On his webpage Cory said

"I saw a report today that Ko-skin-em is talking about seizing and distributing supplies. "I'M GLAD I DON'T HAVE SUPPLIES OR KNOW ANYONE WHO DOES." "Kosky's Girl" warned us in September. "

Anybody know anything further?

-- What's up wit dat? (@ .), October 05, 1999

Answers

huh? WRP 130 isn't out yet.

Mike

====================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

If Koffinsky or his goons try to squeeze or pinch our Charmin he'll feel that there pitchfork right about where the aforementioned tool of trade is normally applied.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 05, 1999.

See quote in this thread

-- Jerry B (skeptic76@erols.com), October 05, 1999.

The "re-allocated resource" comment can be read in Declan McCullagh's Bankers: Preparing for a Panic? article he wrote for Wired last December which I have lost. Classic stuff. I have it printed out at home and can type it up if anybody wants.

Cory makes another reference to Koskinen on this CSY2K thread.

Cory, please explain the '"Kosky's girl" warned us in September' comment.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

got my html license outtuva cracker jack box.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

"In a crisis and emergency situation, the free market may not be the best way to distribute resources... If there's a point in time where we have to take resources and make a judgement on an emergency basis, we will be prepared to do that," said John Koskinen in a Dec. 3, 1998, report of the President's Council on the Year 2000.

ahhh, I get it. Kosky is talking about seizing supplies and distribution systems from the private business sector...nationalizing them. It's a contingency but even with this contingency I doubt that everyone who is unprepared in the US would be happy and fed by this system. I think I'm correct in assuming that in order for this to occur we would have to be in a "state of emergency". Right?

egads.

Mike

=============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

I think that Paul Milne is on target here -- as I recall, his philosophy is that if an individual or a family comes and asks for some help, he will give it. But if an armed mob (even in uniforms) comes to TAKE it, he will BURN it, rather than let them have it.

-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.cum), October 05, 1999.

Response to Michael Taylor-

In answer to your question, we're already under a state of emergency and have been for quite some time. This is why we have "executive orders" that are totally unconstitutional and never challenged by CON(JOB)gressmen who totally gutless. There are EO's dating back to Nixon that give provision for confiscation of almost everything we have including ourselves and family.

-- saveamerica (jb40@hotmail.net), October 05, 1999.

"...we will be prepared to do that,"

Notice the emphasis on the 'will'...

Got Martial Law? Rut-Roh Raggy....

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

"Cory, please explain the '"Kosky's girl" warned us in September' comment."

Seems (rumor) that Kosky's secretary told a close friend who lived in Flordia to "Get the hell out of that state!" The close friend told another who posted this on Cory's email newsletter. You know, a friend of a friend, type thing.

-- dw (y2k@outhere.com), October 05, 1999.

saveamerica,

I agree. I think this is why it was "legal" for the Justice Department to utilize Special Forces at Waco...and notice how the mainstream press has dropped that story? People in this country are generally asleep and complacent without interest in the way our own government breaks our laws. However, I think the military coming to the door of the average sleeping American to confiscate his 3 day supply might wake him up a bit.

I don't think this qoute relates to the confiscation of individual supplies but rather the nationalization of private business, as in time of war, etc.

Interesting times...

Mike

=====================================================================

Mike

=============================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Right, right, dw: I remember now. Thanks.

My official explanation is that I've dreamed all my life of opening a mexican greasy spoon, yeah, that's what the rice & beans are for, if that SBA loan will just go thru.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

dw:

HAD YOU actually READ the correct source, you would understand that the reference is to the lady who replaced Koskinen at the last WDCY2K meeting, and to what she said about a new take, being prepared for mid October. This "New Take" was expected to be on the order of

WHOOPSIE!! THERE'S NEW DATA OUT THERE!! THINGS ARE NOWHERE AS GOOD AS WE HAVE BEEN LEAD TO BELIEVE!!

and a concomittant enjoinder to prepare more heavily, MUCH more heavily thatn for a 3 day storm. Night Train

-- jes an ol footballer lookin fer some truth, justice and American way (Nighttr@in.lane), October 05, 1999.

Ah, that would be the ORIGINAL warning on Koski's girl, wouldn't it Night Train? Perhaps YOU need to do some research.

Chuck

just working on balance.

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), October 05, 1999.

Nighttrain is correct. The "Kosky's girl warned us in September comment" from Cory pertained to the WDC meeting. The other is hearsay from MinnesotaSmith that was later used by Lord or North, can't remember which.

