably not worth much either.”

Anonymous said...

Bank of Clark County 0.235

*

Well BCC went down with 23, and CACB is like 25, ... according to this UMPQUA is 6, rock of gibraltor, must be cooking da books?

What's the Texas Ratio?


Analysts have started using a formula called the Texas Ratio to assess the health of banks. Take the value of the bank’s nonperforming loans, and divide it by the sum of that bank’s equity capital and loan loss reserves.
A number higher than 1 is a sign of likely failure.

“That would be a very severe number,” said Ron Wysaske, chief executive officer of
Vancouver-based Riverview Community Bank. “It would definitely indicate a bank is about to go under.”

IndyMac, which failed in July, had a Texas ratio of 1.23.

Here’s how largest banks
operating in Clark County rate, from best to worst:

Umpqua Bank 0.065

Bank of America 0.076

U.S. Bank 0.101

Wells Fargo Bank 0.179

Riverview Community Bank 0.198

Bank of Clark County 0.235

First Independent 0.267

Washington Mutual 0.306

West Coast Bank 0.431

Anonymous said...

CACB has $2 Billion in assets & A Texas Ratio of 31,

A DO YOU SPELL FUCKING DEATH??

C-A-C-B

Bend Death, but never fear, AIPAC HO's will declare it safe & sound?

After all its a christian bank, that even the baby-jeebus would use.

Anonymous said...

Community First Bank Prineville OR 214,304 90

ouch, priny with a TR of 90.

Anonymous said...

LibertyBank Eugene OR 924,143 72

eugene 72, ..

Anonymous said...

West Coast Bank Lake Oswego OR 2,556,695 66

lk-no-negro, note almost $2b cap like CACB, but TR of 66,

Anonymous said...

Columbia River Bank The Dalles OR 1,148,838 65

Fuck me, I'm from the Dalles,

Anonymous said...

MBank Gresham OR 302,880 61

Feeder bank for 'happy valley' homers burial ground.

Anonymous said...

Albina Community Bank Portland OR 206,116 53

PDX black bank that helped the HOOD go metro-sexual, aka urban gentri

Anonymous said...

Northwest Bank Lake Oswego OR 125,870 44

Lk-no-negro bank of 1031 orygun

jeebus country, w/biggest mormon temple in state

Anonymous said...

Bank of Clark County Vancouver WA 464,810 38

*

These are dec-08 figures from FDIC, above summer article about BCC going down said '.23', note here in dec-08, its 38, damn near 2X worse than six month prior.

Anonymous said...

Lewis & Clark Bank Oregon City OR 87,122 34

Another 'happy valley' feeder

Anonymous said...

Bank of the Cascades Bend OR 2,408,319 31

Cracker Ass Cascade Bitch

The mother load of zionists christians, trying to make the world a better place with fucking OPM ( other peoples money ), whooooooopeee I don't give a damn, next stop is Gaza, ... whoooooopeeeee we're all going to die.

Rapture is soon, jeebus is coming, we're absolutely making sure that Armeggedon is coming and taking us all to heaven, end times are here, so who in the fuck cares of US finance implodes.

Praise the Lord, praise Crack Ass Jeebus Freaks.

The lord really does work in strange ways.

Anonymous said...

Bank of Clark County 0.235 ( 9/2008 ) TR-23

Last night BCC was closed. Will re-open next tuesday as Umqua.

On Sep-08 the TR was 23, in Dec-08 it was 38, today CACB is 31 and climbing.

What's the Texas Ratio?

Anonymous said...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/chris/banks/banks.html

Texas Ratio link, so you can see if granny is on the list.


Umpqua Bank Roseburg
OR TOT-ASS- $8,324,598 TR-10

ten & growing, but somebody wants to keep them alive, bail-outs are only given to gods chosen people, right?

Anonymous said...

Washington Mutual 0.306


Good ole WAMU went down with TR of 30, ...

Bewert said...

Finalists chosen for open seat
Position vacated by Telfer could be filled by next week
By Erin Golden / The Bulletin
Published: January 17. 2009 4:00AM PST

Bend city councilors chose three finalists from a field of 14 applicants to fill a vacancy on the panel, according to results released Friday.

Don Leonard, Glen “Tom” Pickell and William “Cliff” Walkey were selected, and one of the three could fill the City Council seat that opened up earlier this month after Chris Telfer stepped down to join the state Senate.

The council started accepting applications two weeks ago and closed the process Wednesday. Each councilor selected his or her top two or three picks and submitted them to City Recorder Patty Stell, who tallied the results.

The council is scheduled to interview the three candidates Wednesday, when it could choose one to fill out Telfer’s term, which ends in 2010.

The city’s charter requires the council to make appointments within 30 days of a seat being vacated, or to call for a special election. The council went through a similar process less than two months ago when it appointed Jodie Barram to fill the seat vacated by Councilor Bill Friedman, who died of complications related to back surgery.

Leonard, the manager of a propane company, has been close to landing a seat on the council two other times in the past few months. In November, Leonard unsuccessfully challenged Councilor Jim Clinton for his seat, receiving 33 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 67 percent.

Later that month, Leonard was selected as one of three finalists for Friedman’s seat, but lost to Barram.

Despite the setbacks, Leonard said he’s excited about the chance to try again and hopes the council will find him a good fit for the seat.

“One (reason) is the breadth of experience I have with the city — not only on the Planning Commission, but on the Budget Committee and Affordable Housing Committee,” he said.

“The other is my work experience, having to deal with budgets, staffing experience, having a sense of what it takes to run an organization.”

Pickell, a self-employed management consultant, could not be reached for comment.

According to his application for the position, Pickell has served on a handful of city committees, including the Budget Committee.

“Given my financial and executive management experience, I believe that I can provide a significant value to the challenges facing the city of Bend in this critical economic environment,” Pickell wrote in the application.

Pickell also applied for Friedman’s seat in November but was not selected as a finalist.

Walkey, a hydrogeologist with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, is the current chairman of the Bend Planning Commission. Walkey said his experience on the Planning Commission has helped prepare him for a seat on the council, where he said he’d hope to be a voice of consensus.

“I believe that I would be independent and centrist in all matters that come before the council,” he said. “My orientation would be to look for the welfare of all Bend residents, not just the special interests.”

City Manager Eric King said if the council selects one of the candidates on Wednesday, a swearing-in ceremony will likely be held at a later meeting.

Bewert said...

Council will hold public hearing on permit extension

Along with interviewing candidates for an open seat, the Bend City Council will hold a public hearing Wednesday on a proposal to grant builders more time before their permits expire.

Councilors are scheduled to interview three finalists who applied to fill the seat left vacant when Chris Telfer stepped down to join the state Senate. The interviews will be conducted in a work session before the regular meeting.

Also Wednesday, the council will take public comments on a plan that would allow developers to apply for additional extensions to keep their planning permits active, even if they’re not ready to build.

City Manager Eric King said the proposal is a response to some builders having trouble moving forward on their projects because of the economic downturn.

Under the city’s current code, people who want to build a home or other building in Bend must get their planning permits and then begin construction within one year or risk losing the permit.

Developers can apply for a one-year extension, but under the new plan, they could apply for additional extensions to keep permits active.

“The idea would be for those who have gone through the land use application process,” King said. “Whatever they’ve submitted is good for a certain period of time, and this would extend that for a year, given the economic conditions we’re all under right now, instead of having to go back and go through the process again.”

King said granting the extensions would not have a financial impact on the city.

Wednesday’s meeting will be the first full session for new Mayor Kathie Eckman and councilors Jeff Eager and Tom Greene, who were sworn in earlier this month to replace Councilor Linda Johnson, Mayor Bruce Abernethy and Councilor Peter Gramlich, respectively.


###


Eckman is a bit wierd. Dead eyes.

Anonymous said...

Eckman is a bit wierd. Dead eyes.

###

The queen bitch is Bend's "Money Mama".

The biggest investment club in BEND, according to ECKMAN TOTAL-RETURN on money-momma's fund has never been below 10% ROI, ever, NEVER, ... A boast only made in human history by Made-OFF.

The word on the street in city hall is that ECKMAN black-mailed TELFER-BITCH for the vote, a vote that telfer had no right to make, ... word is that ECKMAN has something on TELFER that could destroy her political career.

Good news is that Eckman will be out in six months, she has had city-council six times in the past 20+ years, and always gets bored. The queen bitch has BEND's richest doctor for MONEY, and he pays ALL her campaign bills, so she always wins everytime she wants in, but she always bails, cuz she hates the process.

"MONEY MOMMAS' that her DBA, dead eyes, no this bitch sucks blood at night.

Anonymous said...

The previous post was written by an impostor, not the real HBM. I am the real HBM. The real HBM does not pass on unsubstantiated rumors.

MrBruce said...

The real HBM does not pass on unsubstantiated rumors.

###

Specifically which one of the TRUMORS isn't true FAKE hbm?

The one about eckman being ugly? ( Uglier than a sloped headed, hooked nose dropped at birth child? Whose own mother wanted to abort? )

The one about eckman being a vampire?

Or the fact that she has sick eyes?

Or that she runs 'money mommas', and asserts that she has never had less than 10% ROI.

"Bring it on FAKE-HBM"

Over here we operate at a higher level than the sore-eye, over here we ask that your prove your TRUMORS, on the sore-eye one hbm simply deletes all such requests.

Anonymous said...


Bank of the Cascades Bend OR ASS $2,408,319 TexasRation=31

Cracker Ass Cascade Bitch

The mother load of zionist christians ( 1031 Zion Ministries ), trying to make the world a better place with OPM ( Other Peoples Money).


