Thursday, August 18, 2005
China and Russia kick off first joint military exercises
Story It's here. Remember the exercise that analysts think is a dress rehearsal for an invasion of Taiwan (or Japan too if you really want to get down to it)? As we speak, Russia, or "friend" is helping China improve its military. China has shown itself to be hostile toward its neighbors. Why does the major media ignore the significance of this event? "Russia and China began unprecedented joint military exercises involving air, sea and land forces Thursday, as commanders from both nations insisted the war games weren't meant to intimidate other countries. [yeah.. . tell that to Japan and Taiwan]" [ comment added] Repeat question to Congress, Mr. President, MSM: Why do we ignore the rising Chinese Dragon and fail to see it for the military threat that it is? We are making its new military power possible with preferential trade treatment. Of course, if you don't care about the Able Danger scandal, why care about this, right? I have already briefly discussed this topic in the past: --------- China, Russia plan joint military exercise--------- Russian to Participate in Chinese Rehearsal for Taiwan Invasion--------- China and Russia to Engage in Joint Military Exercise
_____________________________________________
Friday, August 12, 2005
"Able Danger" -- DOD identified Mohammed Atta's Cell before 9/11
I don't have time to write anything at this time, but since this tort against the American people is an important topic, please read the following links: --------- You want treason?--------- Yikes--------- A Guide To Able Danger Posts At CQI'll post more later. This is just to get you started. I don't know about you, but I'd like to see some DoD lawyers arrested (the same way you or I would be arrested for manslaughter if we accidentally ran over a pedestrian).
_____________________________________________
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Would You be Shot and Killed as a Terrorist?
Story"The International Association of Chiefs of Police [whoever they are] . . . produced a training guide for dealing with suicide bombers for its 20,000 members . . . [T]he guidelines recommend that if an officer needs to use lethal force to stop someone who fits a certain behavioral profile, the officer should ''aim for the head'' to kill the person instantly and prevent the setting off of a bomb . . . [according the Association's behavioral profile] a suicide bombing suspect might exhibit ''multiple anomalies,'' including wearing a heavy coat or jacket in warm weather or carrying a briefcase, duffle bag or backpack with protrusions or visible wires . . . suspects may display such characteristics as nervousness, an unwillingness to make eye contact, excessive sweating, or mumbling prayers or ''pacing back and forth in front of a venue . . . guidelines say an officer does not have to wait until a suspected bomber makes a move in order to use deadly force, but just needs to have a ''reasonable basis'' to believe that the suspect can detonate a bomb." Well, that's just great. Tell me, what counts as a "heavy coat or jacket" and what counts as "warm weather"? "Warm" for people from Florida starts at a much higher temperature than it does from people from Northern states. A person from Florida vacationing in New York might wear a coat in 60-degree weather. Do Floridian vacationers now have to worry about being shot in the head without warning? I wear what looks like a heavy jacket whenever it rains in summer. Do I have to worry about being shot in the head now? If so, I want the overzealous enforcer who shoots me to be sent to the electric chair. Often I carry my briefcase with me while wearing a heavy -- looking (it's actually quite comfortable) jacket when it rains in summer. I am a writer, copyeditor, and proofreader. Carrying around a briefcase is not unusual behavior for me. If I leave somewhere in a hurry and don't get my power cord all the way back into my briefcase, I have to worry about being shot now? I don't like making eye contact with people; I consider it to be a bit rude, and uncomfortable for me. And living in a very warm part of the country, I sweat profusely whenever I am not in an air-conditioned building (this is whether or not I am wearing a coat). Before, sweating a lot was just annoying. Now I have to worry about getting shot? And what counts as "pacing back and forth in front of a venue"? I like to pace around when I'm on the phone. If I receive a call in front of a movie theatre, I now have to worry about being shot for unconsciously pacing while I am talking on the phone? This is unacceptable. Do you remember the British police shooting that fleeing suspect a few weeks ago. It is tragic that they shot him, but he was fleeing from police. What these guidelines do is a little different. You see, you don't have to run from police, or otherwise refuse to cooperate with them. The police don't even have to let you know that they are watching you. If they think that you fit the profile, they get to shoot you. Isn't that comforting? I have a question though . . . this news article doesn't say anything about this "International Association of Chiefs of Police". Who are they? I have no idea who they are, and I have no idea how their guidelines could apply to individual jurisdictions without the local governments approving it. But the very fact that these guidelines are being seriously contemplated is disturbing. In dangerous times, it is perhaps justified to allow police to use excessive force when a suspected terrorist resists police. But allowing police to shoot people without warning most certainly crosses a line. If these guidelines take effect in US police departments, every US citizen will have an action in tort against every police officer that stares at them. This is because in tort, assault is simply putting someone in reasonable fear of bodily harm. With such loose guidelines and the ability to shoot people just on suspicion, every police officer will be committing assault just by doing their job. Is this the kind of environment we want to create? The police are supposed to protect us form terrorists. They are not supposed to be the terrorists. In my opinion, these guidelines would be just as bad for police as it would be for us since their public image as being trustworthy will be effectively compromised. How can the police be effective when the public doesn't trust them?
