August 1, 2005
August 8, 2005
August 15, 2005
August 22, 2005
August 29, 2005
Residents of Laredo on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande are experiencing terror, and it is not coming from Arab revolutionary groups but from Mexican criminals and drug cartels, one of them comprised of former members of Mexico's special forces.
In Laredo, a city of 250,000, which has seen massive growth through cross-border trade over the past decade, there is a real fear that there are insufficient federal and local law enforcement personnel to protect Americans living there.
In recent years, aside from violent home invasions by illegal aliens and the spread of narco-trafficking by Mexican drug lords, the Laredo area has seen a spate of kidnappings followed by ransom demands and the disappearance of several dozen of its citizens.
Time and again, the Border Patrol there has warned Washington that neighboring Nuevo Laredo, which is just across the Mexican border, has been the source of violence and illicit drug running that has spread to Laredo and as far as Dallas.
To make matters worse, until a month ago, the DEA and the FBI had made it plain to lawmakers in Congress and in Texas that the entire Nuevo Laredo police force was in the pay of the drug cartels, especially the Zetas, a bloodthirsty group of heavily armed ex-Mexican special forces officers.
The Zetas made their mark along the Gulf of Mexico, waging gun battles with their rival, the Juarez Cartel. According to the FBI, which has been tracking Zeta hit men in the United States, the Zetas' expertise is in assassination and moving drugs from Mexico into United States.
For the people of Laredo, the most frightening dimension to the violence that has engulfed their region has been the kidnapping of U.S. citizens, who are taken across the border into Nuevo Laredo, some of them never to reappear.
Official figures confirm that, in the past year alone, 30 to 40 Americans have been kidnapped or murdered on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, in the vicinity of Nuevo Laredo.
Traditionally, the half-million inhabitants of Nuevo Laredo depended heavily on tourism from Texas, but with the arrival of the drug gangs and criminals from Mexico City, U.S. citizens have stayed away. As a result, the economic damage to ordinary shopkeepers has been considerable.
From a Border Patrol perspective, the real issue is that Nuevo Laredo poses a potent threat to U.S. security because of what could be hidden in the 10,000 trucks that daily carry goods across the border into the United States.
In early June, Mexican President Vicente Fox, under pressure from Washington, agreed that Nuevo Laredo had to be "cleaned up." However, he failed to give immediate authorization to his security people to do that, and on June 8 a new police chief in the border town was assassinated.
Mexican agents from the Agencia Federal de Investigacion, AFI, the equivalent of the FBI, were dispatched to Nuevo Laredo to investigate the murder. However, when they arrived in the center of the town, they were stopped at a roadblock by local police, one of whom shot one of the AFI agents in the chest, claiming he had gone for his gun. As it turned out, the AFI agent who was shot was not even armed at the time.
Following the shooting, some 1,000 Mexican troops, special forces and scores of Mexican federal agents moved into Nuevo Laredo and sealed it off. Forty police officers were arrested and questioned about the assassination of the police chief and the shooting of the federal agent.
Those actions were followed by the arrest and questioning of all 700 members of the town's police force. During the opening hours of the clean-up, Mexican troops found 43 kidnap victims in several different houses. Most of them were members of drug cartels.
That effectively dashed the hopes of American families who had prayed their loved ones would be freed when the town was liberated. No one was more shattered than William Slemaker, who had been holding out hope from September 2004 that his stepdaughter, Yvette Martinez, 27, and her friend, Brenda Cisneros, would be found. They had simply vanished on a trip to Nuevo Laredo and, unlike other kidnap victims, no ransom demands were ever received from their kidnappers.
Violence is a way of life in northern Mexican border towns, and much of that can be attributed to drug cartels and the movement of illegal aliens by organized crime syndicates.
According to the Border Patrol the fault lies with Mexico's traditionally corrupt police force and judiciary.
The scale of the drug business can be seen in the fact that in four years there has been a 74 percent increase in the seizure of methamphetamine shipments at the border.
For some time, the Border Patrol, desperately in need of more staff, has highlighted the need to tighten security. For example, for years there has been a steady flow of illegals from Nuevo Laredo to the interstate that leads straight to Houston. In 2004, staff from Mexico's immigration organization, the National Migration Institute, confirmed that among undocumented immigrants interviewed by them were people from China and eastern European countries as well as from Haiti, Cuba, Brazil, Guatemala, Venezuela, El Salvador and Honduras.
The range of countries appeared to indicate the presence of organized crime in moving people into the United States from many parts of the world, using the Mexican border. On July 19, the Texas Border Sheriffs Coalition met in Houston to express anger at the U.S. federal government's failure to secure the border.
The group was highly critical of what it called the "catch and release program" whereby illegals are taken into custody and immediately released when it is established that they are not involved in terrorism. From the coalition's standpoint, illegals taken into custody should also be subjected to criminal background checks and should be tested to ensure they are not carriers of infectious diseases.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are
free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American
Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington,
D.C. 20003
|Top|
A jam-packed house at Hollywood's Met theater on July 17 broke into tears as William Rodriguez, the WTC maintenance worker and last survivor of the attacks, told his emotional life and death story. Rodriguez strongly criticized the Bush administration for actively covering up the 9-11 investigation.
Rodriguez was the headline speaker at a two hour visual and interactive performance, the first of its kind in the nation to use a theatrical setting to depict, in a serious manner, the flimsy nature of the official 9-11 story.
Called the "9/11 Mysteries" and sponsored by American Free Press and others, the performance encourages audience participation as well as offering solid evidence the official story isn't as airtight as the Bush administration would like people to believe.
By utilizing live voice over narration by the creators of the project, who go only by Sofia and brad, the show is a neutral look at 9-11 and highlights numerous inconsistencies in the government story, including how the buildings collapsed. It shows that only an orchestrated event, with inside help, could have allowed "19 Arab hijacker with big planes and little knives" to outfox the entire U.S. military defense system.
Rodriguez, who flew in from New York to be part of the opening performance which runs five more Sundays, said his story about hearing a massive explosion in the north tower basement just prior to the jetliner strike above, verified by at least 14 others with him in a basement office, has been hidden by the media and the government for four long years, never being told to mainstream America.