None of this is true. CACB is one of the strongest banks in the USA. They are not in any way associated with of any of Bend's fine Christian services.

MrBruce said...

Leonard, the manager of a propane company, has been close to landing a seat on the council two other times in the past few months.

###

I have always said that the new council will kill the BAT ( bus program ).

Leonard is the strongest advocate in the State for public transportation powered by propane. I really think he is on to something, and now completely support the BAT program, and I'm endorsing Mr Leonard.

Anonymous said...

Bend man to rescue Bend economy with 1,000's of new good paying job's with special energy system.

###

Scooter runs on dog power
Published: Jan. 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM


BEND, Ore., Jan. 16 (UPI) -- An Oregon man said a dog-powered scooter he invented for walking his pooch is now available to the public for $560 apiece.

Mark Schuette said the scooter, which he dubbed the Tadpole, features a harness on the side that allows the dog to pull the scooter, but leaves steering and braking up to the human passenger, The Daily Mail reported Friday.

"We have all seen dogs and sleds and their owners shouting 'mush' at them to control them," Schuette said. "Well this system allows the dog walker to give their dog a similar workout, but they keep themselves in complete control."

Schuette said the Tadpole was created with the dog's comfort in mind.

"The location and the way the dog is harnessed into the scooter was designed to be neutral to the unit's handling, and place no weight on the dog," he said.

tim said...

That's nothing. I'm working on a special seat and paw controls so that dogs can drive buses.

(word verification--"beast")

IHateToBurstYourBubble said...

BULLSHIT ALERT, BULLSHIT ALERT

This is running in The Bull tomorrow:

Moving in, moving out: How many are coming to and leaving Central Oregon?

Anonymous said...

Moving in, moving out: How many are coming to and leaving Central Oregon?

*

Is this the secret insider BULLshit that marge gave you??

What's the point? Homeless will come to Bend.

People that can leave will leave.

Those that MUST leave, leave at night in their car, and leave all.

How in the FUCK does anyone measure any of this??

Uhauls In/Out only measure the 'bend rich'.

Homeless growth, 5k last year, said to be 10k this year, and they're coming here from all over, cuz Bend is a great place to camp, and spring weather is already here, ...

Come this winter of 2009, the county services will be broke, ...

tim said...

kits, cats, sacks and wives

Anonymous said...

Deep inside of Bend's ten's of thousands of vagrants, is a CACB loan applicant trying to buy an affordable home.

Please BULL what a story.

Last year they essentially admitted that Mexicans were the great white hope of the Bend Bubble.

Lastly in regards to dumb fucking HO BEND MEDIA, ...

HBM kunt PUG, when are you in the SORE-EYE going to demand that BEND-1031 return the client money given to the RNC.

Anonymous said...

Today's weather is a good illustration of why this town will never be the mecca for rich retirees that the Chamber and COAR types tout it to be. The winters are too fucking cold and TOO FUCKING LONG.

(Okay, we had a week of decent weather, but that was an aberration. Bend winters, as a rule, are cold, gray and bleak -- and they go on for eight fucking months.)

Old farts like me want to live someplace WARM where we can wear our Bermuda shorts and white shoes and play shuffleboard in the sun. Bend, Ory-gun ain't it.

Anonymous said...

BULLSHIT ALERT, BULLSHIT ALERT

Thanks for the alert. I've been hearing a rumor that Bend's population has SHRUNK by 10,000. That seems a bit much, but I don't doubt it's down.

Anonymous said...

Bend man to rescue Bend economy with 1,000's of new good paying job's with special energy system.

The Bullshittin wrote about this guy way back in 2005. I wonder if he's sold even one unit yet.

Anonymous said...

I doubt it's down 10K...yet.

I think we are headed to 50K total in the next 18 months.

foz said...

Post of the week has to go to Trudy Truss.

I was wearing out the scroll wheel on my mouse and his advice to left click on the blog symbol next to the name to make the comment disappear is perfect!

Too bad it didn't come on page one instead of comment 590

Quimby said...

>> I was wearing out the scroll wheel on my mouse and his advice to left click on the blog symbol next to the name to make the comment disappear is perfect!


Problem is that when you refresh the page, it opens them all back up again.

Anonymous said...

Bond Street Market has not gone out of business. It is a locally owned and operated store that was recently sold to another local who has no intention to close the store. Posting lies like that are vicious and hateful. What did they ever do to you to cause you to try and damage them financially in such tough times. All you had to do was go in and ask, then maybe you could write the truth instead of spreading lies.

Anonymous said...

"Sexting" racy pics a dangerous teen habit
Posted: Jan 16, 2009 06:06 PM

Sending pretty pictures is becoming a common thing with cell phones - but some teens are taking big risks

Sharing inappropriate photos can lead to child porn charges

By Tony Fuller, KTVZ.COM

In an unusual legal case arising from the increasingly popular practice known as "sexting," high school students are facing child pornography charges after nude photos are being found on their cell phones.

The most serious case happened in Pennsylvania, where six students are facing charges.

According to some Bend high school students, it's really common. Some teens do it as a joke. For others, it's the new bold pickup line to get a date.

Three Summit High School students say they don't know anyone in their school who doesn't carry a cell phone.

"I honestly don't think I know anyone who doesn't have a cell phone," said senior Brad Miller.

School Resource Officer Mike Maunder agrees: "I would say a good 99 percent of every student in this school has a cell phone."

Cell phones are now an integral part of teen culture, but now something called "sexting" has arrived. Students are taking explicit photos with their cell phones and sending them to boyfriends, classmates, or in some cases, most of the student population.

"Even if you do have a boyfriend and that's something you guys are interested in doing, I've heard of cases where he will send it to his friends, and then it just spreads around," said junior Maddy Wurm.

First it was text messaging, which Maunder said "is a huge form of communication anymore, more than the actual physical talking to the other kids."

Now, with just a push of a button, photos are taken. With the advances in technology, there is a very small percentage of cell phones that are not made with cameras.

The stakes of taking and sending sexually explicit photos can be high, compared to the thrill at the time. The consequences can range from humiliation to losing out on jobs to going to court.

"We've also had issues, boyfriend/girlfriend issues where they've been sending pictures back and forth to one another that are very explicit," Maunder said. "As a parent, if you are able to find those pictures, you can deal with those as a parent."

Most students look at it as inappropriate, but that doesn't it mean it's not happening, and can sometimes lead to serious criminal charges.

The kids said very often it starts as a girlfriend sending a boyfriend a picture, but then they break up, he shows a friend and it quickly gets forwarded around.

It's a felony for children under 18 to not only receive one of these pictures on their phone, but taking a photo and sending it could lead to pornography production and distribution charges.

=====

The Pussy and his mormon statutory rapists better watch out. Big brother is watching you.

Anonymous said...

Bi-White-Dick-Head (BWD)

We report, you decide.

Downtown Bend C-store (Bend)
Reply to: sale-981354946@craigslist.org [?]
Date: 2009-01-05, 12:39PM PST

Bond Street Market is for sale. Owner can no longer meet all obligations. 10 grand(firm) takes everything. The business is in the black and is carrying no debt- 2 more years on lease and landlord has expressed willingness to reduce rent for new tenant. There is over 10k in fixtures and equipment alone. Please respond for more info

Anonymous said...

MDU/MOSS-CACB coalition for Good Government one of the biggest AIPAC fronts in USA.

*

Pro-Israel lobbying fronts

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been accused of using front organizations as a means of circumventing limits on campaign spending[10] These front organizations have names unrelated to AIPAC. Delaware Valley Good Government Association (Philadelphia), San Franciscans for Good Government (California), Beaver PAC (Wisconsin), Cactus PAC (Arizona), and Icepac (New York) are examples of former AIPAC front groups.[11]

Anonymous said...

U.S. Aid to Israel: The Subject No One Mentions
by: Richard Curtiss
September - October 1997
The Link - Volume 30, Issue 4

More than a decade ago I mentioned on a radio talk show in the Washington, D.C. area that foreign aid alone to Israel that year was more than $3 billion. A few seconds later the program host interrupted to say, “I think you misstated the amount of foreign aid Israel is receiving this year. Did you mean to say $300 million?”

“No, Israel is receiving more than $3 billion this year in foreign aid alone,” I repeated. “And there are additional hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars going to Israel from other parts of the federal budget.”

As I left the station the producer handed me a cassette tape of the program that had been informally recorded in the engineer’s booth. Later, while listening to the tape, I could hear a simultaneous conversation that had taken place between the producer and the engineer in the engineer’s booth while the program was underway.

“Did you hear what that guy just said?” asked one.

“Yeah,” answered the other. “Three billion dollars. That’s a lot of money!”

I pondered why the amount seemed such a shock to the host, producer and engineer on a major radio talk show in the nation’s capital.

U.S. aid to Israel has always been a touchy subject, for reasons I will present in the following pages. Members of Congress never mention the total, probably for two reasons. One is that few of them are sure of it themselves, although they are responsible for the authorizing legislation. The other is that if they mentioned the total, or whatever they think is the total, their constituents would ask them why Israel receives so much more federal money than do U.S. states in the same population range, and whose residents pay taxes to the federal government.

So aid to Israel simply is not discussed in Congress. Instead, leaders of the controlling congressional committees make sure that the total of foreign aid to Israel is earmarked within each year’s foreign aid appropriation so that it will not be reduced within the executive branch. And those committees also see to it that aid to Israel is not singled out as an item on which Members of Congress as a whole actually have to cast a recorded up-or-down, yes or no, vote.