_____________________________________________
Saturday, August 06, 2005
Was it Necessary for us to Drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima?
So, the more I read about the circumstances surrounding the war with Japan and the Hiroshima, the more problems I have with some of the things we've been told. Like, for example, that dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was necessary to win the war. It turns out that it wasn't, in fact, necessary. "President Dwight Eisenhower . . . had reservations. In a 1963 interview with Newsweek magazine, he said: 'The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing.'" It is simply not true that the Japanese were unwilling to surrender before the bomb was dropped. "The Japanese had sued for surrender several times during the year before Hiroshima. The Japanese asked for only one condition -- that the Emperor be allowed to remain in place. The U.S. refused because FDR had coined the ridiculous phrase 'unconditional surrender' and was determined to stick to it. When the Japanese eventually surrendered without condition, the U.S. allowed the Emperor to remain in place anyway. Almost every leading U.S. general and admiral was appalled by Truman's dropping of the atomic bomb -- especially on two cities with no military significance whatsoever." --------- 'My God, what have we done?' -- the commander of the 'Enola Gay'--------- The Myths of World War II--------- Hiroshima: Who Disagreed with the Atomic Bombing* * * The bombing: "Thousands of people were instantly carbonised in a blast that was thousands of times hotter than the sun's surface; further from the epicentre, birds ignited in mid-flight, eyeballs popped and internal organs were sucked from bodies of victims. By the end of the day an estimated 160,000 were dead or injured and the bomb's "ghosts" walked the city -- thousands of initial survivors who would die within days, often with the word mizu -- water -- on their lips. Many more subsequently died -- and are still dying -- from various cancers."
_____________________________________________
More on the Deep, Dark Secrets of CAFTA
Story"At 2,400 pages, the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) isn't really about trade. Frankly, you don't need 2,400 pages to eliminate tariffs and regulations on exports and imports. But, you might need 2,400 pages to smuggle through a new set of transnational corporate rights disguised by complicated legalese . . . Any naive Congressperson who thinks CAFTA is merely about free trade should look carefully at its provisions on government contracts and corporate lawsuits . . . For any purchases over $117,000 (eventually to be lowered to $58,000), CAFTA forces governments to open up bidding to transnational corporations. That means that states will not longer be able to give preference to home-based businesses, and so mom and pop stores in Central America and the U.S. will suddenly be competing with the Bechtels and the Halliburtons of the world . . . Perhaps CAFTA's most worrisome provision expands the rights that corporations got under NAFTA to sue national governments over any laws perceived as barriers to trade and foreign investment. For instance, when California banned a carcinogenic gasoline additive called MTBE because it was seeping into the state's drinking water, the chemical manufacturer, Methanex, sued California for infringing on its trade rights under NAFTA and demanded $970 million in compensation." Well, that's just great. Thank you, congress-critters; and thank you, el presidente, for making this all possible. The good news is that current jurisprudence, upheld by the Supreme Court, still gives the individual states plenty of leeway when it comes to legitimate police powers (like laws specifically to protect the public health). But We the People, I fear, need to take the initiative to start enforcing sovereignty from the local level. This means using public trespassing laws to round up immigrants, this means fining corporations that attempt to evade laws meant to protect the people. Our national government will not listen to us. We're going to need to start fixing things at the local level first if we want to make any progress.