"They say it was only jet fuel that brought down the towers," said Rodriguez. "That's a lie and they know it. They know if all the true stories about the explosions are revealed to the American people, they will all be exposed as liars."
In order to spread the word, Rodriguez announced plans to go on a national speaking tour, saying "it's the only way to mount pressure for a new 9-11 inquiry - since the media and government have locked out the main witnesses and evidence.
He is in the process of lining up financial support and already has received numerous invitations, including a September speech in Chicago arranged by American Free Press reporter Christopher Bollyn and another speech independently organized at the University of Wisconsin/Madison campus
For more information, contact the Met Theater at 1089 North
Oxford Ave. Hollywood, Calif 90029 For reservations and information
call 323-957-1152.
|Top|
the state of Israel - which, the last time I checked, was both a foreign and a sovereign nation- wants the American taxpayers to cough up $2.2 billion in addition to our regular $3 billion-or-so annual subsidy to pay for the withdrawal from Gaza.
Unless the American people raise hell about this, it's a done deal. In Washington, whatever Israel wants, Israel gets. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the American people should rebel at the latest brazen attack on our treasury by Israel and its American supporters.
First, Israeli Prime Minister ariel Sharon decided unilaterally to withdraw from Gaza. This was in lieu of following the president's peace plan, which Sharon has ignored from the very beginning.
Where is it written, on stone or parchment or paper, that the head of a foreign government can decide to do something unilaterally and automatically send the bill to the American taxpayer? We will derive no benefits at all from the withdrawal.
Furthermore, Sharon's adviser spilled the beans in an Israeli newspaper interview. The withdrawal from Gaza is not part of any peace plan. It was just an excuse to pull off serious peace negotiations. Sharon will remove about 8,000 settlers from Gaza who are a pain in the government's rear end anyway, shut down four tiny settlements on the West Bank, and that's it. As Sharon's adviser admitted there won't be any serious negotiations with the Palestinians until they "turn into Finns."
A normal president would view Sharon's actions as unacceptable and his casual expectation that we would pay for it as a personal insult. President George Bush, however, when it comes to Israel, is just like Congress - a scared rabbit.
That's whey despite all of our problems, all of our deficits, all of our debts, the U.S. government has gifted Israel with more than $90 billion in recent decades. If Washington gives in, we taxpayers will be spending about 227,000 per Jewish settler. That's a sporty moving expense.
We paid for the Camp David peace treaty in the 1970s - some $4 billion to Israel to get out of Egyptian territory it had no business occupying in the first place. And as part of that deal, apparently we've been paying Egypt an annual bribe of $2 billion or so a year for having signed the peace treaty.
The proper American attitude should be: "We think, Israel, it is in your interests to make peace with your Arab neighbors. That's your decision, however, if you would prefer to remain at war, that's OK with us, because either way - peace or war - we aren't going to pay for it."
As for those Christian cultists who hake one verse out of a very large Bible and claim tht it binds us to help Israel, I would just say that if you believe God wishes modern Zionists to occupy modern Palestine, let Him pay for it. When did we get appointed fiscal agent for Almighty God? And when did God ever need anybody's help to do whatever He wanted to do? And where is it written in the constitution that Congress can tax the American people and hand the money out as a gift to foreign countries?
It's been said of certain suicide bombers that they hate us more than they love life. Well, the American people are going to have to teah their congressional representatives and senators to fear them more than they fear the Israeli lobby, or the American people will continue to be not only taxed unjustly, but also dragged into Israel's quarrels in the Middle East.
I always add (not that it does any good as far as hostile reactions from the Israel First crowd are concerned) that the Israeli lobby has every right to ask for anything it wants. The fault is not with the lobby; it's with the congressional representatives and senators who betray their oath of office and betray you in order to placate a lobby that has shown itself to be not only effective but vindictive.
Hey, it's your country. If you wish to allow some weak-willed politicians to lay it to waste and destroy the future for your children and grandchildren, that's your decision.
But I'm a strong believer that even people who wish to commit
suicide should know what they are doing.
|Top|
A number of political observers and activists today sounded "a red alert" after allegations surfaced this week that Vice President Dick Cheney has ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to make contingency plans for a nuclear strike against Iran in the aftermath of another "9-11 type attack" on the United States.
Cheney's orders first surfaced in an article by Philip Geraldi in the Aug 1, 2005, issue of American Conservative. Geraldi was unavailable for comment, but excerpts of the article went on to say:
"Vice President Cheney's office has specifically told the Pentagon that the military should be prepared for an attack on Iran in the immediate aftermath of `another 9-11.' "
However, that's "not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States," notes Geraldi's article.
The purported statement was then distributed widely as a number of political observers have issued "worldwide" warning statements," declaring Cheney's order to be interpreted as "sounding the bell for World War III."
GUNS OF AUGUST
In response to Cheney's order, one outspoken political activist issued an Internet notice covering the time period of August 2005, saying:
"Vice President Dick Cheney, with the full collusion of the circles of British Prime Minister Tony Blair unleashed the recently exposed plans to stage a preemptive tactical nuclear strike against Iran.
"The danger of such a mad, Hitler-in-the-bunker action from the Cheney circles would be even further heightened were the United States Congress to stick with its present schedule, and go into recess on July 30 until Sept. 4. With Congress out of Washington, the Cheney-led White House would almost certainly unleash a "Guns of August" attack on Iran."
And as reported several months ago, La Rouche said the Bush Administration, under CONPLAN 8022, had already placed the relevant "mini-nukes" under the control of theater military commanders, as part of a new global strike doctrine, a doctrine originally conceived when Cheney was secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are
free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American
Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington,
D.C. 20003
|Top|
Congress passed legislation on July 21 that reauthorizes the Patriot Act for another 10 years although the bill faced far more opposition than the original act four years ago. I'm heartened that more members of Congress are listening to their constituents, who remain deeply skeptical about the Patriot Act and expansions of the federal police power in general. They rightfully wonder why congress is so focused on American citizens, while bin Laden and other foreign terrorist leaders still have not been captured.
