August 6, 2007
August 13, 2007
Restore Self-Government (special insert)
August 20, 2007
August 27, 2007
DALLAS, Texas—Research on the health effects of the highly toxic weapons substance known as depleted uranium, or DU, is not high on the list of priorities of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans Illnesses, which met July 18 to July 19 in Dallas.
Despite this, the veterans group made DU a priority. Despite extensive reports showing the devastating effects of DU, AFP was the only media outlet at the meeting. Although this committee, mainly comprised of scientists, expressed some concern about the effects of DU—the ultra-dense radioactive component used in massive quantities mainly as kinetic-energy penetrators in various U.S. military munitions—other pursuits are taking precedence, at least at this time.
DU, used in the Balkans and currently used extensively throughout Afghanistan and Iraq, is tied to numerous cancers among soldiers and civilians, who inhale DU aerosols or ingest residue through their skin or on their food and in their water. It's thought to have long-term effects via soil and groundwater infiltration. It as also been linked to birth defects in their offspring, including rare forms that are not usually seen in developed countries.
One prominent researcher at the Dallas meeting claimed concerns about DU and its relation to Gulf War Illness (GWI), while worthy of consideration, may be exaggerated.
"We'll look at DU in the future if the epidemiological studies implicate it as a possible cause of Gulf War Illness," committee member Dr. Robert Haley told AFP, just after the program concluded at Hilton Anatole Hotel. He went on to claim: "As far as we can tell, there's no ‘Gulf War Illness' in the second Gulf War, (from) 2003 and after."
He said GWI is a term applied to what he called an "ethereal," or mysterious, variety of maladies that, in his view, stem mainly or solely from Operation Desert Storm and Desert Shield in 1990 to 1991, when hundreds of enemy storage sites containing dangerous chemical and biological military stockpiles, and some nuclear plants, were blown up by U.S. military technicians and fighter pilots. Chemical, biological and radioactive substances were spread around the turbulent, unpredictable environment of the Middle Eastern desert.
But Gulf War I troops were also exposed to DU aerosols and particles, as well as the fallout from such demolitions, all of which are blown across the countryside, often hitting troop formations and civilian centers, especially during the region's notoriously intense sandstorms.
DU clean-up expert Dr. Doug Rokke, a Vietnam and Gulf War veteran who did not attend the Dallas program but has attended other committee meetings, responded to Haley's claims by saying that the immediate DU-exposure testing needed within 24 hours of contact with DU residue "was deliberately delayed and denied" during wartime. So 15 to 16 years later, the direct evidence of DU exposure in Gulf War I is gone, but the long-term health effects from DU, including cancers and myriad other problems, are still affecting many veterans.
"Respiratory problems and rashes appear right away [with DU exposure]," Rokke said. Later comes lung cancer and other illnesses.
Rokke acknowledged that exposure to sarin and other chemical
agents, hazardous immunizations, pesticides and other substances
all contribute to GWI along with DU. He also told AFP that the
Veterans Administration's (VA) own reports through 2006 show that
there are 205,097 casualties from the current Iraqi Freedom and
Enduring Freedom operations—including 67,000-plus soldiers
categorized with "ill-defined" illnesses. He said there
are 1,584 with cancers, more than 21,000 with parasitic infectious
diseases, and many more with various illnesses, including
36,000 respiratory and 61,000 neurological ailments, in round
numbers.
"That's nonsense," Rokke said about the notion that GWI is limited to the first Gulf War.
According to VA figures from August 2006 obtained by AFP, of the 205,000 GIs who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, at least a third of the total have sought medical care, for such problems as malignant tumors (1,584), endocrinal and metabolic diseases (36,409), nervous system diseases (61,524), digestive system diseases (63,002), musculoskeletal diseases (87,590), and mental disorders (73,157), among many other conditions. One of the largest categories is "ill defined"—or mystery conditions (67,743). In comparison, a relatively small number (35,765) have sought VA care for injuries. Thus, figures obtained by AFP corroborate what Rokke contends.
In the first day of the committee's hearings, held at the University of Texas Southwestern School of Medicine, a general list of research priorities, which was not necessarily complete or final, was laid out. The main "areas of interest" were, in order: Epidemiological studies of the rates of neurological diseases such as Parkinson's disease; neuro-imaging, which covers the newest ways to look at subtle differences in brain chemistry that are hard to discern with traditional means; autonomic function; the use of animals as models for studying the effects of Gulf War exposures; the inflammatory effects on Gulf War vets of Gulf War exposures; and, among others, pre-clinical studies of the effects of Gulf War exposure on human cells.
