you should look at the LaRouche site for old & current exposes; the LaRouciacs have been a frequent target of the Wash.Times, which is distributed for nothing on Capitol Hill (it has always been run at a loss, funded by the Moonie syndicates).
> During a time when the activities of the KCIA were the subject of a US > congressional investigation - dubbed Koreagate - Phillips pointed out > that "within Washington councils, Bush was a powerful voice against > any unnecessary crackdown on the US activities of allied intelligence > services." > Late last year, Business Week reported Neil Bush's Ignite! Inc. - an > educational software company featuring what it calls "curriculum on > wheels," or COWs - received a million dollars from "a foundation > linked to the controversial Reverend Sun Myung Moon... for a COWs > research project in Washington-area schools." > > But perhaps the most tangible aspect of the close relationship between > the Bush family and Rev. Moon is the unbending support the Washington > Times has given to George W. Bush since he announced he was running > for the presidency. In recent years, the newspaper's editorial and > opinion pages have consistently supported the president's "war on > terror" and war in Iraq. > > "The Rev. Moon is a monster in the laboratory of conservative > politics; no one wants to think about him, yet in order to ensure his > continued support they must periodically feed his appetite for > tribute," John Gorenfeld, an investigative reporter and a long-time > chronicler of Moon's activities, told reporters. "One of Moon's > paybacks at Times-sponsored events is to have his picture taken and > rub shoulders with the politically powerful and well-connected." > > "Besides the gift of the support of the Washington Times, Bush and his > son have accepted large amounts of money from Moon's church," said > Gorenfeld, the author of a forthcoming book about the Rev. Moon and > U.S. politics. thus: I am still somewhat confuzed, both by the scattershot writing of AP, and the Euclidean proof. anyway, I found this "simpler" one than Euclid's, but I will slightly confound the matter by first showing, Analysis. The proof just given is conceptually even simpler than the original proof due to Euclid, since it does not use Eudoxus's mehtod of "reductio ad absurdum," proof by contradiction. And unlike most other proofs of the theorem, it does not require P.30 of _Elements_ (sometimes called "Euclid's Lemma") that states: if p is a prime and p|ab, then either p|a or p|b. Moreover, our proof is constructive, and it gives integers with an arbitrary number of prime factors. NB: he also mentions Goldbach's proof, using the coprimality of the Fermat numbers, and "Hermite's very simple proof concerning n! + 1!" I'm sure that other folks have not understood Eculid's proof, before this, but AP may be the longest-ever hold-out, or died trying to get into The Book (of world records and/ or Erdos .-) thus: Natsios's rebuff of Rice and Prendergast, was somewhat startling to those present who are involved in African policy. Rice and Prendergast, along with Anthony Lake-former National Security Advisor (1993-97)-were the hard core of the anti-Sudan Africa policy grouping which consistently misled President Clinton, until the very end of his two Administrations. In an Oct. 2 Washington Post guest column, Rice, Lake, and Rep. Donald Payne (D- N.J.) issued a bone-chilling demand for military action against Sudan, in the name of fighting genocide. Titled, "We Saved Europeans. Why Not Africans," the trio referred to the use of force to "save" Kosovo, and called for bombing, blockading Port Sudan, and other actions against Sudan. At immediate issue is the make-up of an international peacekeeping force in Sudan. What is referred to as a "hybrid UN-AU peacekeeping mission" has been proposed by Kofi Annan, after consultations with the UN Security Council and the African Union (AU). This "hybrid" idea is the latest UN proposal to Khartoum, after the vote in August of Security Council Resolution 1706, authorizing a UN peacekeeping force, that is intended to supercede the current African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS). As of late November, it was unclear what kind of UN deployment would be accepted by the government of Sudan, even if the chain of command is run by African military leaders at the top, since Khartoum in the past has rejected any deployment of troops with Chapter VII mandate. On Nov. 20, Natsios simply stated that Jan. 1 is his deadline for Sudan to agree to a UN plan, or else "Plan B"-which he did not specify-would be the recourse. Whether Natsios's more conciliatory tone represents a real shift in policy, or reflects the military limitations for a robust military deployment into Darfur, is also unclear. However one should not underestimate the desperation of Dick Cheney's controllers to start a new war in response to the monetary-financial meltdown now gathering speed. They may have already anticipated the rejection of the UN-AU hybrid force by the Sudan government, and are preparing for some type of Plan B military action against Sudan using the Darfur crisis, and/or the escalating conflict between Sudan and Chad, as the pretext. Darfur 'Mini-Summit' http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1998/rice_2546.html thus: uh yeah; Borat wants you in Sudan, why, Baby?... Harry Potter wants you in Iran -- yeah, Baby; shag'US with a spoon? --DARFURIA CONSISTS OF ARABs & nonARABs; NEWS-ITEM: we are marching to Darfuria, Darfuria, Darfuria! Harry Potter IIX, ?Ordeal @ Oxford//Sudan ^ Aircraft Carrier! http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3410caymans_hedges.html ALgoreTHEmovieFORpresident.COM: http://larouchepub.com/eirtoc/site_packages/2007/al_gore.html -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