The tired arguments we're hearing today are the same ones we heard in 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed in the emotional aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. If the Patriot Act is constitutional and badly needed, as its proponents swear, whey were sunset provisions included at all? If it's unconstitutional and pernicious, why not abolish it immediately?
NONSENSE
All of this nonsense about sunsets and reauthorizations merely distracts us from the real issue, which is personal liberty. America was not founded on a promise of security; it was founded on a promise of personal liberty to pursue happiness.
One prominent Democrat opined on national television the "most of the 170-page Patriot act is fine." but that it needs some fine-tuning. He then stated that he opposed the 10-year reauthorization bill on the grounds that Americans should not have their constitutional rights put on hold for a decade.
His party's proposal, however, was to reauthorize the Patriot Act for only four years, as though a shorter moratorium on constitutional rights would be acceptable. So much for the opposition party and its claim to stand for civil liberties.
Unfortunately, some of my congressional colleagues referenced the recent London bombings during the debate, insinuating the opponents of the Patriot Act somehow would be responsible for a similar act here at home.
I won't even dignify that slur with the response it deserves. Let's remember that London is the most heavily monitored city in the world, with surveillance cameras recording virtually all public activity in the city center. British police officials are not hampered by our Fourth Amendment nor our numerous due process requirements. In other words, they can act without any constitutional restrictions, just as supporters of the Patriot Act want our own police to act.
PROVING THE FOLLY
Despite this they were not able to prevent the bombings, proving that even a wholesale surveillance society cannot be made completely safe against determined terrorists. Congress misses the irony entirely. The London bombings don't prove the need for the Patriot Act; they prove the folly of it.
The Patriot Act, like every political issue, boils down to a simple choice. Should we expand government power, or reduce it? This is the fundamental political question of our day, but it's quickly forgotten by politicians who once promised to stand for smaller government.
Most governments, including our own, tend to do what they can get away with rather than what the law allows them to do. All governments seek to increase their power over the people they govern, whether we want to recognize it or not. The patriot Act is a vivid example of this. Constitutions and laws don't keep government power in check only a vigilant populace can do that.
For more from congressman Ron Paul, call his
office toll free at 1-888-322-1414 or visit his website at www.ronpaul.org.
|Top|
The House has voted to make permanent most provisions of the Patriot Act but defied President Bush by keeping a 10-year time limit on two of the most controversial provisions. The issue is still pending in the Senate, but a more restrictive version is emerging.
When passed in 2001, the Patriot Act contained 16 provisions that were considered new grants of investigative authority. Congress attached "sunsets" to those provisions, meaning they expire at the end of this year unless specifically renewed.
The time-limited provisions allow the government to conduct "roving wiretaps," which monitor all of a suspect's electronic communications rather than a particular phone line, and obtain business documents and library records without the knowledge of the person being investigated.
The Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved a measure that includes four-year sunsets on the same provisions as the House in restricting many of the other 14 renewed provisions.
Some senators threatened a floor fight to sunset the other provisions.
"There's still a lot of uneasiness about this legislation
in Middle America, and I think we need to pay attention to that,"
said Sen. Tom Cobum (R-Okla.). I believe it is very important
for us to send a message of comfort to the American people that
not just the two provisions in this bell will be sunsetted."
|Top|
A federal whistleblower close to the Chicago federal grand jury probe into perjury and obstruction charges against President Bush and others said indictments of top officials were handed down this week. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office of the Northern District of Illinois, however, refused to confirm or deny the source's account.
"We are not talking about any aspect of this case, and our office is not commenting on anything regarding the investigation at this time," said Randall Sanborn from the office of U.S. federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the attorney conducting the grand jury probe into whether Bush and others in his administration violated federal law in a number of sensitive areas, including leaking the name of a CIA operative to the media.
In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named special counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of Valerie Plame's name to several mainstream columnists, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include wide reaching allegations of criminal activity as new information has surfaced.
Although the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures, based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
According to whistle blower Tom Heneghen, who recently reported on truthradio.com, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that Bush had taken the United States to war based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code. "Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment," said Sanborn.
However, sources close to the federal grade jury probe also allegedly told Heneghen a host of administration figures under Bush were indicted, including Vice President Richard Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew Card, Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, former Attorney General John Ashcroft, imprisoned New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former Cheney advisor Mary Matalin. Heneghen, unavailable for comment, also allegedly told sources White House advisor Karl Rove was indicted for perjury in a major document shredding operation cover-up.
In recent weeks, there has been much controversy over Fitzgerald's wide-reaching probe, which is extending far beyond the Bush administration to include what some have called "a wholesale cleansing" of a crime laden White House and Congress.
Fitzgerald's investigation is said to be also centered on members of the 9-11 Commission, members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate and also select high-powered members of the media.
Needless to say, administration officials are "fighting mad" with Fitzgerald. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts is trying to derail Fitzgerald's probe by calling him to testify before the Senate regarding his true motives behind the investigation.
Political observers are now wondering whether administration-friendly Republican legislators, some under investigation themselves, are conspiring like President Nixon did in Watergate with Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in an attempt to shield the Bush administration from prosecution.
In late July, reports about the recent bomb scare in the subway under the congressional offices at the Dirksen Building - coincidently near where Fitzgerald was holding his grand jury hearings - raised questions as to whether government operatives were sending the zealous prosecutor a "warning message" that he was entering dangerous waters with his investigation.
The bomb scare was reported to local police late Monday afternoon, July 18, causing the subway to be evacuated for approximately 45 minutes while bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT team members searched for what was reported to be "a suspicious package" left on one of the subway cars.
Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General Ashcroft before being nominated by Bush.
The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named special counsel to investigate the Plame case. Based on the testimony of ABC sources in late July, it appears that at least two close associates of Rove testified before the grand jury. One was Susan Ralston, a longtime associate of Rove and considered to be his right hand.