Further down the list, the DU reference fell under the "other topic" category. Centered on studying the soldiers who were at the Camp Doha incident, the DU-related section of the research plan took into account cancer, reproductive effects, multi-symptom conditions, etc.—in comparison to veterans not exposed to DU.
The Camp Doha incident was a series of explosions that ripped through a United States ammunition depot in July 1991, showering soldiers with shrapnel. At least 50 Americans and six Britons were wounded. Injuries ranged from minor cuts to severe shrapnel wounds. The incident, at Blackhorse Camp at Doha, about 12 miles west of Kuwait City, apparently began with an electrical fire on a truck carrying 155-mm. howitzer shells. DU is used in those and many other munitions.
"If Camp Doha shows something, it moves [the DU research] up the hierarchy," Haley said to more than a dozen researchers at the first hearing. He said an obscure group, known as the Merit Review Group, "has the final say on the science" and is the body that would re-prioritize DU research, depending on the outcome of initial studies.
Haley, who is well known in scientific circles for GWI studies
on Navy Seabees, argued for a middle ground between the committee
focusing on long-term research that would delay more immediate
treatment for veterans
with GWI.
Anthony Hardie, who works in Wisconsin's VA office and is himself an ill Gulf War vet, called the $15 million of funding for the group as "a small pittance of appropriations" and expressed disappointment over the results of earlier phases of GWI research over the last 16 years.
"I'm deeply disappointed this is all we have," he said, adding that too much money was spent trying to prove "there was nothing wrong."
After day one, researcher Lea Steele remarked that the clinical application of all the research projects and techniques outlined that day are "dazzling science, yes," but she's worried that too many precious dollars will be eaten up in fancy research and not enough will be available to treat sick vets.
The Advisory Committee is chartered by the VA secretary. It welcomes and solicits information from physicians, scientists, veterans and the general public related to medical research about GWI.
Helpful material includes information about treatments, causes, relevant scientific studies and other promising avenues for medical research. Appropriate submissions may be sent to the committee scientific staff. The mailing address: RAC-Gulf War Veterans Illnesses (T-GW), U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2200 S.W. Gage Blvd., Topeka, Kan. 66622
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com Watch future AFP issues for more on America's welcome acceptance of biofuels and other energy alternatives, helping end our gluttonous addiction to foreign petroleum.
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 meaning and impact of Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul's presidential bid is becoming clearer by the day, as Paul's "Texas Straight Talk" resonates deeply with a diverse spectrum of Americans and changes the political climate in a way that makes establishment candidates appear dull and unappealing. Pundits and observers reluctantly point out that Paul's consistent views and adherence to pro-American principles impress voters enough to support him even when they disagree with him on specific issues.
According to Paul himself, in Georgia, Dr. Paul Broun defeated State Sen. John Whitehead in a special election to Congress. How? By sticking to constitutional principles. In other words, the "Ron Paul approach" disarmed a well-funded establishment candidate and allowed a better man to fill a seat in Congress, where constitutionalists are nearly extinct.
"John had all the establishment and money on his side. But Broun discussed obedience to the Constitution, limited government, the failure of the national Republican leadership and a less aggressive foreign policy. And he won. Columnist Robert Novak said this ‘terrified' all the establishment types in the Republican Party," said Paul, who had talked to Broun during his campaign and was "thrilled" to congratulate him on his victory.
"There is a new wind blowing," Paul said in a news release posted at ronpaul.com . "Our bottom-up campaign - not top-down in the usual official fashion - has gotten far bigger and more successful, at a faster rate, than ever I dreamed. And the sky is the limit. Don't we owe it to our great forebears, and to our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren down through the generations, Not to lose our country? We can win the fight for the ideals of the founders. We can have freedom, peace and prosperity. We can be blessed by our fellow citizens, and by all those who come after us.
Paul's campaign press secretary, Jesse Benton said the Broun-Paul issue underscores the power of truth.
"There are a lot of parallels between Ron and Dr. Broun," Benton told American Free Press. "Both are medical doctors; both are strict constitutionalists. It's a strong indicator that if a real constitutionalist runs, they can overcome establishment backing and deep pockets of campaign finance."
Indeed, the establishment flagship, The Wall Street Journal, ran a July 23 commentary by John Fund, who wrote that Dr. Broun told him: "The race boiled down to someone who represented the status quo versus someone who wanted to vote for change.
Fund noted that Broun "prevailed by using direct mail and telephone messages to go over the heads of party leaders with a pledge that, once in Congress, he would apply a four-way test before voting on any bill: Is it constitutional and a proper function of government? Is it morally correct? Is it something we really need? Is it something we can afford? He has said that, like libertarian congressman and fellow physician Ron Paul of Texas, he will always carry a pocket copy of the Constitution with him and consult it before voting. In an effort to limit pork-barrel ‘earmark' projects, he says he will even apply that standard to requests for federal funds made by local officials in his district.