Thus members of Congress not wishing to do anything to upset the much-feared Israel lobby are assured that they will not have to defend themselves against questions from any of their constituents who may discover that, for a generation, more than one-third of U.S. worldwide foreign aid has gone annually to one of the smallest and least populous countries on earth.

It’s a rare taxpayer who discovers this at all because the U.S. media seem even more disinclined than Congress to quantify aid to Israel, or discuss it—even in general terms. After that talk show appearance, I surveyed the mainstream media and found why even informed Americans seemed unaware that by that time—the late 1980s—foreign aid to Israel routinely exceeded $3 billion a year. In 1979, it had surpassed $4.8 billion. These numbers seldom saw print, not even in specific articles about U.S.-Israeli relations or about foreign aid in general.

Instead, writers usually noted that “Israel receives $1.2 billion in annual economic aid from the United States.” Or they wrote that “Israel receives $1.8 billion in U.S. military aid.” But they seemed never to combine the two to provide the public with the true total. Nor did they mention the tens of millions—and in some years hundreds of millions—of dollars from other U.S. government departments, particularly the Department of Defense, that Israel receives each year.

It is only very recently that the mainstream U.S. media have begun to mention “Israel’s annual $3 billion in U.S. foreign aid.” They still lag behind. Now Israel’s annual take in economic aid, military aid, loan guarantees and various other kinds of assistance has climbed to double the $3 billion figure.

Such omissions are to some extent understandable, since very few Americans, including America’s famed “investigative reporters,” seem to want to know what those additional amounts are, where they can be found in the U.S. budget, or what they actually total.

One person who felt he did know was the late George Ball, undersecretary of state in the Administrations of President John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and Johnson’s ambassador to the United Nations. Starting in the early 1980s, in speeches, articles and, eventually, in his book The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present, he declared that Israel was costing the U.S. $11 billion annually.

It seemed very high at the time. Yet apologists for Israel—of whom there is no shortage either in the American media or in the Washington “think tanks”—didn’t challenge the figure. Was it because they thought he was right? Or did they fear that contesting Ball’s claim would only focus public attention on Israel’s lion’s share of U.S. spending overseas? Or is the subject just too complex to be argued with the spins and soundbites that make up political dialogue in the 1990s?

I. How Much Is It?

The total amount of foreign aid to Israel, from 1949 to the present, is available from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) or, through a member of Congress, from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a department of the Library of Congress.

I was astonished to learn, after only an hour in the USAID library in Rosslyn, Virginia, that as of the end of 1995, Israel—with a population less than that of Hong Kong—had received $62.5 billion in foreign aid, almost exactly the amount received by all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa and of Latin America and the Caribbean combined.

Even more mind-boggling are the per capita outlays, based upon statistics from the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC. In mid-1986, the combined population of the sub-Saharan African countries was 568 million, and the per capita foreign aid over the preceding half century was $43. For Latin America and the Caribbean, a population of 486 million, the foreign aid total was $50 per person.

By contrast, Israel’s mid-1996 population was 5.8 million people. The take per Israeli for American foreign aid amounted to $10,775 by 1995.

A CRS brief1 is the source of the data in Table I [see pdf file]. The table shows the United States had provided the government of Israel and institutions in Israel a total of more than $68 billion in grants, loans and equipment by the end of Fiscal Year 1996.

The CRS brief reports that an additional minimum of $3.05 billion in foreign assistance grants will have been paid to Israel by Sept. 30, 1997, the final day of FY 1997, and another $3.08 billion will be turned over by the end of FY 1998. Because appropriated foreign aid funds for FY 1998 will be paid to Israel within 30 days of the beginning of the next fiscal year, as of Nov. 1, 1997, the U.S. will have provided $74.16 billion in foreign aid grants and loans to Israel since 1949.

And that amount does not account for U.S. loan guarantees for resettlement in Israel of Soviet Jews and for housing construction, $9.8 billion of which will have been made available to Israel as of the end of FY 1997.

Even the 74-plus billion dollars is only the total of foreign aid so far. In May, 1997, when the CRS tally was issued, there was still time for foreign aid items to be added to the FY 1997 budget and, if history is any precedent, there certainly will be additional foreign aid items added to the FY 1998 budget. These may or may not be significant.

What definitely is significant, however, is the large amount of additional U.S. taxpayer assistance that flows to Israel outside the foreign aid budget, and therefore doesn’t appear either in the USAID tallies or the CRS charts. “Goodies” for Israel, Israeli institutions, and Israeli individuals are tucked into the budgets of many U.S. agencies ranging from the Department of Commerce to the U.S. Information Agency, with the largest chunks appearing in the Pentagon budget.

Although some of the items above and beyond the foreign aid budget are mentioned in annual CRS narrative reports, they do not find their way into the CRS cumulative tables of foreign aid and therefore are extremely difficult to reconstruct for past years. Freelance writer Frank Collins and Shawn Twing, news editor for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, examined three fiscal years—1993 (Collins) and 1996 and 1997 (Twing). They uncovered $2.162 billion in “extras”—$1.271 billion in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996, and $525.8 million in FY 1997. The total represents an increase of 12.2 percent over the $9.297 billion noted in the CRS brief for the same three years.

There is no reason to think that these three fiscal years examined were atypical. There were many other items buried in past budgets of the Pentagon and of other U.S. government departments and agencies.

Assuming, therefore, that the actual totals of grants and loans to Israel exceed the totals in the CRS charts by an average of 12.2 percent, it appears that the real total of grants and loans (but not loan guarantees and not interest on the loans) is $74,157,600,000 plus 12.2 percent of that amount ($9,047,227,200) for a grand total of $83,204,827,200, or $14,346 per present day Israeli.

The true cost is even greater because of the many special features that distinguish U.S. aid to Israel from American aid to any other foreign aid recipients. These, too, have a significant effect on the total cost of Israel to U.S. taxpayers.

II. What’s Special About It?

Israel receives favorable treatment and special benefits that may not be available to other countries or that may establish precedents for other U.S. aid recipients. Israel’s supporters justify the unusual treatment accorded to Israel because of the special relationship between the United States and Israel and because of Israel’s unique economic and political status.—Congressional Research Service Issue Brief.2

Quotations about Israel from some U.S. government publications read almost like pleas from inside the federal bureaucracy for media attention to the obvious abuses in the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Dissecting the quotation above, the “favorable treatment and special benefits” Israel receives definitely are not “available to other countries,” no matter what services they provide to the United States, from basing rights for U.S. military forces to participation in political, military and economic alliances and treaties with the United States. And, fortunately for U.S. taxpayers, few of the privileges Israel receives have as yet established “precedents for other U.S. aid recipients.”

As for the ”special relationship” cited above, it is one where Israel has a very effective lobby in Washington that can make Congress do things desired by the Israeli government even when they are contrary to U.S. interests, or can only be carried out at great expense to the U.S. Treasury. An example is the power of the lobby to persuade members of Congress not to approve arms sales by U.S. companies to Middle Eastern countries unless even more sophisticated arms are then granted to Israel. Such acts often result in European countries getting contracts that otherwise would have provided jobs to thousands of Americans.

As for the other side of the special relationship, few U.S. presidents or secretaries of state have been willing to put pressure on Israel out of fear of domestic political consequences stirred up by Israel’s lobby and the national Jewish organizations that support it. As a result, U.S. taxpayer aid continues to flow to Israel although Israel has been reluctant to follow through on promises to replace its Eastern European style socialist system with a true market economy, trim its bloated bureaucracy, and privatize its inefficient state-owned enterprises. And Israel declines to make the land-for-peace agreements with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon that would help stabilize the entire Middle East and thus ensure continued access at stable prices to the 60 percent of the world’s petroleum and gas reserves by both industrialized and developing nations.

The special benefits Israel enjoys are not visible in the simple annual totals recorded in Table I [see pdf file], but they mean that a dollar appropriated to Israel costs the U.S. taxpayer more than a dollar appropriated to other countries because of bookkeeping tricks. The most visible of these is the early transfer of U.S. aid to Israel.

Other recipient countries receive their U.S. foreign aid in quarterly installments. However, in 1982 Israel asked that its Economic Support Funds (ESF) be transferred in one lump sum. Since then, Israel has received its ESF during the first 30 days of each fiscal year. This enables Israel to invest its current $1.2 billion in annual economic assistance in U.S. Treasury notes at prevailing interest rates, drawing its money from interest-bearing accounts as needed. Meanwhile, the U.S. is paying interest on the Treasury notes it has been forced to issue in order to come up early with all of Israel’s ESF.

Taking one year as an example, Israel earned about $86 million in U.S. Treasury note interest in 1991, according to USAID officials. Meanwhile, it costs the United States between $50 million and $60 million annually to borrow funds for the early, lump-sum payment.

The foreign aid appropriation bill signed on Nov. 5, 1990, provided that henceforth Israel also would receive its foreign military sales (FMS) aid in a lump sum during the first month of the fiscal year rather than in quarterly installments, thus duplicating the special benefit accorded earlier for economic aid. Since the current level of FMS is $1.8 billion, the economic benefits to Israel and added interest liabilities to the United States in connection with the lump sum payments now approach $150 million annually.

This arrangement for ESF funds since FY 1982 will have cost the U.S. some $850 million by Nov. 1, 1997. The arrangement for FMS funds since FY 1991 will have cost the U.S. about $800 million by Nov. 1, 1997. This brings the total cost of Israel to the U.S. taxpayer up to $84,854,827,200, or $14,630 per Israeli.