The other was "Izzy" Hernandez, regarded as Rove's left hand and now a top official in the Commerce Department.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The Pentagon is hurting so badly for cannon fodder that, if it gets its way, even mom and pop may soon be marching off as recruits to the war in Iraq - and that's no joke. The Defense department has asked Congress to raise the enlistment age of military recruits of all services to 42 years of age, which will, of course, make some actual middle-aged mothers and fathers eligible to join up. The Pentagon is calling this part of a package of "urgent wartime support initiatives."
What it really points to is the fact that the Armed Services cannot get enough warn bodies under current law who are willing to duck bullets, or worse, fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan in which America has no national security interest.
Under current regulations, the maximum age for recruits for the active armed forces is 35, while people up to age 39 may enlist in the National Guard or Reserves.
Last March the Defense Department raised the maximum for recruits for the National Guard and Reserves from 35 to 39 in what was called "a three-year test to evaluate the feasibility of a permanent change in Army and Reserve component enlistment."
The age of active duty enlistments, however, remained at 35. The active duty enlistment age can only be altered by act of Congress. Thus, the Defense Department is asking Congress to hike the enlistment age for these recruits to 42, which many military analysts are saying is "an insane policy to make cannon fodder of middle-aged men who could be sent into a war zone with only basic training."
Nevertheless, the military faces one of the worst recruitment headaches in its history. According to some officers, both in and out of the service, the problem will not be solved under the current all-volunteer status of the Armed Forces. Only a national draft is likely to solve the manpower shortfalls.
The fact is, presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and now George W. Bush have committed the armed Forces to so many duties abroad that they have drained the active-duty roster and exhausted the National Guard and Reserves.
"What they have done is cut back the force manpower that existed under President Ronald Reagan and then committed a ‘shadow army' to cover all of the hotspots in the world," a retired Air Force officer told AFP.
With virtually all active duty troops now fighting or stationed abroad the manpower gap is being filled with dwindling numbers of National Guard and Reserve forces.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, active National guard and Reserve forces of more than 412,000 have been activated, mostly under two-year mobilization orders. Of that 412,000 some 63,000 have been mobilized for extended service twice.
This has led many National Guardsmen and Reservists to get
out when their enlistments are up.
|Top|
congress passed a multinational trade bill known as CAFTA last week, but not without a feverish late night vote marred by controversy and last-minute vote switching. Leaving aside the arguments for or against CAFTA itself, the process by which the bill ultimately passed should sicken every American who believes in representative government.
Late-night arm-twisting by House leaders to get votes is of course nothing new. We witnessed far worse when congress passed the ruinous Medicare prescription drug bill in the dead of night two years ago.
Yet even after months of unprecedented wheeling and dealing by corporate lobbyists, congressional leaders, and the White House, the Washington establishment still failed to pass CAFTA in the House. That's right, when the 15-minute voting period expired last Wednesday evening, CAFTA seemingly had been defeated.
Here's how. As the vote progressed, the tally was neck and neck. When the 15-minute period ended CAFTA had gone down in flames.
But pro-CAFTA forces were so determined to get what they wanted, they broke the rules. House leadership ignored the time limit and kept twisting arms and making deals until they finally had the votes to pass CAFTA nearly an hour later.
What kind of deals? Well, one member of House leadership told reluctant legislators, "We've got to have you; you tell us what you want." and they did.
Lawmakers in textile producing states were bought off with promises of textile subsidies. Lawmakers in sugar-producing states were bought off with promises of special treatment in the 2007 farm bill. On and on it went, with promises of new bridges, parks and whatever else it took to pass CAFTA.
Rest assured that you will pay dearly for these bribes used to buy votes. Every favor granted and every pet project funded comes on top of the pork-laden appropriations bills already passed in the House this year. These new goodies will be added to the final House-Senate versions passed later this year.
One of my colleagues estimated that the price tag for buying the CAFTA vote will be at least $50 billion. That's right, $50 billion to win a vote. Is this what you want from your representatives in office?
Perhaps the strangest vote buyoff occurred two days before the CAFTA vote. Lawmakers from hard-hit manufacturing districts steadfastly have opposed CAFTA, arguing that it would accelerate the outsourcing of jobs to nations with cheap labor. So House leaders scrambled to craft last-minute legislation to "get tough" on China, which is the real source of concern for most American manufacturers.
A bill was drawn up, and a hasty vote cast, so lawmakers could explain that they traded a yes vote on CAFTA for action against China. One small problem presented itself, however: the China bill failed on the House floor.
So House leaders went back to the drawing board, struck some and held a second vote on the same bill the next day.
This time it passed, but its chances of surviving the Senate or a White House veto are virtually nil. So members from manufacturing districts literally sold their votes for nothing.
Their months of double-talking, coyness, and vote peddling resulted in nothing more than an empty promise.
The president's press secretary called the CAFTA vote"a real victory for the American people." The problem is the vast majority of Americans have not even heard of CAFTA, and those who have overwhelmingly oppose it.
CAFTA was conceived and created by corporate interests, and to claim otherwise is preposterous. The CAFTA vote had nothing to do with the American public, or even trade policy per se. CAFTA was driven by politics and nothing more.
Multinational corporations and political globalists share the same goals, namely the centralization of political power in international bodies and the diminution of national sovereignty.
What we witnessed last week was not just the selling of votes, but also a sellout of American control over our own trade regulations.
For more from Ron Paul call his office at 1-888-322-1414
or visit his website at www.ronpaul.org.
|Top|
The Arab revolutionary network, led in part by alleged 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden has now expanded to include cells that are not religiously based according to a counter-terrorism expert.
Retired FBI Senior special agent in charge Ted gunderson in an exclusive interview told American Free Press that a Filipino terrorist group has linked up with the bin Laden network and is planning revolutionary acts, which may include bio-terrorism on the West Coast of the United States.
Gunderson retired from the Los Angeles office of the FBI in 1979, at the request of then-Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, to head security at the Pan-American Games that year. Gunderson's credentials include the successful breakup of an Iranian terrorist group in 1984 that planned to disrupt the Olympic games in Los Angeles. He uncovered a bomb-making plot by the Iranian radicals.