_____________________________________________
Man Who Commits Sexual Assault on Child Doesn't Have to Register as a Sex Offender
Story"Wayne Rowe [a former Sheriff's Department patrol lieutenant] was arrested, charged, and indicted for sexual assault of a child, but that's not the charge he plead to. Instead, Rowe plead no contest to injury to a child. The new charge means Rowe does not have to register as a sex offender for having sex with a 13-year-old girl." This makes me want to round up every judge, law-maker, prosecutor, and enforcement officer in this country and punish them. If you are in possession of a pornographic video at age 17, you have to register as a sex offender. If you touch a young girl while you are lecturing her because she misbehaved and put people in danger, you have to register as a sex offender. If a certain Florida FBI agent thinks you are a child pornographer, the fascist tyrant will see to it that you go to federal prison and have to register as a sex offender even though he later found out that you were not, in fact a child pornographer. However, if you actually engage in sexual assault on a young girl, you don't have to register as a sex offender. There is something wrong here. The system is broken. It is more and more catching innocent people who have harmed no one. The system is ruining their lives for nothing. It is not even catching the real criminals. The real criminals are the lawmakers who make the system like it is. The law is supposed to protect us from predators. Predators are criminals by definition. When the law harms us (preys upon us), it is the law that is criminal. We the People have to put a stop to this evil pervading our institutions. Something is rotten in the state of the union. --------- This is why I am opposed to public registration of so-called "sex offenders"
_____________________________________________
The FairTax: A Rebuttal
As you all know, I support the FairTax. This does not mean that I am not sensitive to well-thought-out criticism of the proposal. And there is always the danger that the politicians will institute a national retail sales-tax without repealing the current tax code. As the weeks go on, I suspect I will discuss this in more detail. But for now, please read Leaving Babylon's critique of the FairTax. He raises some very valid points that are worth considering.
_____________________________________________
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
China and Russia to Engage in Joint Military Exercise
Story It's coming up. Remember the exercise that analysts think is a dress rehearsal for an invasion of Taiwan (or Japan too if you really want to get down to it)? "Chinese state media said yesterday the "Peace Mission 2005" exercises would be held from August 18-25 in and around the Russian far eastern port of Vladivostok and the Chinese coastal province of Shandong . . . [T]he exercises . . . will involve land, air, naval, paratroop and marine forces . . . Russia is now China's leading source of high-technology weaponry . . . about 1,800 troops from Russia would take part in the exercises along with vessels of its Pacific fleet and 17 long-range military cargo planes. 'The joint exercises will also help strengthen the capability of the two armed forces in jointly striking international terrorism, extremism and separatism,' . . . reference to separatism will heighten concerns about the exercises in Taiwan, which enjoys de facto independence from China but which Beijing claims as part of its territory. Chinese and Russian officials have insisted the drills are not aimed at any third party." Question to Congress, Mr. President, MSM: Why do we ignore the rising Chinese Dragon and fail to see it for the military threat that it is? We are making it's new military power possible with preferential trade treatment? I have already briefly discussed this topic in the past: --------- China, Russia plan joint military exercise--------- Russian to Participate in Chinese Rehearsal for Taiwan Invasion
_____________________________________________
Unites States Senator Opposes UN Control of Internet
Story"Senator Norm Coleman today submitted a statement into the Congressional Record denouncing a final report issued by the United Nations' Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) suggesting that the U.N. assume global governance of the Internet. Since its inception and creation in the United States, the U.S. has assumed the historic role of overseeing the Internet's growth and has overseen its development. The U.N. taskforce report suggests that in addition to terminating the U.S.'s leadership role, the authority and functions of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), a non-profit organization overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce, should be transferred as well. Senator Coleman strongly opposes these measures." Apparently this senator is new. Or newer than other senators, anyway, because he has not yet learned that it is the official policy of the United States Senate to sell the American People down the river. Keep up the good work, Norm. Despite setbacks in free political speech on the internet (see new applications of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance law to blogs), the U.S. still has the best protections on free speech in the world. China locks up people who say things against their government. In England and France, criminal penalties can attach if you say something that is deemed too hateful (whether or not it's the truth). We do not need these people controlling the internet. Especially since we're the ones who built the thing to begin with. We need our government to stand up and refuse to capitulate to other countries when they demand control of our stuff.