-- a (a@a.a), October 05, 1999.

From a recent discussion with USA Today, reporters, industrial leaders: Reporter: Has there been any discussion of rationing?

Koskinen: There are absolutely zero plans to declare martial law and enter into any rationing of goods, sales, either way. We think ultimately the free market will probably be the best way to deal with that, in a context in which people ... we think if they have the information, they're not going to get bullied into going one way or the other.

Reporter: Have you discussed any of this? It's been put aside?

Koskinen: We have actually never discussed doing that.

(circa Sept. 26, 1997)

http://www.usatoday.com/2000/century/news/ready12.htm

-- (Oxsys@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Sorry that Koskinen comment was from Sept 1999. NOT 1997. Fingers not working today.

-- (Oxsys@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

saveamerica

The executive orders you mention were signed by Kennedy. Nixon cancelled those EO's by his own executive order. Unfortunately, Reagan cancelled Nixon's EO that was cancelling Kennedy's EO's. Nobody has ever cancelled Reagan's EO.

-- Boris (MSIS@cyberdude.com), October 05, 1999.

So, is Kosky's "girl" Janet Abrams, or what?

No, I don't feel like waiting for 130.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

My take on this is that they won't seize individual preps, but will take canned goods from manufacturers and food from farms to bring to the cities...

-- Mara Wayne (MaraWayne@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

Koffinsky has a secretary who said something, also a son who is a programmer who knows Doodoo is a hopeless DWGI. A sister of somebody leaked something too. Anyway all ya need to know is that lawyer PR shill Koffinsky has an alien plasticky cobra hood melded over his head to look sorta like facial features ...

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 05, 1999.

No, did he share Monica!? Eeeewwwwwww!

-- gork (erk@urp.urgh), October 05, 1999.

"Kosky's girl", for crying out loud, is Janet Abrams, and the reference is to the WDCY2K meeting. I was there. I usually refrain from comments about the wilder speculations, but I had to speak up here. Koskinen's secretary and "get out of Florida", indeed... :(

-s-

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

A&L... roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!! snake man commeth!

I agree with Mara...no seizing of individual preps. Government imposted rationing much more likely and then a downward spiral from there as supply can't keep up with demand, delivery systems become more impacted by oil and gas shortages, etc.

Mike

==================================================================

-- Michael Taylor (mtdesign3@aol.com), October 05, 1999.

So, Scott - look deeply into my eyes - was there any allusion to a mid-October "prep harder" campaign?

Thanks - you've always been a great assist.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), October 05, 1999.

Boris, et al,

An EO superceded by a newer EO does NOT reactivate the original EO. The only EO you have to worry about today is 12919. Look it up at Federal Register, or dig into the Federal Register Archives.

.....we won't be fooled again.....

-- Hillbilly (Hillbilly@pussum.creek), October 05, 1999.

"So, Scott - look deeply into my eyes - was there any allusion to a mid-October "prep harder" campaign?"

Nope, although I have heard that from other sources (but none to make me convinced it's going to happen). (Tell me how to look deeply into your eyes via the cyberwaves and I'm there... :) )

-scott

-- Scott Johnson (scojo@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

DIeTeR warned us all about the reptile aliens. Did he not? Jackals! (Sorry, dieter, I don't do it half as well as you would.)

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), October 05, 1999.

Why do people insist on calling grown women "girls"? It is insulting. (For those of you who don't understand why, it's like calling a black man "boy".) Cory if you wrote this, here are some other ways to express yourself:

Kosky's lackey (Janet Abrams)
Kosky's parrot woman
Kosky's secretary (AKA synchophant)
Kosky's PR gal
Kosky's infomercial hostess

Well, you get the idea. You are such a funny writer, - I am sure you can come up with something more original and entertaining than "girl".

Berry

-- Berry Picker (BerryPicking@yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.

Michael ... ssssssssssssssssssskssssssssssptssssssssssssssskssssssst !
If Andy is as right about the ssssssssssssnakessssssss as he currently is about gold ... sssssssssssssssssssssssssskss ;~s

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 05, 1999.

How bout Kosky's crack ho?

-- Mr Robinson (Kill@mylan.load), October 05, 1999.

After decades in the corporate business world, I know "girl" to have a certain meaning. It refers to those older overweight, well-endowed middle-aged ladies in the accounting division who wear flowered shirtwaist dresses with calf length nylons.

-- anon (anon@anon.calm), October 06, 1999.