Gunderson said he learned about the sleeper cell from a British woman whose Filipino boyfriend is a member of the group. For three and a half years, the woman, who wishes to remain anonymous, has been in a relationship with the man, who has lived in Los Angeles.
She told Gunderson that during this relationship she was privy to information that strongly indicates her financé is a member of "a sleeper cell recently activated." This is based on direct communications with her male friend and observations.
Based on this information, the cell plans terrorist acts in the West Coast area, perhaps ans early as late August.
She is currently under guard and has received death threats from a Philippine-based assassination gand called the "Demolition Squad."
Gunderson said the Filipino boasted to the woman of his ties to Victor "the Devil" Infante, the leader of an international firearms and drug distribution organization. He was captured by federal agents on Nov. 3, 2002.
He said about 30 other members of the Los Angeles-based "cell,"known as the "Satanas," were dispersed in the 1990s and were reactivated within the last six months.
AFP was involved in a telephone conversation with Gunderson in which the woman clearly stated that her fiancé was linked to the terrorist network.
The group is reportedly skilled in explosives, water contamination and cyberterror, including the ability to interrupt and disrupt landline and cellular telephones and the Internet. They are also involved in counterfeiting U.S. currency, identity theft and illicit drug production and trafficking. "This is just the tip of the iceberg," Gunderson said.
Gunderson has located four safe houses and work locations run by the group.
"They have a very sophisticated network," Gunderson said.
During the third week of May, the source told Gunderson, she overheard a conversation in which it was said, "we got the go signal." Since then the group has spent 15- to 20-hour days preparing attacks.
Gunderson said he believes the CIA is operating a terrorist training camp on Mindanao, a fact confirmed by a missionary there.
Gunderson said bin Laden was trained by the CIA and was working for the agency during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.
In the Jan. 7, 2002, issue, AFP reported in-depth on a secret meeting in 1986 between Gunderson, a U.S. State Department official and a lanky Arab, believed to be bin Laden, at the Hilton hotel in Sherman Oaks, Calif. The object of the quiet conference was to secure weapons for Afghan mujahideen fighting the Soviets.
During the first week of June of this year, the woman attempted to provide information about the cell to the FBI. Homeland Security and the Los Angeles police. She received no "follow-up response."
Gunderson said he has provided the information to several congressmen and senators, the Drug Enforcement Agency, FBI and secret Service. There has been no response from any agency.
Best known for his ground-breaking exposing
the U.S. government's abandonment of American POWs and MIAs in
Korea and Vietnam, Mike Blair specializes in military affairs
and gunowners' rights. Blair was cited by Project Censored for
having uncovered the top "most censored' story of 1990 -
a scheme to scuttle the Bill of rights in the name of "fighting
crime."
|Top|
Using the pretext of keeping firearms out of the hands of terrorists, gun grabbers on Capitol Hill are still trying to infringe upon the Second amendment rights of U.S. citizens, but this time statistics are clearly against them.
A year has passed since the ban on so-called assault rifles ended on Sept. 13, 2004. But instead of the dire consequences of murder and mayhem on the streets of American cities and towns the exact opposite has happened. In fact, gun crimes, including the shooting of policemen are down since the ban was lifted.
For years, the anti-Second Amendment crowd in America, who had huddled around Sarah Brady to demand that gun ownership be curtailed, warned that when the ban ran out "our streets are going to be filled with AK-47s and Uzis."
"Life without the ban on assault weapons will mean rampant murder and bloodshed." they predicted.
STATISTICS IN
Now the statistics are in: A year after the ban was lifted, the FBI has announced that murders nationwide fell by a substantial 2.6 percent during the year, the first drop since 1999.
John R. Lott Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and long-time supporter of Americans' Second amendment rights, has noted that the seven states that have their own bans on so-called assault weapons reported a smaller drop in murder than the 43 that had no bans. This could indicate that lifting the ban actually reduced crime.
Statistically, states with bans averaged a decline in murders of only 2.4 percent, according to the FBI, with three states with bans in place showing an actual increase.
On the other hand, states without bans experienced an average decline of more than 4 percent.
And the drop in violent crime was not just confined to murder, according to FBI statistics, which show that robberies, rapes and aggravated assaults also declined.
"The fact that the end of the assault weapons ban didn't create a crime wave should not have surprised anyone," Lott recently wrote. "After all, there is not a single published academic study showing that these bans have reduced any type of violent crime."
UNCERTAIN
Even a justice department study conducted by the Clinton administration found that the effect of the assault weapons ban on gun violence "has been uncertain."
"We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations's recent drop in gun violence," the study concluded.
Lott points out that the banned guns are actually the same as semiautomatic, more accurately self-loading, firearms that were no covered by the ban and are in reality the same guns but with a different exterior. They fire the same bullets at the same rate of fire.
Meanwhile, although the anti-gun crowd again predicted blood running in the streets of America, 37 states have now passed right-to-carry laws, giving citizens the right to carry concealed firearms.
And violent gun-related crime is down in America.
Second Amendment supporters might well ask: "could the concealed-weapons laws be a major factor?"
After all, when criminals think that an intended victim might
have a gun, this is a deterrent to crime.