Other special benefits are more difficult to quantify, but they save Israel tens of millions of dollars by making the U.S. bear costs that normally are assumed by the recipients of U.S. aid. Here is a partial listing:

Cash flow financing. Israel is permitted to set aside foreign military sales (FMS) funds for current year payments only. Most other countries must set aside the amount needed to meet the full cost of multi-year purchases. Egypt and Turkey now also benefit from cash flow financing, a privilege not accorded to any other foreign aid recipients. This practice effectively commits the U.S. government to future aid to Israel, because Israel only has to make current-year payments on multi-year contracts.

ESF cash transfer. The U.S. provides all ESF funds directly to the Israeli government without asking Israel to account in advance for how the funds will be used. Some other aid recipients receive part of their ESF as cash transfers, but not under such flexible, unmonitored conditions.

Unique FMS funding arrangements. Other countries deal with the Department of Defense (DOD) for purchase of U.S. military items. Israel, however, deals directly with U.S. companies for 99 percent of its military purchases in the United States. Other countries have a $100,000 minimum purchase amount per contract. Israel is allowed to purchase military items for less than $100,000. According to a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report in May, 1990, Israel processed more than 15,000 orders for less than $50,000 in 1989, with no DOD review of the purchases as would be required in the case of purchases by other countries. Other countries have the U.S. government disburse funds to companies directly, but the Israeli Purchasing Mission in New York pays the companies and is reimbursed by the U.S. Treasury.

This unique FMS funding arrangement contains the potential for serious abuses by Israeli officials. For example, Israeli Gen. Rami Dotan is said to be serving a prison sentence in Israel under extraordinarily lax conditions, including full access to his private quarters in the prison by his family, after his conviction for embezzlement of U.S. military aid funds.

Whether these irregularities were to benefit Israeli intelligence agencies by laundering U.S. dollars for their use, or whether they were to benefit General Dotan personally, or both, cannot be determined because the Israeli government has barred access to him by U.S. GAO investigators. U.S. officials therefore cannot establish for certain who benefited from Dotan’s embezzlement, whether he is in fact in prison and, if so, under what degree of confinement.

A more recent example of the abuses that can result from such frequent access by Israeli military purchasing mission officials to U.S. defense plants was revealed in Detroit in 1997. There a U.S. Army civilian employee admitted, as the result of failing a lie detector test, that he had, in his words, “inadvertently” made classified data on American military tanks available to Israeli officials who worked in the plant over a period of 10 years.

FMS offsets. U.S. contractors selling military materials to Israel agree to offset some of the costs to Israel’s FMS account by buying components or materials from Israel. This is a common practice in normal commercial contracts but, in the words of the U.S. General Accounting Office, offsets on FMS sales are “unusual” because FMS is intended to sell U.S. goods and services to foreign countries.

Loans With Repayment Waived. Apologists for Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a loan from the U.S. government. In fact, however, Israel has not been required to repay its U.S. government loans, some of which are extended on the understanding that repayment will not be made. This was the case when, following the 1973 war, President Richard Nixon asked Congress for emergency aid for Israel, including “loans” for which repayment would be waived.

The Israeli government insisted that this aid be described as loans rather than grants to avoid having a U.S. military mission established in Israel to oversee a grant program. In the words of the CRS Issue Brief: “Technically, the assistance is called loans, but as a practical matter, the military aid is [given as] grants.”3

This special benefit amounts to having a U.S. military aid program without U.S. military personnel administering it. The same benefit applies to U.S. economic aid. In other countries receiving bilateral U.S. economic aid, there is an AID mission within the U.S. embassy that must approve in advance the manner in which the money is to be spent, and then audit the actual expenditures to detect abuses or deviations from the approved program. There is no such AID mission in Israel. Israel spends its economic aid as it pleases and can prevent the U.S. from learning when, where and how the money actually is spent.

III. Other Special Aspects

In Israel’s early years, private contributions from Jewish Americans and from U.S. Jewish organizations were a major source of support. They were so important that after Israeli military forces occupied Egyptian Sinai in 1956, and refused to heed U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s demands that they withdraw, he threatened to cut off the U.S. tax exemption that donations to Israel enjoyed. Faced with the threat, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion withdrew his forces.

At that time tax-exempt donations by Americans to Israel were about $40 million a year, and sales of State of Israel bonds (which are not tax exempt) in the U.S. were between $50 and $60 million annually. Fueled by the unique U.S. law that grants U.S. tax exemption to donations from the United States to any Israeli institution that is exempt from Israeli taxes, the total of tax-exempt U.S. donations to Israel now approaches $1 billion annually.

These generous congressional gestures to Israel are subject to massive abuses because the recipient institutions are outside the reach of U.S. law or oversight. A donor can claim a $1 million donation to an Israeli charity, and deduct this from his U.S. tax liability. But there is no way to prove the donation actually was for the amount claimed, if it went to the organization claimed, or even if it was made at all.

Suppose, for example, that the claimed Israeli recipient organization were prepared to testify that it had received the donation, but in fact there was a prior understanding that the $1 million would instead be donated to pro-Israel political action committees, whose role is to aid members of Congress who support aid to Israel. The potential for abuse is endless, as are the permutations in which such an unpoliceable tax benefit can be exploited to strengthen Israel’s domestic lobbying apparatus. Since all of the institutions involved are outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, there is no possibility of proving fraud, or punishing the perpetrators, including Americans who may be lending themselves to Machiavellian foreign intrigues, or simply cheating on their U.S. taxes.

In any case, if there were no cheating, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of this exemption for Israeli charities could be up to 38 percent of the estimated $1 billion in claimed donations. But this amount, which over two generations must amount to several billion dollars, cannot be quantified and is not factored into any numbers appearing in this article.

Other sweetheart arrangements for Israel include:

The Cranston Amendment

The Cranston Amendment, named after former Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA), a passionate supporter of Israel, first was added to foreign aid legislation in 1984. The amendment states that “it is the policy and intention” of the United States to provide Israel with economic assistance “not less than” the amount Israel owes to the United States in annual debt service payments, including principal and interest.

For Fiscal Year 1997, Israel received $1.2 billion in Economic Support Funds and owed the U.S. government $397 million in debt service.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Cranston Amendment is “a statement of U.S. policy and intent, and may not be binding.”4 Nevertheless, Congress has treated it as binding and, in fact, has renewed it in every foreign aid appropriation bill since its 1984 appearance.

Loan Guarantees

The Israeli government proposed in late 1990 that it borrow $10 billion from U.S. commercial institutions and that the U.S. government guarantee the loans against default. Such guarantees, of course, would greatly reduce the interest rate Israel would have to pay on the loans. Israel said it needed the money to finance infrastructure, housing, training, and jobs for one million Jewish immigrants expected to arrive in Israel from the Soviet Union between 1991 and 1995.

In April, 1991, however, Israel requested emergency compensation for damages it said it sustained during the Gulf War. In the ensuing negotiations, the Israeli government agreed to postpone its request for loan guarantees until September, 1991.

By that time, President George Bush had become alarmed by the reluctance of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to participate in the Madrid Conference, which the U.S. and Russia were convening to open direct peace negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbors. As a result, Bush asked Congress to delay consideration of the U.S. loan guarantees until January, 1992, because he feared granting them would jeopardize Secretary of State James Baker’s delicate negotiations at Madrid.

When Congress convened that January, Secretary Baker said the Administration would support the loan guarantees on condition that Israel freeze all Jewish settlement activities in the Occupied Territories. Subsequent negotiations reached no agreement and, largely as a result of the impasse with the Bush administration, Shamir’s Likud Party government fell and new Israeli elections were called.

In June, 1992, a Labor Party government headed by Gen. Yitzhak Rabin was formed. When Rabin visited the U.S. in July, Bush, facing a re-election campaign of his own, announced that the U.S. would provide the guarantees. His concession won him no pro-Israel support and no respite from press criticism, however. It was only after Bush lost the November election that Congress approved the loan guarantees in December, 1992, to take effect in Fiscal Year 1993.

In three-way negotiations involving Congress, the Administration and Israel it was agreed that the requested $10 billion in loan guarantees would be spread evenly over five fiscal years, that Israel would be allowed to complete Jewish housing projects underway in the Occupied Territories but not start new projects, and that each year’s $2 billion in guarantees would be reduced by an amount equal to Israeli government expenditures during the previous fiscal year on settlements in the Occupied Territories.

On Sept. 30, 1993, President Clinton notified Congress that the $2 billion in loan guarantees for FY 1994 would be reduced by $437 million, the amount the U.S. government calculated Israel had spent on Jewish settlements in 1993. These reductions continued over the five years the agreement was in effect, but President Clinton reinstated part of the reductions for “security reasons,” resulting in a total reduction for settlement activity of $1.3588 billion and a reinstatement of $585 million—for a net reduction of $773.8 million.

In addition to the loan guarantees for resettling Soviet refugees, the U.S. also provided Israel a total of $600 million in housing loan guarantees spread over eight fiscal years. The largest annual guarantee was $400 million in 1990, with $200 million having been provided between 1972 and 1980.

Israel’s Debt to the U.S. Government

Of the more than $70 billion the U.S. has provided Israel through FY 1996, some $55 billion has been in grants and $15 billion has been in loans. In 1987 Congress added to its foreign aid appropriations bill the “foreign military sales debt reform section” which permitted countries to refinance existing military debts to the United States carrying interest rates of more than 10 percent.

