The New York Times and FERC Got It Wrong
Comments by The Parodist
The New York Times published an editorial on July 1, 2003, praising the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for its rulings against the energy companies that manipulated the California market. The N.Y. Times made one exception, couching its animadversion in questionable language, the Times mildly reproached the commission for its failure to “take Gov. Gray Davis off the hook for billions in long-term electricity contracts." The Times went on to explain, "The commission ruled, 2 to 1, that to give him the relief he wanted on the contracts for the other $12 billion would violate the sanctity of the contractual process necessary for free markets—even though these contracts were based on prices inflated, in part, by market manipulation.”
The New York Times missed the point: there is convincing evidence that the original FERC ruling, which stated the California energy crisis was caused equally by an energy shortage as well as market manipulation, is false. El Paso Natural Gas, Reliant, and Duke Power were all manipulating energy supplies by turning their energy off at peak times, which caused shortages!
Salon.com's Scott Rosenberg is right, the press either won’t or can’t think that stories on different topics can be related, but there is also a failure to do investigative research. If some enterprising news organization had researched the FERC’s ruling, they would have found that after two years of investigating the causes of the energy crisis in California, the FERC’s conclusion incredibly mirrored Mr. Cheney’s and Mr. Bush’s conclusions in the National Energy Policy report--which is frozen for all time and which was astonishingly written while California was being fleeced.
How could the FERC have reached a conclusion that is almost identical to the conclusion that was inserted into the National Energy Policy report by an individual who had to have known what caused the crisis?
If someone had researched the matter, they would have found that the California energy crisis was relied upon heavily by the Bush administration. The crisis was so important to the White House that it was referred to 110 times in the National Energy Policy report! Of the 110 references, at least 105 essentially said, “The California crisis can happen again throughout the U.S.—it can happen in any state-- unless we change our energy policy.” After 105 repetitions, the mind begins to believe.
But in the middle of the National Energy Policy report, an astonishing admission lies unnoticed by the world: an insertion was made that completely contradicts the 105 California references. The Bush administration suddenly admitted that the California crisis could not happen in any other state because all other states have structural rules that prevent manipulation. The report then goes on to blame California for its faulty rules, and that blame was mimicked two years later by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s rulings.
How could the White House have had such foreknowledge? Officials actually anticipated what it took two years of investigation for FERC to conclude. How did the White House know the causes before Californians had a clue?
Keep in mind that Richard Nixon was about to be impeached because he manipulated a federal agency and attempted to control its conclusions.
In trying to determine what has happened, to account for the Bush White House foreknowledge, we either have to believe that a supernatural prophetic spectre passed over the White House, or, it was just a lucky guess that made officials insert a passage into the National Energy Policy report that contradicted everything previously stated by the report, or we have to conclude that White House officials knew about the fraud at the time the fraud was being committed.
This raises questions of collusion, accessories during the fact, and conspiracy allegations. We’re not going to know the answers unless investigations or lawsuits are filed. And we're not going to get officials to act if the people of California don't care that they were robbed and raped.
Scott Rosenberg is right, California should be pursuing impeachment proceedings against FERC, and I would add: against Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney.
Is that the only thing that can be done? No. I think California has to become very creative and to think outside the usual avenues and methods. Law suits have been filed by the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch against Mr. Cheney for refusing to turn over documents showing who advised him in the writing of the National Energy Policy report.
Since actual crimes were committed: why shouldn’t California file a class action RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) case against the White House and FERC? It can be filed as a civil action where the penalty is treble damages. Although no one has ever filed a RICO action against a president, the rewards to Californians and to the governor would be worth the effort—not to mention the impact upon this country and the world.
Editor's note: For a detailed report with links to documents see the article “Fraud Traced to the White House” at http://www.yuricareport.com.
2:57:29 PM 
|
