----- Original Message ----- From: Useful Idiot To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 11:44 PM Subject: [apfn-1] -<List of Mossad agents in CIA +U.S.Soc.Sec. $ to Illegal Mexicans+They Made a Killing>-
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a2608.htm#005 The Mossad in the CIA January 3, 2007 by Nicole Bagley It might be of public interest to know that a significant number of Israeli Mossad agents are now working in the United States as employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. These agents, some of whom are listed below, are initially paid by the Israeli Embassy in Washington but Israel then bills the U.S. Govt. for the salaries and is reimbursed in full on a monthly basis. Here is a partial listing of identified Mossad agents (as of 1 Jan, 2007) along with their dates of birth and salaries. They do not have American Social Security numbers and do not pay American taxes. Gadi Regev 12/17/1975 $63,000 per annum Betzalel Yanay 9/4/1978 $75,000 " Eyal Artzel 5/27/1977 $ 87,000 " Sharon Rotem 8/12/1977 $ 75,000 " David Susi 1/9/1975 $90,000 " Dana Sasson 8/10/1980 $70,000 " Morin Biton 7/14/1980 $ 63,000 " Gilad Lifschitz 9/17/1978 $87,000 " Maya Maimon 12/26/1978 $65,000 " Marco Fernandez 4/13/1977 $54,000 " Keren Touyz 8/20/1978 $75,000 " Nofar Bahidi 21/2/79 $53,000 " Michal Gal 8/10/1979 $92,000 " Ophir Baer 11/11/1956 $102,000 " Dilka Borenstein 3/15/1979 $ 67,000 " Michael Calmanovic 9/6/75 $102,000 " Most of these U.S.-subsidized spies live in Potomac, McLean, Georgetown and Arlington. I have their addresses and these will be published in a follow-up article. These are Israeli citizens but many of the middle level CIA officials are American-born Jews and not included in this list but we do know who they are. All of them, without exception, work for Israel and Israeli interests, not American interests and more than a few are known to be friendly with a number of the so-called Neocons, a significant number of whom are also Israeli citizens. =========== http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061229/pl_usnw/social_security_agreement_with_mexico_released_after31_2_year_freedom_of_information_act_battle http://www.SeniorsLeague.org Social Security Agreement With Mexico Released After 3 1/2 Year Freedom of Information Act Battle Fri Dec 29, 4:50 PM ET Contact: Brad Phillips, +1-202-776-0640, for TREA Senior Citizens League WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ - - After numerous refusals over three and a half years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has released the first known public copy of the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement. The government was forced to make the disclosure in response to lawsuits filed under the Freedom of Information Act by TREA Senior Citizens League, a 1.2 million-member nonpartisan seniors advocacy group. The Totalization Agreement could allow Milns.illegal Mexican workers to draw Billions of Dollars from the U.S. Social Security Trust Fund. The agreement between the U.S. and Mexico was signed in June 2004, and is awaiting President Bush's signature. Once President Bush approves the agreement, which would be done without Congressional vote, either House of Congress would have 60 days to disapprove the agreement by voting to reject it. "The Social Security Administration itself warns that Social Security is within decades of bankruptcy -- yet, they seem to have no problem making agreements that hasten its demise," said Ralph McCutchen, Chairman of the TREA Senior Citizens League. The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S. For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage. But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America's non- government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest. "I applaud the persistent efforts of TREA Senior Citizens League to try to get documents from the U.S. Government about the U.S.-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement," said Rep. Walter Jones (news, bio, voting record) (R-N.C.). "The American people are finally beginning to get some of the info. regarding this Agreement that they have been seeking for so long." According to the SSA, the Social Security Trust Fund will begin paying out more than it is taking in by 2017, and will be exhausted by the year 2040. With 1.2 million members, TREA Senior Citizens League is one of the nation's largest nonpartisan seniors groups. Visit http://www.SeniorsLeague.org for more information or to see the Totalization Agreement documents. SOURCE TREA Senior Citizens League =================== http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1983863,00.html They have made a Killing The US has spent a Million Dollars for every dead Iraqi - - is that what they mean by value for money? by Terry Jones http://www.terry-jones.net Saturday January 6, 2007 The Guardian Early this year the Bush administration is to ask Congress to approve an additional $100bn for the onerous task of making life intolerable for the Iraqis. This will bring the total spent on the White House's current obsession with war to almost $500bn - enough to have given every US citizen $1,600 each. I wonder which the voters would have gone for if given the choice: shall we (a) give every American $1,600 or (b) spend the money on bombing a country in the Middle East that doesn't use lavatory paper? Of course, there's another thing that George Bush could have done with the money: he could have given every Iraqi $18,700. I imagine that would have reduced the threat of international terrorism somewhat. Call me old-fashioned, but I can't help thinking that giving someone $18,700 brings them round to your side more quickly than bombing the hell out of them. They could certainly buy a lot of lavatory paper with it. In 2002 the house budget committee and the congressional budget office both guesstimated the cost of invading Iraq at approximately $50bn; $500bn seems a bit wide of the mark. What's more, with over half a million dead, it means that the world's greatest military superpower has spent a million dollars for every Iraqi killed. That can't be value for money! So how on earth could such a vast overspend occur? After all, the US is the flagship of monetary common sense. Well, for starters, in 2003 the White House - Refused to allow competitive bidding for contracts in Iraq, which is odd for the champions of free enterprise. Then the White House ensured there would be no overseeing of what was spent. In the original Iraq spending bill, which earmarked the first $87bn to go down the drain, there was a provision for the general accounting office to keep a check on things, but that provision was stripped from the bill - even though the Senate had originally voted for it 97 to 0. But what I want to know is: how do they actually spend all that money? Well the answer is: they don't. According to the website Halliburtonwatch, the Halliburton subsidiary KBR bills the US taxpayer for $50-$80 per day for labourers working for it in Iraq, but pays them only $5-$16 per day. It's the same with Halliburton. In December 2003 the US army discovered that the company had overcharged by $61m for fuel transportation and $67m for food services in Iraq. Then there is good old-fashioned incompetence. Take the al-Fatah pipeline: KBR went through $75.7m of taxpayers' money, supposedly trying to replace a pipeline across the river Tigris that US forces had blown up. They never finished the job, but still got paid. With all this double-dealing and incompetence, you'd expect that those responsible would have been penalised by now. But that's where the mystery deepens. Companies such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries have never had it so good. In January 2006 the Bush administration intervened in a dispute between the Pentagon and Halliburton, and agreed to pay the company $199m in disputed charges. On January 26 2006 Halliburton announced that its 2005 profits were the "best in our 86-year history". And to date KBR has received around $16bn from its contracts in Iraq. Vice-President Dick Cheney, formerly CEO of Halliburton, has not had a bad war either. His tax returns for 2005 show that he earned $194,862 from his Halliburton stock options alone. Mind you, it's small change compared to his $36m payoff when he left the firm. Was that for his past role, or was Halliburton anticipating further services from the future vice-president of the US? Perhaps it's just as well that in 2003 the White House removed from the Iraq spending bill any provision to penalise war profiteers who defrauded US taxpayers. ยท Terry Jones is a film director, actor and Python http://www.terry-jones.net =================== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