Broun capped off that legislative commitment by offering strong support for efforts to overturn the Supreme Court's 2005 Kelo vs. New London eminent domain decision that upheld the power of local officials to seize private property for private uses. He also strongly endorsed the abolition of the IRS and the replacement of the income tax with a national sales tax."
Notably, Paul has said repeatedly that he differs on that point, saying he would abolish the IRS and the income tax but would not replace the income tax with anything. He would deeply cut spending so less taxes are needed in the first place.
Interestly, Fund added: "The conventional wisdom in Washington is that someone in Congress who votes against federal spending that isn't in accord with the conception of the Constitution will have trouble getting re-elected. But Rep. Paul, who has made his votes against almost every federal program a center piece of his insurgent GOP presidential campaign, says he finds that he gains more votes from people impressed with his consistency than he loses from those upset that he isn't a passenger on the federal gravy train.
AF P takes the approach of setting the constitutional standard and seeing who reaches it. So far, Paul is the only one to genuinely do so, objectively speaking. AFP makes no election predictions either way. The Constitution is the basic thing to which all officials take a sworn oath to uphold and defend. News reporting should observe that standard as the measure of a candidate. Anything else becomes a mere battle of personalities, as well as repackaged legislative tinkering that has had its chance in the public domain and failed.
Benton also noted another parallel: Broun won due in part to the support he got from a combination of traditional conservatives, libertarians, assorted constitutionalists and even progressives. This same combination, ranging from the age of 18 to the elderly, also is supporting Paul.
Benton said many progressives who are bored by the Democratic presidential candidates were initially attracted to Paul by his anti-war stance but are sticking with him because of his apparent integrity and championing of liberty.
"He's not a packaged politician" and they know that,
Benton told AFP.
|Top|
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) has introduced legislation in Congress calling on his fellow lawmakers to initiate impeachment proceedings against Dick Cheney. The following contains excerpts from Kucinich's articles of impeachment directed at the vice president.
Reasons for impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney:
That Richard Cheney has purposely manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United states by fabricating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to justify the use of the United States armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.
That despite all evidence to the contrary, the voce president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
That preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the voce president was fully informed that no legitimate evidence existed of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The vice president pressured the intelligence community to change their findings to enable the deception of the citizens and the Congress of the United States.
That in this the vice president subverted the national security interests of the United States by setting the stage for the loss of more than 3,300 United states service members and the loss of 650,000 Iraqi citizens since the United States invasion; the loss of approximately $500 billion in war costs, which has increased our federal debt; the loss of military readiness within the United States armed services, through an over extension and lack of training and lack of equipment; and the loss of United States credibility in world affairs and decades of likely blowback created by the invasion of Iraq.
That with respect to Article II, that Richard Cheney manipulated the intelligence process to deceive the citizens and the Congress of the United States about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in order to justify the use of United states armed forces against the nation of Iraq in a manner damaging to our national security.
And that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the vice president actively and systematically sought to deceive the citizens and congress of the United states about an alleged relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
That preceding the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the vice president was fully informed that no credible evidence existed of a working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, a fact articulated in several official documents.
With respect to Article III, that in his conduct while vice president of the United States, Cheney openly threatened aggression against the Republic of Iran, absent any real threat to the United States, and has done do with the United states' proven capability to carry out such treats, thus undermining the national security interests of the United States.
That despite having no evidence that Iran has the intention or the capability of attacking the United States, and despite the turmoil created by the United States' invasion of Iraq, the vice president has openly threatened aggression against Iran.
Furthermore, I point out in the articles that Article VI of the United States Constitution states, and I quote, "This Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land. Any provision of an international treaty ratified by the United States becomes the law of the United States."
The United States is signatory to the UN Charter, a treaty among the nations of the world. Article II, Section 4 of the United Nations Charter states: "All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
The articles conclude by pointing out that the vice president's deception upon the citizens and the Congress of the United States, which enabled the failed United States invasion of Iraq, forcibly alter the rules of diplomacy so that the vice president's recent belligerent actions toward Iran are destabilizing and counterproductive to the national security of the United States of America.
These articles of impeachment are not brought forth lightly. I've carefully weighed the options available to members of Congress and found this to be the path that is the most important to take.
Cheney, as illustrated in the articles of impeachment, used his office to systematically build a case, which was covered in deceit, to try to convince this country to go to war with Iraq, falsely claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and had connection to al Qaeda's role in 9-11. That is, and should be, a violation of his constitutional oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to safeguard all laws.