|Top|
|
Gang Bangers: Above, members of the Mara 13 gang make Satanic hand gestures at the prison of San Pedro Sula, Honduras. Violence for street gangs is considered the most pressing security issue in large cities in El salvador, Guatemala and Honduras - as well as the cities and suburbs of Los angeles, , New York and Detroit, to name a few U.S. cities. Many of the Central American gangs have thousands of active members living in the United States and are looking to expand their criminal operations. During his visit to Guatemala earlier this year, Donald rumsfeld announced an increase in U.S. aid to fight gang violence in the region, as gang members like these can easily pass into America via Mexico. |
They sneak across the United States' unprotected southern border, traveling from Mexico and Central America. Many come with previous military training to work for highly organized criminal enterprises, which finance themselves through trafficking in drugs, smuggling undocumented migrants, prostitution and murder. And they know when they get here, U.S. police officers are at a significant disadvantage, thanks to laws which prevent local, state and federal law enforcement from targeting them for deportation. In the past few years, the United states has been facing an explosion of violent youth gangs that kill, rape and rob each other and innocent Americans. A number of recent studies are pointing toward a strong relationship between illegal immigration and the proliferation of so-called "gang bangers" now walking the streets of major U.S. cities. The problem was first noticed in 1999, but has grown to the point that more than 300 illegal immigrants have been seized this year along by a federal task force in collaboration with local authorities. Until these gangs began illegally crossing the border, violent gangs - a large majority of them illegal aliens - have spread outside of major metropolitan areas to places like Montgomery County, Md., and Fairfax County, Va., both suburbs of Washington. They have emerged in such isolated cities as Harrisonburg, Va. They have also appeared in rural areas. |
For example, in the Washington area, violent attacks with machetes, bats, knives and handguns have occurred at suburban movie theaters and shopping malls.
"Gand crime is exploding nationally," Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute told a House Judiciary subcommittee. "It's up 50 percent from 1999 to 2002, and it's going to continue to rise so long as our immigration system remains broken."
The percentage of illegal aliens in these gangs is unknown, she said, "thanks in part to sanctuary laws that forbid local police from even inquiring into a criminal's immigration status," she said, but offered "suggestive" numbers.
"In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding homicide warrants target illegal aliens, and approximately two-thirds of all felony outstanding warrants target illegal aliens," she said. "ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] says Mara Salvatrucha [a Latino gang known commonly as ‘MS-13] is predominantly or majority illegal. Police officers will tell you it's basically 100 percent illegal."
Considering such numbers, ‘leveraging a criminal's illegal status to have him deported would seem to be an essential weapon against gang crime," she said. "But in cities and counties across the country, police are prohibited from using the most immediate and straightforward tool to get illegal criminals of the streets: the illegal status."
If a cop in Los Angeles recognizes a felon who has been deported before, knowing, of course, that his presence is felony, he "can't lay a finger on that felon," she said. She gave examples of the "damage done' by sanctuary laws:
• Four illegal Mexicans brutally abducted and gang raped
a 42-year-old mother of two near a railroad in Queens, N.Y. Three
of the rapists had been arrested numerous times for assault, attempted
robbery, criminal trespass and illegal gun possession. But pursuant
to New York's sanctuary policy, police never notified federal
authorities.
• Carlos Barrera, an illegal Mexican, mugged three people,
burglarized two apartments and attempted to rape a 5-year-old
girl in Los Angeles. He had been deported four years ago for crimes
of violence but reentered. Since reentry, he had been stopped
twice for traffic violations but federal authorities were not
notified because of the sanctuary policy.
• Miami police arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven
vicious rapes. A year earlier, Miami cops had him in custody fro
lewd and lascivious molestation. But, because of sanctuary, police
never checked his immigration status. Had they done so, the rapes
could have been prevented.
• Cousins Anecto and Jaime Reyes committed murder and a car-jacking
, respectively, after returning to Los Angeles from Mexico following
deportation. Police had encountered them earlier, and knew of
their illegal status. But sanctuary required police to wait until
they committed another crime to nab them.
"We first heard of a gang called MS-13 in 1999 when we apprehended two members of the gang wanted on malicious wounding charges who were staying with family members in Harrisonburg after fleeing Fairfax County," Marsha Garst, commonwealth's attorney for Rockingham County, Va., told the subcommittee.
Her family has lived in the Shenandoah Valley for five generations, she said. "And it is with a great sense of urgency that I ask you to address the alien gang crime problem before our way of life is lost forever."
She added: "You have guys that are working as day laborers during the day, and then they gang bang at night...second and third generation immigrants at an ever-younger age are also getting sucked up into the gang culture."
Miss Garst was asked about gangs recruiting very young children.
"Gang members are coming in and selecting children at an early age to be the Banner carriers, to tell other people about the gang, to pledge their loyalty early," she responded.
"We have instances of children within elementary schools actually beating up other students who had family members or themselves holding up other gang signs," she said. "They're recruiting at an early age to set the stage for other criminal activity, and it's not so much that these children are criminal gang members, yet they're being primed for that.
"They're being taught the gang system. They're being taught the gang loyalties. And what we're seeing locally is that they're sending these kids to do the vandalism, to do the break-ins because they know the juvenile system will not be as tough on these children, and therefor the gang will be much better off because they continue to perpetuate their profit motive," she said.
"Gang crime is a growing problem," said Chairman John Hostettler (R-Ind.). "Over 631 gang-related homicides occurred in 2001, and by 2003, the number of gang killings had jumped to 819. In addition to homicide, gang members have been directly linked to the narcotics trade, human trafficking, document fraud and violent assaults."
He cited a report by ICE that "The majority of MS-13 members are foreign nationals in this country illegally."
In addition to "safe havens," the federal government was roundly criticized for not protecting the borders.
"The failure over decades to enforce the laws on the books has given rise to the fact that we now have, since 911, made no progress in controlling illegal immigration - this is a scandal," said the Manhattan Institute's Miss MacDonald. "A terrorist cannot commit damage on our soil if he's not here. But we have not been able to stop the half-a-million that come across the border every year."
That's "because we have decided not to enforce immigration laws for decades," she said. "Republicans haven't enforced them. Democrats haven't enforced them. And this has basically sent a message to the world that if you can cross our border you're home free."
"I am very angry at the administration for not protecting
the border." said Rep. Maxine waters (D-Calif). "I'm
very angry with the president of the United States, who promised
2,000 more border guards and came up with 200 in the budget. I
just think this business about whether or not we're protecting
the border cannot be played with politically...I wouldn't care
whether it was a Democrat or Republican administration, we're
going to have to do something to protect the border."
|Top|
More and more of my constituents are asking me when congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.
The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans - including new immigrants - want immigration reduced, not expanded.
Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering , staying ans working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?
We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants - certainly not all - receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.
Our Current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens to take low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won't do.
Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs - programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.
Economic consideration aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally.