At that time Israel owed the U.S. government about $10 billion (having paid off the other $5 billion), of which $6 billion was in loans bearing interest rates of more than 10 percent. Israel refinanced about $5.5 billion in military loans by borrowing money from U.S. commercial institutions at interest rates below 10 percent, and paid off the U.S. government. The U.S. guaranteed up to 90 percent of these loans to Israel. As of Sept. 30, 1996, Israel owed the U.S. government $3 billion in direct economic and military loans, and the U.S. government was liable for another $11 billion in loan guarantees, including $7 billion in guarantees for settling Soviet Jews in Israel.

IV. Non-American Aid to Israel

The German-Israeli relationship is unique. It has been shaped by the memory of the Holocaust and the strong desire on the part of the German people to help ensure that the suffering endured by the Jewish people will never recur. Most Americans would be surprised to learn of the full extent of German-Israeli ties. In some fields, cooperation between Germany and Israel is as extensive as between Israel and the U.S.”—German-Israeli Relations, German Information Center, New York, NY, June, 1995.

USAID has documented aid to Israel by international organizations totaling $186.8 million, of which $106.5 million is from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), $64 million from the United Nations Development Program and $16.3 million from other U.N. agencies. There undoubtedly are significant bilateral aid programs from various industrialized countries as well.

The major non-American donor, however, is Germany, which has been providing financial aid to Israel in very large amounts since the Luxembourg Agreement of Sept. 10, 1952, not long after U.S. aid to Israel began.

Some of the early federal German payments also went to Jewish organizations throughout the world to aid them in resettling Jews who lived outside Israel. However, these and other German payments to Jewish individuals or organizations outside Israel are not considered in this article.

The Luxembourg Agreement was followed by the “Supplementary Federal Law for the Compensation of the Victims of National Socialist Persecution” of Oct. 1, 1953, which in turn was followed by the “Final Federal Compensation Law,” enacted on Sept. 14, 1965. This in turn was followed two years after German unification with the “Law on Compensation for Victims of National Socialism in the Regions Acceding to the Federal Republic,” enacted to supersede the compensation legislation of the German Democratic Republic.

German aid to Israel and persons living in Israel can be divided into three general categories: Restitution to Nazi victims, restitution for property confiscated by the Nazis that cannot be restored or returned, and all other categories outside the field of Holocaust restitution.

According to the German Information Center study quoted above, by June 1995 Germany had made $95.64 billion in restitution payments worldwide, “of which approximately $26 billion has gone to individual recipients in Israel or to the state of Israel itself.”5

In addition, since 1966 the Israeli government has received annual loans of DM 140 million (approximately U.S. $93.3 million) for a period of 30 years at two percent interest with a 10-year grace period to improve the infrastructure of Israel. By 1997 this amounted to $2.89 billion.

Germany also has contributed an annual $23.3 million to support research at Israeli universities which by 1997 amounted to some $363 million. The German-Israeli Foundation for Research and Development also makes available for science projects some U.S. $14 million annually. There are still other foundation programs and 47 partnerships between German and Israeli universities.

During and after the Gulf War, Germany provided the Israeli government with $167 million in immediate humanitarian aid and $41.3 million in military assistance. Germany also provided Israel with $110 million for Patriot anti-missile systems and $587 million for submarines, for a total of special German assistance to Israel during the Gulf War of $907.4 million.

Putting all these together it is safe to say that Israel and its citizens have received some $31 billion in German grants and preferred loans for a total of $5,345 per capita.

For comparative purposes, this approaches the $39.27 billion the U.S. has provided in grants and forgiven loans to Egypt which, after Israel, is America’s second largest foreign aid client by far.

The big difference, of course, is that Egypt, with a 1996 population of 63.7 million, according to the Population Reference Bureau, has received only a total of $616 per capita since U.S. aid began.

Perhaps equally astonishing is that Israel, which has received $14,692 per capita from the U.S. and $5,345 per capita from Germany for a combined total of $20,037 per capita, is not a poor country. In 1995 its per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.

All of these countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has ever tried to put together an ethnic bloc to lobby for U.S. foreign aid, which none of these countries has collected since the days of post-war reconstruction. Rather, all have proudly contributed funds and volunteers to economic development and emergency relief work in many less fortunate parts of the world.

V. The Lobby That Makes It Possible

According to a computer-aided analysis of 1986 Federal Election Reports, despite AIPAC’s claims of non-involvement in political spending, no fewer than 51 pro-Israel PACs—most of which draw money from Jewish donors and operate under obscure-sounding names—are operated by AIPAC officials or people who hold seats on AIPAC’s two major policymaking bodies. The study shows that 80 pro-Israel PACs spent more than $6.9 million during the 1986 campaigns, making them the nation’s biggest-giving narrow-issue interest group.—Staff reporter John Fialka, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1987.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof organization set up solely to coordinate the efforts of national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel, has 52 component groups. Of these probably only one, Americans for Peace Now, the U.S. sister organization of Peace Now in Israel, cannot be counted upon ultimately to support all the policies of “any democratically elected government of Israel.”

Acceptance of Americans for Peace Now into the Conference of Presidents set off an acrimonious debate which has not yet subsided. The group finally was admitted only after its principal director, Gail Pressberg, stepped down, at least for the time being. Pressberg was strongly identified with a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute based upon a “land-for-peace” settlement as proposed in U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of Nov. 22, 1967.

That resolution has had the unqualified support of every U.S. President from Lyndon Johnson through George Bush. Even President Bill Clinton, the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history, still pays it lip service. The fact that apparently the entire membership of the Conference of Presidents, with only one exception, supports all of the policies of any Israeli government, but regards with great reserve or outright hostility the basic Middle East policy of the United States and nearly all other members of the United Nations, demonstrates the Israel lobby’s power to ensure conformity within the organized American Jewish community.

There are also anti-Zionist organizations among American Jews. Two of them are the liberal American Council of Judaism, for many years identified with the late Rabbi Elmer Berger, who died in 1996, and the ultra-conservative Neturei Karta, an Orthodox sect within Judaism that believes a Jewish state can only be established by the Messiah and not by mortals. Unfortunately both are regarded within the Jewish community as fringe organizations—the former based upon “old-fashioned liberals” with little popular support, even on college campuses, and the latter one of the most extreme among Orthodox Jewish sects.

The power of the pro-Israel lobby is attested to by the fact that after fairly consistent support for the land-for-peace formula in Resolution 242 by six successive U.S. presidents, the support of the seventh, President Bill Clinton, clearly is eroding. The pull of the Israel lobby is stronger in the mind of this politically attuned president than that of either U.S. tradition or the consensus of the international community.

Examining the question of how this lobby has acquired such power also provides the answer to why Israel, though now among the world’s wealthy nations, manages to remain not only America’s number one aid recipient, but also the number one aid recipient in the world, rather than joining the ranks of the other industrialized countries that give, rather than receive, aid.

It is a footnote to the power of Israel’s American lobby that when Israel gives development aid, as it has in Africa, nearly all the money for such programs comes to it in the form of special appropriations from the U.S. Congress.

Although there is rivalry for members among the major American Jewish organizations, over the nearly half-century since the establishment of Israel, the largest of them have found their niches in the Zionist political spectrum. Hadassah, the Zionist women’s organization, organizes a steady traffic of American Jewish visitors to Israel. The American Jewish Committee mobilizes middle-of-the-road and conservative elements within the Jewish community to give unquestioning support to Israel and also publishes Commentary, a monthly magazine that has been around so long that probably few non-Jewish Americans even recognize it as the Israel lobby’s principal national publication.

The American Jewish Congress serves the same purpose among left-of-center Jews, who in turn are closer to the national Jewish mainstream. Its occasional questioning of Likud party policies gives it an aura of political independence, but since it keeps its reservations about Israeli policies within the pro-Israel community, it serves more as a safety valve than a dissent channel.

One of the best-funded components of the Israel Lobby, with a $34 million annual budget, is B’nai B’rith’s Anti Defamation League (ADL). It was established with the laudable goal of protecting the civil rights of American Jews against acts of public or private discrimination. In practice, however, the ADL has let itself become America’s best-funded hate group.

Two successive fund-raising letters during the tenure of Seymour Reich, who went on to become chairman of the Council of Presidents, used language about “Arab influences” on U.S. college campuses that was reminiscent of the hate speech of the Ku Klux Klan. More recently, after its Los Angeles and San Francisco offices were raided by the FBI, it was disclosed that an ADL operative had purchased stolen files compiled by the San Francisco police department that had been ordered destroyed. The same operative had supervised the infiltration of Arab American, anti-Apartheid, and peace and justice groups. The infiltration agents not only took notes on the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences, but recorded the license plate numbers of meeting attendees and then illegally coopted or bribed motor vehicle authorities or renegade police officials to identify the owners.

Under terms of a settlement with the San Francisco police, the ADL’s northern California office was required to respond to inquiries by persons who suspected that office of having compiled a file on them. Predictably, the files contained egregious errors of fact. This libelous material presumably had been collected to turn over to cooperative journalists, or possibly political, academic, or business rivals, to damage careers of critics of Israel and inhibit further activism. While the primary role of most major Jewish organizations is to recruit active supporters for Israel from within the American Jewish community, ADL’s major role seems to be to stifle dissenting criticism from within that same U.S. Jewish community, and from non-Jews as well, working as much as possible through the media.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Washington, D.C. is the best-known component of the Israel lobby, although the organizations named above also have registered lobbyists on their Washington staffs. AIPAC, backed by a budget said to be between $13 and $16 million, has five or six registered lobbyists at any given time among a staff of 145 to 160 persons.