We have a case here that is pending - this isn't theoretical
- and this is about the proper exercise of checks and balances.
This is congress's responsibility, whether it's a Democratic majority
or a Republican majority.
|Top|
aAs of July 25, Korey Rowe, one of the producers of the popular Sept. 11 film Loose Change, was being held without bail in the Otsego County, New York, jail, waiting to be picked up by U.S. army officials who allege the former soldier is guilty of "desertion."
American Free Press learned just before press-time that Rowe was picked up Monday, July 24, by deputies from the office of Otsego County Sheriff Richard Devlin Jr. A jail spokesman told AFP that Rowe was still being held in the county jail as of 3 p.m. Wednesday afternoon and that he had no idea when the military will pick him up, contradicting some Internet reports that claimed Rowe had been turned over to the military already. When the military takes him, he will be sent to Fort Campbell.
Arrests and courts-martial for deserters are said to be rather rare, The Daily Star, a local newspaper noted, citing associated Press reports.
Rowe, along with Bermas and Dylan Avery, are members of the Louder Than words production company that is working on a highly anticipated third edition of the Loose Change movie documentary, which contends the U.S. government had a hand in the 9-11 terrorist attacks. That edition is intended to be a big theatrical release. A major rally is planned in New York City Sept. 11 to launch the film's debut. See www.wearechange.org for more information.
The Star noted that Rowe enlisted in the Army in August 2001 and left in June 2005. He reportedly has been out of the army for more than two years. "He was previously arrested under similar circumstances but was immediately released," according to the Star.
An AFP call to the sheriff's office to gather more details was not returned near deadline on Wednesday afternoon. The Star report and other accounts noted that Rowe was arrested on a "military warrant" that Sheriff Devlin said was brought to the attention of his deputies by the nearby Oneonta Police Department, who received information from "a source outside" of that department. Rowe was living at a Route 47 Oneconta home at the time of his arrest.
Notably, last year's New York Loose Change rally drew
some 2,000people, "We're hoping to dwarf that this year,"
said Jason Bermas, one of Rowe's Loose Change film partners.
|Top|
PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RON PAUL is leading all other candidates—both Republicans and Democrats—in total campaign donations given by active military personnel and veterans.
Many people see this as vindication for his America-first, non-interventionist foreign policy position that he has emphasized during TV debates and at a series of rallies and other campaign activities across the country.
Since people naturally put their money behind those who most reflect their views and interests, the fact that Paul has received so much financial support from current and former American servicemen strongly suggests that they are dissatisfied with the never-ending police actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and want to bring the troops home—just as Paul has repeatedly advocated without equivocation.
THE NUMBERS
On July 15, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) announced each candidate's second-quarter fundraising totals. The reporting period was from April 1 to June 30, 2007.
Paul leads the whole Republican-Democrat pack with total military donations of $24,965—the sum of $6,975 from Army personnel, $6,765 from those in the Navy, $4,650 from members of the Air Force, $1,500 from Marine Corps personnel and $5,075 from veterans.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, a Democratic presidential contender, is a close second, with $22,866 in total military and veteran donations.
Notably, Paul is not the leading recipient in each military category—Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York got $6,600 from veterans, the most of any candidate, for example.
However, Paul, who is one of 11 GOP candidates, comfortably leads the Republicans in military receipts. The next closest candidate to him in this regard is Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a Vietnam-era Navy pilot with $17,425 in total military and veteran donations.
The other Republicans don't even compete; the next closest is Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, with a total of $3,851. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani received only $2,320.
Moreover, Military.com, an online publication for active and retired military personnel, reported: "Nearly 60 percent of readers who participated in a recent Military.com poll said the United States should withdraw its troops from Iraq now or by the end of 2008. More than 40 percent of the respondents agreed the pullout should begin immediately because ‘we're wasting lives and resources there.' "
"Present U.S. forces are, of course, all-volunteer, not draftees (or not exactly anyway, given recent tour extensions in Iraq and other kinds of forced call-ups), but why should they want to be endlessly redeployed to a lost war in a lost land? By the time the Bush Administration is done, the Paul campaign may be swimming in military money," wrote Tom Englehardt in the July 23 online edition of The Nation, a widely read publication.
Paul's FEC figures perused by AFP reveal that his campaign has been well managed. Not only do the figures show the campaign to be completely debt-free, but not a single dollar of political action committee (PAC) money has been accepted by Paul's committee.