_____________________________________________
Viable Alternative Energy: Solar Energy Production Satellite (SEPS)
Republished from 28 December 2004, edited 03 August 2005 We need viable alternative energy sources. It is vital to our national security, to our economy, and to our day-to-day comfort that we have such energy sources at our disposal given the increasing precariousness of the oil supply. The best proposal I have heard is for a Solar Energy Production Satellite (SEPS). As you may or may not be aware, a nuclear power plant is nothing more than a steam engine driven dynamo using nuclear fuel rods to heat water and create steam. In short, steam engines drive our most advanced naval vessels. Our standard coal burning plants generate electricity the same way. If we could somehow use solar energy to generate steam, we would basically have free, non-polluting, energy production. Well, it is possible to get enough solar energy to do this -- put it in orbit. We currently have the technology to put a standard-type power-plant satellite in geo-synchronous orbit. Such an energy production satellite would always be in the sun and thus could make use of solar energy to produce electricity 24/7. We have the technology to also transmit the energy a SEPS would produce to a receiver on the earth below in the form of microwaves. SEPS would deploy a large concave mylar "sail" to focus solar rays onto a small area of the satellite. The solar energy would boil a contained liquid shunted by one-way valves through a generator and onto the cold side of the satellite. There the gas would be chilled back into liquid and shunted through a second generator as it returns to the boiler chamber. Between the two generators a large amount of electricity could be produced, and translated into microwaves which would then be transmitted, via a broad-beam, down to the receiving station on the earth. The receiving station antenna would be about 100 meters square (to ameliorate the power of the microwave to anything flying through it, though the airspace would be restricted). The receiving station would then convert the microwaves back into electricity and send it out over the grid. After the initial costs of implementing the plan (I think it is estimated to be in the low billions, as high as 40 billion), we would have very cheap and non-polluting energy -- energy that is produced by an advanced application of technology that we have used for a century. Once proven, the SEPS electrical system might be duplicated many times, and supply electrical power to much of the world. Besides the initial cost, the major criticism of the SEPS is its use of mylar as a solar collector/focuser. Mylar is very thin and light. Several square kilometers of the material can be launched into orbit very cheaply (on the scale of materials we might transport into space). The argument is that it can easily be punctured by space debris. This is true, however, a sail of several square kilometers would have to suffer a great amount of damage before its solar-collection capacity is impaired (at least, that's what the experts say). At any point that the sail actually does require repair, the mylar has very low mass -- the cost would be minimal when compared to, say, a Hubble repair mission. Also, we are starting to see aircraft that can push into outer space. It is likely that by the time a SEPS would need repairing, space flight might be much more economical. * * *Subject Matter: Alternative Energy Science Space Exploration
_____________________________________________
The Tyrants of Beijing will not acquire Unocal
Story"Chinese energy company CNOOC Ltd. today pulled out of the running for Unocal Corp. after its $18.5-billion bid for the California oil company triggered a U.S. political backlash against China . . . CNOOC, whose parent is government-controlled China National Offshore Oil Corp., withdrew its offer one day after an influential shareholder advisory firm backed Chevron's proposal. Though CNOOC offered to pay $1 billion more than Chevron, Institutional Shareholder Services said the Chinese offer wasn't high enough to offset the political uncertainties surrounding its proposal." This is a good thing. The United States is dependent on oil for energy. If the oil flow stops, our economy is dead. We cannot let a potentially hostile foreign power control our energy supply. Need I remind you that China is a tyrannical dictatorship with no respect for human rights and with imperialist designs on Taiwan, and some Japanese territory? On a related matter, we need to develop domestic oil fields. Now. Not ten years from now -- now. At the same time, we need to divert tax funding to alternative energy research and implementation. I still like the idea of a Solar Energy Production Satellite.