However, the exact amount of money available to AIPAC, where it comes from, and how it is spent remain a mystery. In response to a legal suit brought by seven former U.S. government officials, including this writer, the Federal Election Commission has ruled that AIPAC is a “political committee” because its expenditures in cash and services on behalf of political candidates exceed the $2,000 per election cycle limit on individual contributions. But AIPAC has refused to comply with the financial disclosure rules imposed on such committees.

Nor, to date, has the FEC compelled AIPAC to comply. Instead the FEC initially ruled that since AIPAC’s work in support of individual candidates is only a limited portion of its activities, it need not comply with rules governing other political committees, such as political action committees, for which direct intervention in elections is a major function. In the spring of 1997 the FEC was ordered by an 8 to 2 decision of the federal Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to enforce its own rules on AIPAC. Since then the Clinton Administration’s Solicitor General has appealed the Court of Appeals decision to the Supreme Court. The case will be argued in the fall of 1997 and a decision is expected in the spring of 1998.

The absurdity of the initial FEC ruling was revealed in the appeals court decision, which noted that if only 10 percent of the activities of an organization with a $15 million budget were devoted to supporting individual candidates, the impact would be far greater than that of the majority of political committees that do have to register, many of which have total budgets of less than $100,000. The two dissenting votes on the court of appeals were not based upon the merits of the case, but upon the “standing” of the complainants to initiate the case against AIPAC.

AIPAC devotes so much of its activity to support of candidates for Congress that it has become known simply as “The Lobby” on Capitol Hill. This is a tribute not only to its seemingly unlimited financial resources, but also to its effective focus on a single issue, Israel. Most of all, AIPAC has acquired its reputation as the most formidable special interest lobby on the Hill by the remarkable manner in which it has organized itself to re-elect incumbent members of Congress who follow its voting recommendations, and to punish those who don’t by funding an electable opponent from the same party in the primaries and, if that is not successful, an electable opponent from the opposing party in the general election.

Although the vast majority of American Jews traditionally vote Democratic, AIPAC’s efforts are non-partisan. AIPAC’s rule is to support friendly incumbents, regardless of party. Theoretically, the rule applies even if the friendly incumbent is not Jewish and the challenger is.

This is done primarily through a network of political action committees, most of them originally established in the early 1980s in their home cities by members of AIPAC’s board of directors. These PACs are distinguished by such non-descriptive names as San Franciscans for Good Government, the Delaware Valley Good Government Association, Beaver PAC (in Wisconsin), Cactus PAC (Arizona), Mopac (Michigan) and even Icepac (New York).

Such non-descriptive names are virtually unknown among political action committees representing companies, industries, trade unions, professional associations, environmental groups, and other “ideological” PACs like those of the Israel lobby. That the camouflage of pro-Israel PACs is deliberate was revealed by the action of one PAC that originally was established as “Texans for a Sound Middle East Policy.” It quickly reregistered itself as TEXPAC.

By now, in cooperation with the National Association of Arab Americans, Common Cause, an investigative reporter on the Wall Street Journal and others, the American Educational Trust has identified 126 such pro-Israel PACs, all but a handful with non-descriptive names. I have listed them in an AET book, “Stealth PACs: Lobbying Congress for Control of Middle East Policy.” The book also documents exactly how much every candidate for Congress has accepted from pro-Israel PACs over the 20 years these PACs have been active.

While hiding their election activities from the general public, AIPAC chairmen and presidents have not hesitated to boast about them at closed AIPAC membership meetings. They have claimed full or partial “credit” for the defeats of Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairmen J. William Fulbright (D-AR) and Charles Percy (R-IL), Sen. Roger Jepsen (R-IA) and Representatives Paul Findley (R-IL) and Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey (R-CA).

The list is not long, but it is impressive to incumbent members of Congress who may have no real affection for Israel, but are not anxious to face well-funded rivals in future elections. Also impressive is the boast by AIPAC officials that for every dollar they put into political campaigns via PACs, they can put another virtually invisible dollar into the campaigns of supporters who do not want their AIPAC support known.

This is done by “bundling” the contributions of individuals by the PACs, who ask their members to make out personal checks directly to recommended candidates. These are delivered in a “bundle” by a lobbyist so that the candidate knows what special interest the support came from, while the candidate’s constituents and the FEC do not.

AIPAC claims it does not direct the pro-Israel PACs established by its directors because they are well informed enough to know what to do without such instructions. There is evidence to the contrary. The first is the closely-held “green book” that goes only to pro-Israel PAC officials and highly trusted AIPAC officers and donors. It lists which favored candidates face close elections, how much they have on hand at the start of an election cycle, and how much they need. Further, written evidence has turned up, presumably from AIPAC defectors, that AIPAC officials do contact PAC directors in the course of campaigns telling them which candidates are most in need and even suggesting how much named PACs are expected to give specifically named candidates. This written evidence was presented to the FEC in the legal case against AIPAC.

Average beneficiaries of AIPAC support are expected to do very little in return except not oppose foreign aid to Israel. They may be asked to sign an occasional “sense of the Congress” letter drafted by AIPAC, or to read an AIPAC-written speech into the Congressional Record or at the conventions of AIPAC or other organizations. The important work of earmarking aid for Israel, or bargaining for high tech weapons for Israel in return for congressional approval of weapons sales to Arab countries, is done by Congress members who are highly trusted friends of Israel. These members vie for leadership positions on congressional committees that deal with foreign relations, military affairs, appropriations, intelligence and other subjects of interest to Israel.

This leads to one anomaly in the normally tight control of pro-Israel PAC members’ donations. In some cases pro-Israel PACs donate on the record to incumbents who have toed the AIPAC line, but individual PAC members then write personal checks to Jewish challengers who are perceived to be potentially more valuable to the Israel lobby.

AIPAC conducts only three major activities not directly related to electing candidates who will follow its recommendations regarding aid to Israel and arms sales to Arab countries: (1) publishing a biweekly newsletter, the Near East Report, for AIPAC membership, which the organization claims has reached 60,000; (2) holding an annual AIPAC convention in Washington, DC at which many members of Congress and, in recent years, the president, vice president, or both, speak; (3) keeping “opposition research” files. AIPAC denied this latter activity for a long time, but such files are kept in a locked area under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of Princeton University “Orientalist” Bernard Lewis.

Presence of the files was revealed in an article in the Washington Report6 by Greg Slabodkin, a former AIPAC employee, who said he left the organization because he thought its release of materials from the files to collaborating journalists or to professional rivals to smear critics of Israel smacked of McCarthyism and the “guilt by association” practiced by the Red-baiting senator. Although Slabodkin named some of the journalists who collaborated in the AIPAC smear campaigns, the full workings of AIPAC and of ADL in this regard remain murky.

A rabbi in the Midwest once read to me a “rap sheet” of false information designed to discredit me prior to my appearing for a series of talks to religious groups in that area. The rabbi said he received the smear material from the National Jewish Community Relations Council Advisory Committee. Confronted with the charge, both the NJCRAC offices in Washington, DC and New York denied collecting such material. Since both AIPAC and ADL have been caught collecting it, it appears that they then use other Jewish organizations like NJCRAC to disseminate it or get it into the network of weekly Jewish community newspapers that cover the United States, and perhaps from there into the mainstream press.

In the 1980s a former AIPAC official, Martin Indyk,7 founded a “think tank,” the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, funded by members of the AIPAC board of directors and/or their spouses. Funding from AIPAC-affiliated individuals remains the only visible source of Washington Institute funding. Its publications do not stray far from the AIPAC line, which in turn is based closely on priorities of the incumbent Israeli government. Nor do Washington Institute seminars seem independent of Israeli foreign policy objectives, with even most of the participants and the invited audiences, aside from U.S. government officials, heavily weighted toward reliable supporters of current Israeli government interests.

Such conformity to Israeli government policies, even when they are not widely supported within the rank-and-file of the U.S. Jewish community, as increasingly is the case in the era of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, lends urgency to the case before the Supreme Court calling for the FEC to subject AIPAC to federal disclosure laws.

Such activities give credence to the possibility that some of the seemingly boundless funding available to AIPAC and, possibly, other national Jewish organizations, is recycled to support lobbying activities here after first flowing to Israel as direct U.S. aid or as tax-deductible donations by American Jews to Israeli institutions. AIPAC and other U.S. Jewish organizations deny this, claiming they operate with funds donated by American individuals or foundations.

If this is true in the case of AIPAC, it seems it would welcome the opportunity to verify its claims instead of spending large sums on lawyers to fight having to comply with financial disclosure laws. If there is validity to the saying that “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” the zealous adherence of AIPAC to whatever political line is being followed by successive Israeli governments cries out for U.S. government oversight.

VI. What Can Be Done About It?

Because Washington transfers its annual grant assistance to Israel in one lump sum, Israel essentially earns free money on top of free money.—Defense News, July 7-13, 1997.

It is true that each campaign spending reform gives rise to new abuses. Campaign reform measures in the late 1970s put a cap on the amounts of money members of Congress could earn over and above their congressional pay.

This at first seemed to clip the wings of AIPAC and other segments of the Israel lobby, which had rewarded good congressional conduct by inviting members of Congress to speak for large fees before Jewish audiences. If the member resisted, pleading lack of time to write a speech, AIPAC would draft the speech. If the member pleaded lack of time to deliver the speech, an AIPAC official or local Jewish leader would deliver the AIPAC-crafted speech on behalf of the member.