Paul started that quarter with $524,919 cash-in-hand, brought in $2,369,452 in receipts (totaling $2.9 million) which, after modest disbursements of $539,517, left him with about $2.4 million. Among the Republican presidential candidates, he places fourth, financially speaking, behind Romney, Giuliani and McCain. But he spends his money much more carefully.
While Giuliani also has no debts so far, Romney has considerable debt—$8.8 million, in fact, for the full election cycle to date ($6.5 million of that during the second quarter). Not to mention that Romney received some $82,000 from "other political committees," which is part of $223,000 from such committees for the full cycle.
Giuliani received $1,250 from "political party committees" for both the cycle and the second quarter, and $219,158 from "other political committees" for the full cycle ($117,035 of that during the second quarter).
Obama's campaign shows debts of $922,848, while he received $5,100 from "other political committees" for the full cycle ($2,050 of that during the second quarter).
The Paul campaign, thanks to effective, economical outreach tools via the internet (YouTube, Meetup groups, etc.) has spent a grand total of just $600,000, in round numbers, to date, FEC figures show. Such tools have enabled him to reach scores of enthusiastic young voters.
But AFP found that Obama, for example, is binge-spending—$22.5 million to date, of which a whopping $15 million was in the second quarter. Yet Paul spent only $500,000, in round numbers, in that quarter.
Giuliani spent $11 million-plus for the quarter and $17 million-plus to date. Not to be outdone, Romney spent a gargantuan $20.4 million in the second quarter and $31.7 million to date.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has the most contributions from "other political committees": $99,713 in the second quarter and $402,311 for the full cycle. His committee spent $12.9 million in the second quarter and $21.8 million overall. "Debts and obligations owed by the committee" total $1.7 million, according to the FEC.
Among Democrats, the cash leaders at the period's close include Obama with $36 million and Clinton with $45 million. The others were far below those amounts.
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com Watch future AFP issues for more on America's welcome acceptance of biofuels and other energy alternatives, helping end our gluttonous addiction to foreign petroleum.
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|
An insane plan authorized by President Bush to join Turkey in a covert war to assassinate leaders of a Kurdish rebel group in northern Iraq was exposed after a former Dick Cheney aide briefed lawmakers on Capitol Hill.
Within days of the visit to the Hill by Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, columnist robert Novak got wind of the plan and made it public. It transpired that Edelman boasted that the plan involved U.S. Special forces helping their Turkish counterparts "behead" the leadership of the Kurdish guerrilla group the PKK, also known as the Kurdistan Workers Party, in its hideout in mountains bordering northern Iraq and Turkey.
When lawmakers questioned the sanity of the United States getting caught up in yet another guerrilla war. Edelman assured them it would be a success. The U.S. role would be hidden and vigorously denied if made public. Some members of Congress thought the strategy was risky, especially at a time when the United States was bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Edelman's response was that the plan was a "slam dunk and that it would not take long to accomplish.
Some lawmakers also raised concerns that doing Turkey's dirty work could have unforeseen consequences and could only add to further isolation of the United States around the world.
The Turks have long argued that the PKK, which wants Kurds within Turkey to be granted autonomy, has been aided by Iraqi Kurds who have been staunch American allies. Iraqi Kurds have no love for Turkey but deny involvement with the PKK. Nevertheless, they will not look kindly on U.S. involvement in a campaign against fellow Kurds.
Several months ago, Turkey, which is a NATO member, alarmed the EU and the United States by massing large numbers of troops on the border. At the time, Turkish generals talked openly of invading Iraq with over 200,000 troops.
The reaction from the Iraqi parliament, as well as from the regional Kurdish government in northern Iraq, was swift. They warned an invasion by Turkey would not only be a breach of Iraqi sovereignty but would be repulsed. It now seems the United States has encouraged Turkey to jettison its invasion plans in return for a joint U.S.-Turkish dirty war against the PPK, using U.S. air power and hi-tech surveillance.
The PKK is regarded as a terrorist group by many western nations and has been a thorn in turkey's side because it has caused unrest among Turkey's large Kurdish minority. The group's supporters have demanded that parts of Turkey and Iran be annexed to northern Iraq to form a united Kurdish state.
Turkey is not without blame. Some 30,000 Kurds have been killed during several decades of fighting between the PKK and the Turkish military. The Turks have been accused of carrying out assassinations, rapes, torture and the kidnapping of large numbers of Kurdish nationals. During the Cold War the PKK's Marxist-Leninist leanings made it an enemy of the West and the United States. The CIA even went so far as to train Turkish assassination squads and militias to track down PKK members and sympathizers.
U.S. involvement in that secret war is rarely discussed but lawmakers who may be aware of it would certainly not wish a repeat of American participation in what could turn out to be a dangerous game.