All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.
Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual - including a potential terrorist - can enter the United States.
Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea's border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.
We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastline here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists.
Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
If we took some of the steps I have outlined here- elimination the welfare state and securing our borders - we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens.
Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national
ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches
only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find way around
the law.
|Top|
OMAHA, Nebraska - Like the first automobiles made by Henry
Ford in America, the "Indy" cars at the 2007 Indianapolis
500 will be racing around the
track at 230 miles per hour on 100 percent ethanol.
From California to New York drivers are filling their tanks with E-10 fuel, which is unleaded gas with 10 percent ethanol. In some states ethanol is used to oxygenate the gas and replace the banned methyl tertiary butyl ether. The ethanol makes the gas burn more efficiently and cleaner.
"It's good for the environment; good for the balance of trade; good for the American farmer and our rural communities; and it's significantly lowering our nation's dependence on foreign oil," Jeff Broin, CEO of Broin Companies, told American Free Press.
Broin Companies design and build ethanol plants and manage and market the products from 16 plants. The corn mash that is left over from the production of ethanol is sold as high-protein livestock and poultry feed.
There are more than 8,000 private investors in the 16 plants Broin manages. "A very high percentage of them are farmers," he said, "adding value to their grain."
From the 700 million gallons ethanol produced every year in these plants, he said, there is a yield of 2 million tons of high protein cattle feed.
"Ethanol is a high performance renewable fuel that is good for the environment and made in America," Broin said. "Forty billion gallons of ethanol-blended fuel are used in the U.S. per year. Bio-fuels have been and will continue to be an increasing portion of the U.S. fuel supply."
CLEAN UP YOUR TAIL PIPE
Pure ethanol produces only carbon dioxide and water as emissions, Broin said, and E-10 in your car will clean up your tail pipe emissions 15 to 33 percent.
The non-profit American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) says ethanol production is "extremely energy efficient," with a positive net energy balance of 125 percent compared to 85 percent for gasoline. This makes ethanol production "by far the most efficient method of producing liquid transportation fuels," according to ACE.
Seven out of eight major studies have shown that ethanol production yields a net positive energy gain of between 20 and 36 percent.
The Energy Security Act of 2005, passed in late July, contains critical provisions that will double the nation's use of clean-burning, renewable fuels such as ethanol. By 2012, demand for ethanol and biodiesel fuels in the United States will reach a minimum of 7.5 billion gallons annually through the newly enacted Renewable Fuels Standard.
"This nationwide Renewable Fuels Standard is a significant victory, both for the people who have built the ethanol industry and for the American public who will benefit from a larger supply of homegrown, cost-effective fuel," said Bob Scott, ACE President. "It is time for this country to take charge of its energy situation, and the production and use of ethanol empowers us to fuel an important portion of our own energy needs."
BIG SAVINGS
Currently some 550 gas stations in the United States offer an 85 percent ethanol fuel, known as E-85, and the number of outlets is expected to double in the coming year, according to Robert White of the National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition. Where a gallon of unleaded gas costs $2.45 in the Midwest, a gallon of E-85 sells for $1.89.
Four million cars currently on the road in America are "flexible-fuel" vehicles designed to run on E-85, like White's 320 horsepower Chevrolet Avalanche. Daimler Chrysler, Ford, General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Saab all offer "flex fuel" vehicles.
Clearly ethanol production from corn and the more drought resistant sorghum is a growing industry across the Midwest, bringing much needed revitalization to many rural communities. One bushel of corn will produce 2.8 gallons of ethanol. Using corn to make ethanol increases the value of a bushel of corn, making it a winning solution for American farmers.
I traveled from Chicago to Omaha on Amtrak to attend the ACE ethanol conference and trade show and learn about the many benefits of America's homegrown alternative to imported oil from the Middle East.
As the train rumbled through the Midwest's endless fields of corn, I read the latest newspaper reports about how the soaring price of gasoline was profiting few while hurting many. Rising oil prices have resulted in bigger profits, year after year, for the oil producers.
ExxonMobil, USA Today reported, earned $7.8 billion in the second quarter, a 35 percent increase over last year's record profits, while polls show that two-thirds of the American people say the high price of gas will cause them "financial hardship" during the next six months.
"More than a third said the hardship will be serious," the 48-state AP-AOL News poll conducted in early August reported.
As I watched the nightly news on CNN, I was surprised to hear the talking heads advise viewers not to buy ethanol-blended gasoline because it would reduce their mileage.
As 1,000 people from across the nation attended the ethanol conference at the Qwest Center, The Omaha World Herald's lead editorial warned readers to avoid ethanol blended gas because it could damage their cars and reduce their mileage.
The anti-ethanol editorial was largely based on a recent article published in Popular Mechanics, which, as American Free Press has revealed, has become a propaganda outlet for the most radical elements in the Bush administration.
A "Fuel Economy Study" comparing performance and cost of ethanol blends and standard unleaded gasoline was commissioned by ACE and the results released on Aug. 17.
The study compared four different ethanol blends, E-10, E- 20, E-30, and E-10 AK, which contained ethanol denatured with isopentane and biodiesel.
The cars used in the test were a 2005 Chevrolet Impala, a 2004 Toyota, and a 2005 Ford Taurus. All three cars got the best mileage using the E-10 AK blend. While the test cars showed slightly reduced mileage using the E-10, 20, and 30 blends, their cost per mile was significantly lower than when they used unleaded gasoline.
"In general," the study concluded, "the more ethanol used, the lower the cost per mile."
MILES AND MILES
Paying $20 at the gas pump, drivers can travel up to 15 miles farther on ethanol-blended fuel than on straight unleaded, ACE said in its press release on the study.
"If drivers want to save money at the pump as gas prices reach new record highs, this pilot study confirms that ethanol is the fuel of choice," Brian Jennings, ACE executive vice president, said. "Using ethanol is like money in your pocket, and you feel good about filling up on this homegrown fuel because it comes from America's farm fields, not the oil fields of the Middle East."