_____________________________________________
A Big Welcome to Anti-UN Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton
StoryBolton is known for actually saying that North Korea is a dictatorship. He also is a staunch opponent of the UN, once saying that "it wouldn't make a 'bit of difference' if the top 10 floors of the United Nations -- which include the secretary-general's office -- vanished from the 39-story headquarters building." Just the man we need to put the UN in its place. (The UN doesn't think that North Korea is a dictatorship . . . or China, for that matter -- at least, not dictatorships that harm their citizens). Predictably, the Democrats hate Bolton and refused to confirm his nomination. So Bush, in response, used his Constitutional power to make a recess appointment. The Democrats are livid. I am thrilled. I like it when the President actually does something that is good for the U.S. instead of selling us out.
_____________________________________________
Bush Wants Intelligent Design Taught Along Side Evolution in Schools
Story"President Bush said Monday that he thinks schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about creation . . . The theory of intelligent design says life on Earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation." In case you didn't know, the theory of evolution claims that all life on the earth evolved from organic mineral compounds. All of the criticism of Bush's support of intelligent design seems to be in the form of 'evolution is a scientific theory and intelligent design isn't'. Evolution might be scientific theory, as they say, but it is an incredibly weak one considering that there is no example out there (that I know of) of one species actually becoming another species. Mutated fruit flies are still fruit flies. Natural selection is a scientific fact. Evolution is something else altogether. The term science means "the state of knowing," or, "knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific (logical) method." The term scientific, in turn, means "of a syllogism, a proof; producing knowledge, demonstrative." In other words, to be science, something has to have predictive value. Evolution does not have predictive value like, for example, the theory of gravity. I would argue that evolution is a hypothesis at best because it has yet to be adequately tested. I don't really understand how it can count as an actual theory -- unless outside the fields of logic and physics, the standards of what can be considered "scientific" are much lower. I would welcome an actual biologist to comment on how evolution qualifies as a theory rather than a hypothesis. And, if you don't mind, we are not scientist here, so please keep your explanation under 250 words. And, in case you are not familiar with principles of basic logic, your explanation should take the form of: "All theories that do x (generally) are scientific theories. Evolution does x (specific example). Therefore evolution is a scientific theory. Here is the logical proof I am working from. Unless I am mistaken, all scientific theories offer valid predictions that can be tested. If I remember my high school biology correctly, the theory of evolution does not offer any valid predictions that can be tested (at least, none that aren't examples of natural selection within a species). Therefore, evolution is not a theory. Since evolution (the theory that one kind of creature might eventually become another kind of creature) has not had the opportunity to be tested, it is a hypothesis by definition (a hypothesis being "a statement which has not been tested yet"). I am no expert, however, and I welcome a trained scientist to explain why I'm wrong, if that's the case. The reason I'm harping on this is that I only think science should be taught in public school science classes; not speculation. In other words, for students just beginning to learn science, only observable, testable phenomena ought to be taught. Natural selection is such an observable, testable phenomenon; evolution is not. Neither is intelligent design. The more hypothetical stuff like evolution, string theory, quantum mechanics, etc. ought to be reserved for science projects, and advanced college classes.