There is yet another aspect to the Bush plan that may concern some on the Hill. Turkey has its own agenda in respect to how it would like to see the Iraq conflict resolved. The Turks have never been happy about America's closeness to the Kurds who helped the United states bring down Saddam Hussein. But, they are more concerned about those Iraqi Kurds sitting on huge oil reserves around Kirkuk. Therefore, If Iraq descended into all-out civil war, Kurdistan in northern Iraq could become a totally separate and very rich entity on Turkey's border.
The problem is even more complicated than that. Israel is supportive of Iraqi Kurds and has gone out of its way to train militias under the control of the Kurdish regional government. Israel may well seethe Kurds as an ideal bulwark against fundamentalist Iran and a Turkey with the potential to move in the future from a secular region to a state controlled by Islamic radicals.
Still, there is a more troubling connection between the United States and the PKK. The PKK no longer sees itself as a Marxist-Leninist organization and accuses Turkey of denying Kurds within its borders the same human rights as the rest of the Turkish population. The PKK's opposition to Turkey is matched only by its hatred of Iran because of Iran's treatment of Kurds within its borders. In the past year, evidence has mounted that the CIA and the Israelis have been encouraging, if not actively supporting, PKK attacks within Iran in an effort to destabilize the Iranian government.
Taking all that into consideration, there's no wonder some
lawmakers are jittery about the Cheney-Bush tendency to think
foreign policy is best served by secretive, but very bloody military
actions.
|Top|
Fresh from defeat at the hands of Congress, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is now grasping for straws. While his new publicity stunt is being praised by the anti-gun media, they aren't telling you that Bloomberg's campaign targeting law abiding gun dealers ignores existing tough federal laws against criminals with illegal guns. And unless you're famous or rich - you're on Bloomberg's target list.
First, Bloomberg tried to get his hands on law enforcement records of firearm transactions. If he'd been successful, no gun dealer in America would've been safe from harassing lawsuits aimed at driving firearm dealers out of business.
Congress saw through this Bloomberg sham and reaffirmed legislation that keeps those records where they belong - in the hands of law enforcement officials.
Now, Bloomberg has launched a publicity campaign that rips off and weakens an NRA crime-fighting policy more than a decade old. NRA members know it is a Project Exile.
Project Exile began in Richmond, Va., a decade ago, when a tough federal prosecutor did what every prosecutor should do: He fully enforced existing laws that mandated a five-year prison sentence for every criminal caught in possession of a firearm. Project Exile cut the murder rate in Richmond by more than 60% in just one year by targeting violent criminals directly.
NRA supported that effort, while the anti-gun lobby mocked it. I personally stood with Richmond law enforcement, and the NRA then worked with Congress to get that program implemented nationally.
Where was Bloomberg then? Nowhere to be found.
But now New York City residents will soon see advertising posters telling them that an illegal gun could get them three years in jail, not five. All thanks to Bloomberg.
Not only is Bloomberg grandstanding, like this existing federal program is his bright new idea, he's advertising a reduction in prison time for violent criminals with guns.
And unless you're famous or rich, Bloomberg's ad campaign says you should to jail. Because in New York city, you can't own or possess a firearm without a permit. That requires a $170 non-refundable application fee, plus another $99 fee to be fingerprinted. And even if you can afford it, most average law-abiding citizens are flatly denied, and those fees are stashed in the city coffers.
But the media won't report that fact, because they're in love with their anti-gun crusader.
Wayne LaPierre is executive VP of the National Rifle Association.
|Top|
When the top-tier Democratic presidential candidates look at each other, it's like looking into a mirror. They are all essentially alike. They argue over who is the most committed to an issue, not the issue.
All are for homosexual rights, raising taxes, big spending, big government and amnesty for illegal aliens. They criticize President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program not because it violates the 9th and 10th Amendments bu because they want to spend more, make it bigger and more intrusive. Nowhere in the 10th Amendment or elsewhere in the Constitution is the federal government given any role in state school systems.
Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) hopes to be the first black president while sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) wants to be the first woman commander-in-chief. So Obama, who has a white mother, has to fight charges of "not being black enough." Hillary, who disdains dresses in favor of pantsuits, is accused of not "being woman enough."
Toadying for Hispanic support is seen as crucial; more than 1 million Hispanic noncitizens cast illegal ballots - mostly for Al Gore - in 2000. More Hispanic votes - legal and illegal - are expected in 2008, and the overwhelming majority will be cast for democrats, according to a national advocacy groups for illegal aliens.
So Obama tried to jump to the head of the line by becoming "one of them." He told a meeting of the nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group that he deserved their support because he had marched with them in support of amnesty for illegal aliens.