"Our dependence on foreign oil will cripple and ultimately destroy this nation," former Sen. Tom Daschle (DS.D.) said in his speech at the ACE awards banquet.
In South Dakota, Daschle said, every third row of corn now goes to produce ethanol.
"In 10 years we will be producing 15 billion gallons of ethanol," Daschle said. "America's corn fields will be our victory gardens."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
since the end of July when Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, told the United States to remove its troops from a base in his country, there has been silence on the part of the White House and Pentagon. But many international experts concede there is more to the story than a spat related to charges of violence and torture. It appears that a quiet global war over natural resources in this vital region is at the heart of the dispute.
The base, once used by the Soviets during their war in Afghanistan, was a major launching pad for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. However, the order to quit the base can only have pleased the Chinese and Russians.
For several years the Russians and the Chinese have worked to encourage countries in the region to deny the United States acces to former Soviet bases, especially in the area known as the "Stans" because it borders Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgzstan and Kazakhstan.
Karimov's sudden decision to break with the Bush administration, which had supplied him with aid and had wined and dined him in the White House, followed a year in which he chose Russia's corporate giant, Gazprom, instead of U.S. oil companies, to explore and develop massive gas fields in Uzbekistan. At the same Karimov also sought closer ties with China and invite Chinese companies to invest in his country.
What will best be remembered about Karimov is that he has ruled a regime that has boiled alive its opponents, mostly Muslims. On May13, his military, on his personal orders, massacred 600 demonstrators, most of them Muslims, in Andijan. That was the same military which, in return for the U.S. use of the former Soviet base on the Uzbek border with Afghanistan, was given specialist training by the American military and funded to the tune of $125 million in 2002.
At the same time, Karimov's secret police received over 480 million from the Pentagon for its cooperation with the CIA in its "renditions' policy under which suspects are flown into another country to be tortured.
Last year Craig Murray, a former British diplomat in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, accused the CIA and its British counterpart, M16, of accepting intelligence from the Uzbeks, which had been acquired under torture.
After the May 13 massacre, the U.S. in response to international outrage at Karimov's brutality, tried to save face by calling on Karimov to launch an inquiry.
On the other hand, china and Russia cleverly avoided criticizing the Uzbek ruler. Karimov then reacted angrily when the United States sided with the majority of EU country that was careful not to publicly antagonize him was Germany, which has a lease to a less well-known military base inb southern Uzbekistan.
Since the United States received its marching orders, the White House and Pentagon have adopted a policy of no comment though they have negotiated an extended lease for a former Soviet military base in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. But that base does not have the important geo-political significance of the Uzbek base.
The end of the U.S. military presence in Uzbekistan would seemingly bring to a close an American relationship with a leader described by international human rights groups as evil - a "butcher," much like Saddam.
The relationship between Karimov and George Bush, who shook hands outside the White House, was driven by U.S. imperial ambitions, which called into question America's commitment to human rights.
The relationship now appears to be over, but appearances can
often be deceptive.
|Top|
A high-ranking military officer has come forward saying "
a real danger exists" of a larger-scale terrorist attack
in the 
United States in the near future,
adding Vice President Dick Cheney has become consumed with the
thought of U.S. nuclear retaliation in the Middle East if an attack
on American soil occurs.
The retired officer, who wishes to remain anonymous, claims officers in the U.S. military are openly dissenting over how to address the terrorist threat, claiming the Iraq war, the threats being leveled at Iran and Israel's stranglehold on the Palestinians have created global instability.
These accounts compound earlier reports made last week by others in the military that Cheney has already ordered Strategic Command (STRATCOM) to prepare a nuclear attack against Iran.
Adding to this, Maj, Gen. Paul Vallely (ret.) recently made shocking statements about how close the world actually is to a nuclear conflict.
"It's similar to what we had during the Cold War," said Vallely. "We tell the radical Islamists, ‘If you launch on nuclear device against us anywhere, we will then irradiate Mecca and Medina because you know all Muslims have to go there at least once in their lifetime.'"
"Change the regime in Iran and you change the whole Middle East. All roads lead to Teheran: Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda. I told the Pentagon that my sources have also sighted bin Laden in Iran. They're also supporting Zarqawi.
"We could conduct operations, but they would be covert, to take out training camps in Syria and Iran....With regard to the Iranian nuclear program, the Israelis have completed targeting for Iran, and bunker busters have already been given to Israel."
Further raising eybrows and fueling tension of another 9-11-like attack is the ongoing simulated nuclear terrorist attack, called Exercise Sudden Response being held from Aug. 15 to 19 at Ft. Monroe, Va.
Capt. Kevin McNamara, media relations officer, said the training session is being conducted officially by the Joint Task Force Civil Support (JTF-CS), beginning Monday and ending Thursday.
"The exercise will focus on the Department of Defense's
ability to support civil and federal authorities in providing
a coordinated response to a nuclear explosion in a major U.S.
city. The exercise will be a computer-based field training exercise
with very limited troop movements. All unit-level troop movements
and response activities will be simulated," said McNamara.
|Top|
American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems, owned in part by the government of Israel, is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.
The largest perimeter security company in the world Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI), which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly traded company, although IAI, (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.
What this means is that the government of Israel will have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.
Supporters of Iarael say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be America's closest ally. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's supper-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel, which, even today, officially refuses to confirm or deny that it has nuclear arms.
Magal's global interests are broad. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide array of "space age" technology. Magal has now branched out internationally. Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also patrols most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia.
The Israeli firm guards Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last 15 years, has kept watch on the queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. And Magal safeguards 90 percent of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems.
Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards. There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.
Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27 percent of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35 percent of its sales.
However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially not that the firm has set up a Washington office, which will remote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress, who provide funding for federally supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.
Current U.s. Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff is not only a devout supporter of Israel but is also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties - even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel. Magal, owned in part by Israeli Aircraft Industries, will be the clear-cut favorite in the eyes of officials in Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.
At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. And Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.
All told, the Israeli company holds a 40 percent share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.
Magal is also said to be interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies.
On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection
Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry
of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water
supply system security in the United States and Israel, It's an
even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.
|Top|