There may even have been times when a member of Congress received an honorarium for a speech that was never delivered before an audience that never convened, but which was entered into the Congressional Record anyway. Given the circumstances, it was very difficult for a member of Congress to avoid being coopted, regardless of his or her personal sentiments on U.S. aid to Israel or the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

Congressional curbs that were supposed to end all that instead gave rise to political action committees that only increased the power of AIPAC and other components of the Israel lobby. While most special interests had only one political action committee, and therefore could donate no more than $10,000 to the same candidate during an election cycle, AIPAC established dozens of PACs, and has kept at least 50 of them active in every election since then.

Thus the Israel lobby suddenly had the power to pump up to half a million dollars directly into the campaign coffers of any friendly member of Congress, or into the campaign of the opponent of an unfriendly member. One who has received more than half a million dollars is Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), who has taken $558,358 in contributions by pro-Israeli PACs over the years. Other major recipients include Senators Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), $418,806; Tom Daschle (D-SD), $396,130; Arlen Specter (R-PA), $312,823; Mitch McConnell (R-KY), $280,425; and Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CT), $297,263.

Obviously if the President won't take the first step to curb the power of the Israel lobby, as President George Bush tried to do in the 1991 fight over the loan guarantees for Israel, the only other way to end exorbitant U.S. aid to Israel is through Congress. But Congress can only be attacked in the context of overall corruption of the political system, of which it is only one significant piece of the puzzle. Therefore all attempts to curb the power of both hard and soft money in Congress will help to curb the power of the Israel lobby.

There are two possible reforms that stand out. The AIPAC-established PACs are dependent upon money raised, or ostensibly raised, from large and prosperous Jewish communities in the major metropolitan areas. The biggest pro-Israel PACs are situated in New York, New Jersey, California, Florida, Chicago, the Philadelphia area, and the national capital area. Without the money raised in such regions, pro-Israel PACs would have a great deal of trouble controlling elections in the rest of the United States.

Barring candidates for the Senate or House from raising any money outside the constituency they seek to represent might be unconstitutional. However, barring them from raising more than 10 percent of their campaign funds from outside their constituency probably would be permissible. That would be the single most effective blow against the Israel lobby, and most other special interest lobbies as well.

The second, more general reform that also would have a significant effect would be to bar campaign advertising from television. It is television advertising that drives the entire campaign system now, and its enormous expense is what has made money all-powerful and corruption all-pervasive in current American politics.

It is its well-honed ability to exploit this corrupt system that enables the Israel lobby to extort more and more aid for Israel from the U.S. Treasury. Until campaign finance abuses, particularly the two cited above, are curbed, there seems little hope of bringing the enormous annual U.S. taxpayer outlays to Israel under control.

VII. The True Cost to Taxpayers

The preceding material has covered only what the Israelis actually get in U.S. aid, and how they get it. But what Israelis actually have received from the United States is considerably less than what it has cost American taxpayers to provide it.

The principal difference arises from the fact that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar the U.S. gives to Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing. Is it possible to calculate accurately what it has cost the U.S. government in interest paid on the Treasury notes it has issued to raise this money?

Free-lance writer Frank Collins8 quantified this additional cost to U.S. taxpayers in an article in the Washington Report.9 I have updated that information in abridged form (Table II) [see pdf file]. In adding to the interest costs Collins calculated in 1992, I have applied a very conservative 5.0 percent interest rate after that date and confined the principal on which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.

Deducting total grants to Israel from the total of grants plus interest leaves nearly $50 billion that grants to Israel have cost U.S. taxpayers in interest since grant aid to Israel began in 1951. This greatly increases the cost to taxpayers of U.S. aid to Israel through FY 1998.

To summarize (Tables III and IV), by Nov. 1, 1997 Israelis will have received from U.S. taxpayers some $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities since the country’s establishment. Adding interest, the cost to the U.S. government to provide this assistance has been approximately $134.8 billion. In addition to the economic and military aid, Israel has received some $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions from American Jews.

No other country in the world has received anything approaching these raw numbers. In per capita terms, probably no other country has received more than $100 per citizen over the past 50 years. In the same period Israelis will have received nearly $15,000 per citizen from the U.S. alone, and more than $20,000 per citizen when German assistance is included.

The true cost of Israel also includes assistance to Egypt, a payoff from U.S. taxpayers for Egypt’s having made peace with Israel in 1979. According to the Congressional Research Service,10 U.S. aid to Egypt from FY 1979 through FY 1997 totaled more than $45.6 billion (compared to $4.2 billion for the preceding 26 years), averaging $2.2 billion per year.

After digesting those figures it will come as no surprise to readers to learn that in FY 1997, Israel cost U.S. taxpayers $3,675,800,000 in military and economic aid, $3,122,451,000 in interest, and more than $2.2 billion in aid to Egypt. That totals nearly $9 billion without considering the effects of $2 billion in loan guarantees, and about $1 billion in tax-exempt donations from U.S. citizens.

There are other factors to consider as well. These include lost American export markets because of Arab and Muslim anger over U.S. support of Israel; the upward pressure on world oil prices caused by Middle Eastern instability stemming largely from Israel’s refusal to enter into land-for-peace settlements with the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon, and the costs of having to station large U.S. air, naval and ground forces in the Mediterranean, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Arabian peninsula.

When these real-life pressures on the United States are added to the formal outlays to Israel by the U.S. government, it seems that George Ball, whom history has proved right in all of his other observations on world affairs, also was right concerning the devastating impact on U.S. taxpayers of the persistent pro-Israel tilt in American Middle East policies.

ENDNOTES

1. Israel: U.S. Foreign Assistance, a CRS Issue Brief, Clyde R. Mark, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division, Congressional Research Service, May 27, 1997.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. The dollar figures for German aid are taken from German-Israeli Relations, German Information Center, New York, NY, June, 1995, and are based upon the exchange rate at that time, approximately DM 1.50 to 1.00 U.S. dollar.

6. Gregory D. Slabodkin, “The Secret Section in Israel’s U.S. Lobby That Stifles American Debate,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. XI, No. 2 (July 1992), pps. 8-9, 89-91.

7. Martin Indyk left the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which he founded, to become White House National Security Adviser for the Near East and South Asia in the first Clinton Administration in 1993. Midway through Clinton’s first term he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to Israel. Early in his second term President Clinton announced his intention to appoint Ambassador Indyk as the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs.

8. Collins also edits and distributes by subscription the monthly American edition of Dr. Israel Shahak’s Translations from the Hebrew Press.

9. Frank Collins, “Borrowing Money for Israel: Annual Interest Alone Exceeds $3-Billion,” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. X, No. 6 (December 1991/January 1992), p 33.

10. Egypt-United States Relations, a CRS Issue Brief, Clyde R. Mark, July 3, 1997. Table I in that brief shows total aid through 1994 at $39,269,500,000. By telephone, Mr. Mark confirmed that aid for each of the FYs 1995, 1996 and 1997 would be at least $2.115 billion.

Anonymous said...

On the behalf of BWD ( bi womens douche ), I have long been offended to find no womens products at markets on Bond.

Anonymous said...

AIPAC devotes so much of its activity to support of candidates for Congress that it has become known simply as “The Lobby” on Capitol Hill. This is a tribute not only to its seemingly unlimited financial resources, but also to its effective focus on a single issue, Israel. Most of all, AIPAC has acquired its reputation as the most formidable special interest lobby on the Hill by the remarkable manner in which it has organized itself to re-elect incumbent members of Congress who follow its voting recommendations, and to punish those who don’t by funding an electable opponent from the same party in the primaries and, if that is not successful, an electable opponent from the opposing party in the general election.

*

Hey bitches, this is why your now stuck with Merkley and Wyden for fucking life.

Anonymous said...

It's a felony for children under 18 to not only receive one of these pictures on their phone, but taking a photo and sending it could lead to pornography production and distribution charges.

*

It's law enforcement that needs to beat off to this shit, the parents enable by giving their kids phones with cameras, kids will take pictures, and law enforcement will hangout on myspace looking for shit to wank, and then need to do a bust in order to justify spending all the time looking for porn.

Talking about a job.

"Wanted porn search, spend all your time looking for teen porn, pay high, benefits best pension available, requirements? Hairlip, white, and stupid. Send resume to Bend City Police"

welcome to Bend

Anonymous said...

Ebay has a sale of life size Palstinians you can fuck in all orifices.

Life is good in Bend

Bewert said...

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "FLASH--Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Petition":

I don't know the everything involved with this situation but I do know that after reading everything posted all of you sound rediculous!!! Any professional would not curse over and over again and many of you don't know how to spell. I'm sure if you ever got to know the company or the men involved you would realize that they care for every individual they worked with and for the community!!! They have helped many people in their life!! What they did may have not been smart or well thought out in the end!! Many of you just sound as stupid and dumb as you say Summit is!!!

Anonymous said...

Regarding 1031 Bankruptcy Petition posting, proper spelling is "ridiculous" not "rediculous".

Bewert said...

Yeah--the poster got it wrong so I left it in there when I copied it over.

Anonymous said...

That's hbm, he's the one that always spells ridiculous with an 'e', something about copy right fingerprinting.

MrBruce said...

I'm sure if you ever got to know the company or the men involved you would realize that they care for every individual they worked with and for the community!!

*

If your a christian you can do no wrong, even if you rob and plunder your community.

You can even rob your fellow christians and be forgiven, so say christ.

Yet, if ye be Jewish and rob the fellow Jew, and NOT the Goyim, then as Madoff ye shall for rot forever in a $20M condo.