"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last Year," Obama told his Hispanic audience. "Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk - because I walked."
Obama's "not black enough" problem could mean trouble for his camaign as polls show that more blacks, especially black women, support Hillary over Obama. To combat this, Obama scheduled 60-second ads on Black radio to assure constituents that he is Negro.
In the latest Democratic debate, Hillary felt compelled to insist she is a "woman." But the label has always troubled her because she dislikes being identified as a woman. When cameras are absent, she is a garbage mouth who speaks obscenities that would sober up a drunken sailor and make him blush.
Hillary has always been a problem for many Americans, who are suspicious of her constantly reinventing herself even going so far as to change her name.
London's Independent had this to say about Hillary: "Hillary stunned her friends when she announced on her wedding day in 1976that she would not be taking her husband's name but would remain Hillary Rodham. Bill's mother wept at the news and a campaign adviser warned presciently ‘Hillary Rodham will be your Waterloo.' Later on when bill lost the election to be Arkansas governor she decided she was Hillary Clinton after all. Then within days of his inauguration as president she became Hillary Rodham Clinton and set about installing herself as "co-president." She quickly established herself as the president's most trusted adviser, and plunked herself and her ‘Hillaryland' entourage in the West wing, steps from the Oval Office.
Throughout her years in the Senate, Hillary has referred to herself as "Hillary Rodham Clinton." but recently, she again dropped her maiden name and now calls herself "Hillary Clinton."
Now web sites have been created that show the evolution of not only her views on issues such as the War in Iraq and Syria but her clothing and hairstyles over the years.
Hillary is a problem for the democratic Party, which traditionally claimed to represent unions and working-class Americans. She recently took a hit for employing a pollster whose law firm is well-known for union busting.
While pollsters say that Hillary has an 80% chance of winning the primary, national polls reveal she has over a 50% negative rating among average Americans.
With a war going terribly, a brewing recession and foreclosures
on the rise, the Republicans have set the table for the Democrats
to take back the White House. But if Hillary or Obama gets the
nomination, it is increasingly dubious that either one may just
be able to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
|Top|
President Bush has signed an executive order (EO) on July 17 facilitation the confiscation of property from those who frustrate the Bush administrations policies in Iraq. Entitled "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." it is a presidential "amendment" to a series of previous executive orders dealing with the same matter.
The EO states in part that "all property or properties may not be transferred paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in by any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraq people."
Although it is obviously written in typical legalese and designed to confuse and intimidate what might otherwise be a concerned citizen, the message contained within it is clear: that any persons or group who "undermine efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq" can and will have their property taken from them with no warning. This comes from the same federal government that finds itself in the midst of a disaster in Iraq while trying desperately to cultivate a new one in Iran.
Those who scoff at the idea that such an EO could be used as a means of silencing opponents of a particular political issue should keep in mind that there is nothing new about this. As early as 1800 the newly-formed federal government under the administration of John Adams was jailing people under an anti-sedition law that criminalized speaking out against what was at the a small, two-year-long naval war being fought between the United States and France known as the "Quasi-War."
Other students of history will remember how Abraham Lincoln had members of Congress jailed who were critical of his war policies and how, many years later, members of the press were jailed during World War I for doing the same. It happened again, in another mockery of justice, during World War II, when poets, publishers, essayist, social critics, authors, lecturers, former politicians and diplomats and others were subjected to prosecution for allegedly supporting fascism.
All tyrants have throughout history been non-specific in their legalese prior to making criminals of their political enemies.
Take note of the vague language in which the EO has been written. Given the times, and the already established tendency on the part of the U.S. government to stretch the law to fit its needs, it is not difficult to imagine how the phrase "pose a significant risk of committing acts of violence" and how "providing logistical support" can be criminally applied to things such as free expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly.
Skeptics who continually argue the "it can't happen here" mantra should keep in mind that this is post-Patriot Act America, where habeas corpus no longer exists and cruel and unusual punishment has been given an approving nod, both by a government gone wild as well as by complacent citizenry.
Americans in the know should not be the least bit surprised at this latest development. As previously noted, since long before Sept. 11 the federal government - irrespective of who has occupied its highest office - has remained unconcerned with the loss of freedom. Whether it has been by an act of Congress, a ruling by the supreme court or as in this case, an EO coming from the same man who, according to CNN, said before Congress on Aug. 18, 2000, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so ling as I'm the dictator" the result is the same: just one more victory for tyranny.
In the meantime, those who profit the most from the death of
freedom in America will be found in the counting houses, celebrating
their latest success and planning their next coup.
|Top|
The white House appears to be hell-bent on destroying U.S. military. It is now making preparations for expanding the already-disastrous "was on terror" to include Pakistan.