_____________________________________________
CAFTA Now Law; Congress, President Spit on American Sovereignty and the Constitution
Not what you'd expect from a Republican Congress and a Republican President, is it? Republicans are supposed to be pro-American sovereignty. However, Bush, since taking office, has seen fit to let Mexico dictate American border policy -- and for their part, the so-called Republicans in Congress have done little to keep the President in line on this issue. Now they've done it to us again. The Republicans in Congress (not the Democrats) have seen fit to approve a treaty that unconstitutionally delegates some of their enumerated powers to a foreign body. And a Republican president has just signed this same unconstitutional act into law (not the first time he has done such). Please be aware, their opposition to CAFTA does not make the Democrats good guys. While some of them opposed it out of genuine concern for the American worker, most probably opposed it because they are against trade and against anything the Republicans and Bush are for. So what does CAFTA do that is so wicked? Let me tell you. "[It] may serve as forum for restricting or even banning dietary supplements in the U.S. . . . pharmaceutical companies want government to control the dietary supplement industry so only they can manufacture and distribute supplements. These supplements would then become synthetic in form and limited in potency.
Recently, a U.N. body, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, met in Rome and 'approved a regulatory framework that would eventually phase out over-the-counter sale of vitamins, minerals, herbs and other food-based nutritional aids.'
This ruling would nullify the United States Dietary Supplement, Health and Education Act of 1994, which was enacted after the federal Food and Drug Administration threatened to ban vitamins and other non-drug supplements. This is why the drug companies support WTO and CAFTA. They see international trade agreements as a way to do an end run around American law and restrict supplements through international regulations . . . 'any dietary supplements could become available by prescription only and at a much higher cost, if available at all, and this alone is sufficient reason for Congress to oppose the unconstitutional, sovereignty-destroying CAFTA bill.'"Do you like the positive health effects of your vitamins? If so, start encouraging Indian tribes to manufacture vitamin supplements, because in ten years, if this situation is not rectified, reservations may be the only place you can get vitamins. The other (main) problem with CAFTA is that is is flat unconstitutional. As Representative Ron Paul of Texas clearly states, "The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the president can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution." Constitution of the United States, Article VI Clause 3: [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. [emphasis added] Everyone who participated in making CAFTA law violated their oath of office, their solemnly sworn oath to uphold the Constitution of these United States. They should be at the very least summarily removed from office. At most, they should be tried and jailed for perjury -- clearly they did not mean their oaths when they made them. 18 USC 1621 Perjury generally Whoever-- (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. If a crime in punishable by 5 years in prison, it is definitely a felony under the laws of these United States. Come on, Democrats, you know you would love to impeach Bush -- commission of a felony while in office is grounds for impeachment. Or course, no Democrat would dare, because the Democrats hate the Constitution and violate it every chance they get. They will never hold the President to it, because, the spotlight will then turn on their many violations of their oath of office. For a full list of those who supported CAFTA, visit the following pages: House Roll Call Vote on CAFTA, Senate Roll Call Vote on CAFTAWhat really concerns me are the Congress-critters like Cliff Stearns of Florida. A Republican. I heard him on the radio admitting that CAFTA violates the Constitution. It sounded in the interview like he opposed CAFTA, and yet he voted for it. I could be wrong, though. Those of you in Stearns' district ought to contact his office and ask him to clarify his statements. --------- President calls secret meeting to pitch CAFTA--------- Bush signs Central American Free Trade Agreement
_____________________________________________
A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State. . .
StoryThis little gem is for those of you who think that the so-called 'insurgency' in Iraq is a phenomenon of native Iraqis protesting American Imperialism. "Iraqis have begun barricading themselves in their homes and forming neighborhood militias in an effort to fend off relentless suicide attacks, residents in the capital said . . . A senior member of Iraq's parliament on Sunday called for popular militias to be created as an extra line of defense against the militants, and criticized the government for failing to stop the bombs." The Iraqis know who the enemy is -- those evil, murderous suicide bombers who, in many cases, aren't even from Iraq. When is the American media going to wake up to this fact?
_____________________________________________
|
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_2.gif)
![[Most Recent USD from www.kitco.com]](http://www.weblinks247.com/indexes/idx24_usd_en_2.gif)