No Christian bankers or Bend-1031 christians principals will ever spend a day in jail.

The good news as by the time Bend folds all the FDIC money will be Bend-Gone, and it will be highly unlikely that anybody gets anything back.

But you still all have your baby-jeebus, and the rapture is coming soon.

Anonymous said...

Any professional would not curse over and over again and many of you don't know how to spell.

###

We are renter losers, we are morons.

We are the product of the best and brightest con-artists of Bend, the product our parents being raised in penury has created us.

We never suggested we were 'professionals'.

Here's the good news, soon the majority of Bend will be moron losers, what a wonderful site. To be rid of the fucking 'beautiful people' of Bend, leaving by UHAUL by the hour.

I came to Bend in beat-up Pickup, and that's how I'll leave in class.

Anonymous said...

All's Well That Ends Well
Shakespeare homepage | All's Well That Ends Well | Act 1, Scene 2
Previous scene | Next scene
SCENE II. Paris. The KING's palace.

Flourish of cornets. Enter the KING of France, with letters, and divers Attendants
KING
The Florentines and Senoys are by the ears;
Have fought with equal fortune and continue
A braving war.
First Lord
So 'tis reported, sir.
KING
Nay, 'tis most credible; we here received it
A certainty, vouch'd from our cousin Austria,
With caution that the Florentine will move us
For speedy aid; wherein our dearest friend
Prejudicates the business and would seem
To have us make denial.
First Lord
His love and wisdom,
Approved so to your majesty, may plead
For amplest credence.
KING
He hath arm'd our answer,
And Florence is denied before he comes:
Yet, for our gentlemen that mean to see
The Tuscan service, freely have they leave
To stand on either part.
Second Lord
It well may serve
A nursery to our gentry, who are sick
For breathing and exploit.
KING
What's he comes here?
Enter BERTRAM, LAFEU, and PAROLLES

First Lord
It is the Count Rousillon, my good lord,
Young Bertram.
KING
Youth, thou bear'st thy father's face;
Frank nature, rather curious than in haste,
Hath well composed thee. Thy father's moral parts
Mayst thou inherit too! Welcome to Paris.
BERTRAM
My thanks and duty are your majesty's.
KING
I would I had that corporal soundness now,
As when thy father and myself in friendship
First tried our soldiership! He did look far
Into the service of the time and was
Discipled of the bravest: he lasted long;
But on us both did haggish age steal on
And wore us out of act. It much repairs me
To talk of your good father. In his youth
He had the wit which I can well observe
To-day in our young lords; but they may jest
Till their own scorn return to them unnoted
Ere they can hide their levity in honour;
So like a courtier, contempt nor bitterness
Were in his pride or sharpness; if they were,
His equal had awaked them, and his honour,
Clock to itself, knew the true minute when
Exception bid him speak, and at this time
His tongue obey'd his hand: who were below him
He used as creatures of another place
And bow'd his eminent top to their low ranks,
Making them proud of his humility,
In their poor praise he humbled. Such a man
Might be a copy to these younger times;
Which, follow'd well, would demonstrate them now
But goers backward.
BERTRAM
His good remembrance, sir,
Lies richer in your thoughts than on his tomb;
So in approof lives not his epitaph
As in your royal speech.
KING
Would I were with him! He would always say--
Methinks I hear him now; his plausive words
He scatter'd not in ears, but grafted them,
To grow there and to bear,--'Let me not live,'--
This his good melancholy oft began,
On the catastrophe and heel of pastime,
When it was out,--'Let me not live,' quoth he,
'After my flame lacks oil, to be the snuff
Of younger spirits, whose apprehensive senses
All but new things disdain; whose judgments are
Mere fathers of their garments; whose constancies
Expire before their fashions.' This he wish'd;
I after him do after him wish too,
Since I nor wax nor honey can bring home,
I quickly were dissolved from my hive,
To give some labourers room.
Second Lord
You are loved, sir:
They that least lend it you shall lack you first.
KING
I fill a place, I know't. How long is't, count,
Since the physician at your father's died?
He was much famed.
BERTRAM
Some six months since, my lord.
KING
If he were living, I would try him yet.
Lend me an arm; the rest have worn me out
With several applications; nature and sickness
Debate it at their leisure. Welcome, count;
My son's no dearer.
BERTRAM
Thank your majesty.
Exeunt. Flourish

Shakespeare homepage | All's Well That Ends Well | Act 1, Scene 2
Previous scene | Next scene

Anonymous said...

Christian-Zion Ministries (Neuman), Westside Church, Christian Home Schooling Network (Moss); we are the Bend community. Anybody that denigrates us should sued and imprisoned.

We'll stick together and make Bend a heaven on earth, until the rapture comes. Armageddon is near.

We are the Republican National Committee. We are the power of Bend and eastern Oregon, don't think we'll play dead with your vile & bile.

Anonymous said...


Why did Neuman-1031 give the all the client money to the RNC ?
Why did Moss give $2,000 to the 'AIPAC Good Government' fund? Why did McCain act like he didn't know Hagee?, the walking god of Team-Bend.

Hagee, AIPAC and the GOP

When John McCain hastily rejected the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee last week, he wanted America to believe that he didn’t really know Hagee very well. But the truth is that despite McCain’s profession of ignorance (hard enough to fathom given that Hagee is on television every day of the week and has written a couple of dozen books), the Republican Party has long made its bed with Hagee. Even as he has longed for the Rapture and Armageddon, the televangelist has long been close with many members of Congress and even penned a book in 2000, God’s Candidate for America. (I’ll give you a hint: that candidate was Hagee’s fellow Texan, who unlike McCain, was politically savvy enough not to shout it from the rooftop of the Governor’s mansion.)

MrBruce said...

Here's the full text, one of the best reports yet on where all the bend-bubble profits went, yes S-1031 just another profit during bend-bubble.

###

Hagee, AIPAC and the GOP

When John McCain hastily rejected the endorsement of televangelist John Hagee last week, he wanted America to believe that he didn’t really know Hagee very well. But the truth is that despite McCain’s profession of ignorance (hard enough to fathom given that Hagee is on television every day of the week and has written a couple of dozen books), the Republican Party has long made its bed with Hagee. Even as he has longed for the Rapture and Armageddon, the televangelist has long been close with many members of Congress and even penned a book in 2000, God’s Candidate for America. (I’ll give you a hint: that candidate was Hagee’s fellow Texan, who unlike McCain, was politically savvy enough not to shout it from the rooftop of the Governor’s mansion.)

Although McCain cleared himself, Hagee’s alliance with politicians and leaders of major Jewish organizations appears, for the moment at least, to have emerged with only minor bruising. For the uninitiated, it seems impossible to reconcile how a man who called the Holocaust part of God’s plan could continue to be taken seriously as a great ally of Israel. Or how his Christians United for Israel’s (CUFI) executive director, David Brog, who is Jewish and defends Hagee, spoke at this week's American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference (Hagee spoke to the 2007 conference). Or how Joe Lieberman, who found the Holocaust statement “unacceptable” and “hurtful,” will still go a speak at the CUFI Summit in July, rejecting calls by J Street, the new political organization advocating for negotiated peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, not to attend.

Hagee’s bizarre marriage of convenience with American and Israeli Jews would be impossible without his formidable evangelical following, which provides the shock troops his Jewish allies believe they lack. In terms of his political reach, Hagee is no James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, or Pat Robertson (although his friend, Rod Parsley, also a spurned McCain endorser, fancies his Center for Moral Clarity a successor to Falwell’s Moral Majority). But Hagee’s world, while it surely does not represent all of American evangelicalism, comprises a significant segment of the charismatic movement that outsiders too readily dismiss as too weird to be mainstream. They underestimate it as a cultural and political force at their peril.

At the center of Hagee’s (and Parsley’s) coercive hold on their followers is the Word of Faith, or prosperity gospel doctrine, a theology many of their fellow evangelicals deem heretical. They use it to convince their followers to “sow a seed” (tithe to them) promising them a “supernatural” harvest in return. The power of the Word of Faith movement lies in its authoritarianism: the pastor is God’s anointed, not to be questioned or criticized. The tithe is God’s money; hold it back and you’re stealing from God. Pay the tithe, Hagee tells his congregation, before you pay the rent, lest you live under a financial curse. Three former members of Hagee’s church told me they lived in fear of his commands. One told me that when the local San Antonio paper published an exposé of Hagee’s million-dollar salary, she refused to look at the evidence out of deference to him.

All that money, in addition to funding the televangelists’ salaries and luxuries like private jets, keeps their television programming on the air, further fueling their money-making apparatus. Current tax law relieves churches from the requirement of filing tax returns, thus the amount of tax-exempt money flowing in and out of these televangelism ministries is a well-kept secret. The Senate Finance Committee is investigating six other Word of Faith televangelists over questions about whether they diverted non-profit funds to a for-profit purpose. The mighty resistance of one of them, Hagee’s good friend and CUFI ally Kenneth Copeland, is a testament to his popularity and political clout.

McCain may have taken a campaign trail albatross off his neck, but Hagee’s and Parsley’s popularity and political alliances march on.

Anonymous said...

I thought we weren't going to talk anymore about McCain.

Bewert said...

Speaking of Summit, go to the recordings and search on one of the principals. Tennant's lawyers have been very busy, and are pulling in minor office and family as well in going after all their property and various LLC's. Damned impressive strategy.

They fucked with the wrong guy.

«Oldest ‹Older   601 – 664 of 664   Newer› Newest»