In a series of recent press briefings, spokesmen from both the Department of defense, as well as various intelligence agencies, confirmed that strikes against "terrorist targets" in Pakistan's northwestern sector are becoming more and more likely.
The sector of Pakistan in question is a highly mountainous area known as the Federal Autonomous Tribal Area, or FATA, and home to approximately 3.3 million Pashtun tribesmen who are devout Sunni Muslims and supporters of Osama bin Laden, at least in spirit.
Those persons and agencies who claim that bin Laden still exists credit the fact that the reason he has not yet been found is because of the material, logistical and political support he has been given by the Pashtuns. The fact that this region is right on the border with Afghanistan means that Taliban fighters use it as both a base of operations and a place of refuge after striking out at American targets.
America is stretched to the limit with regard to both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are even more disastrous consequences associated with expanding hostilities in Pakistan.
The Pashtuns, in addition to being the largest tribe on earth, number over 30 million people in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. They are fiercely anti-American and anti-Zionist. Despite the fact that the artificial boundary created by the British in 1947 separated them into two nations known as Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is strong solidarity between the two sides, particularly in their understanding that the present debacle taking place is not as much a war against terror as it is a war against Islam.
Since the war on terror began four years ago, Pakistan, through its American puppet strongman president Rervez Musharraf, has been paid roughly $100 million a month to fight "anti-American" militants within Pakistan's borders. But now, as recent events are beginning to prove, he is having a difficult time forcing his Pashtun-heavy military to make war against its own people. In the last month, over 3,000 Pashtuns have been killed by the more than 80,000 Pakistani troops that have been mobilized against them. As a result, Musharraf is having an increasingly tough time holding his government together and is facing a civil war, not only within his country but within the key sectors of his government as well, including the intelligence services, the bureaucracy and the military.
Most troubling of all is the recent story coming out of Israel itself, where virtually all decisions regarding America's "war on terror" are made. Shlomo Ben-Ami, foreign minister in the cabinet of Ehud Farak, said that the threat of Hamas and Hezollah is "smaller compared to the challenges posed by the worldwide export of terrorism by Pakistan."
The conclusion to all of this is obvious, which is that Americans
will have more to worry about than simply airliners being hijacked
and flown into buildings.
|Top|
This article is copyrighted and cannot be reproduced here.
But it can be read on the Internet at: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070712_reform.htm
|Top|
Even in States with relatively liberal agricultural laws, being a respected operation known for producing high quality products does not protect you from the government mentality, which discourages locally owned family farms and grassroots self-sufficiency.
This reporter, a few years ago, watched a southwest Michigan raw-cider mill with delicious, nutritious un-pasteurized apple coder suffocate under the weight of state regulations. No one had gotten sick from the cider. It didn't matter. Drinking raw cider is no longer an option there.
Whether it's raw cider, raw milk or organic meats, the government maxim is the same: Nothing should be done outside the scrutiny and demands of the state. And regulation can easily become strangulation.
MILK SALES HALTED
Just as a Michigan case covered by AFP in the May 21 2007 edition was winding down - because state agriculture officials reached an out-of-court settlement allowing the farmer to continue distributing raw milk to members of a dairy co-op that he manages - AFP learned that the Stump Acres Dairy in York County, Pa., is under fire from state officials who have accused the long-established dairy of producing raw milk contaminated with salmonella. A local child got sick with that particular bacterium, but tests conducted for the last three months by authorities have not established that raw milk caused the illness.
But that doesn't matter. The state government still prohibits Stump Acres from continuing its popular on-the-farm sales of the highest quality raw milk. The state has kept up the testing - first for salmonella and then for other things. Most came back negative, though the state claims to have found a bacterium call Lesteria in the farm's milk tanks.
Stump Acres owner Glendora Stump, however, had the same tanks independently tested at Pennsylvania State University, which came back negative. She has adhered to state requirements for twice-a-month routine testing since the latter 1960s.
Stump acres has been running smoothly since 1967, "We've been here 40 years doing the same thing and nobody ever got sick," Mrs. Stump told AFP.
Under the current state scrutiny, Mrs Stump, who reluctantly posted a sign at the farm announcing that her milk is not for sale, has been forced to give away her raw milk since Feb 27, 2007 - even while having to spend considerable time and money to keep up the equipment used to milk her 136 cows.
Sought after for its rich taste and health benefits - including beneficial bacteria killed by pasteurization and enzymes that significantly aid digestion - raw milk is regulated mainly at the state level. There's a patchwork of laws. Some states require those wanting raw milk to obtain it by owning shares in a cow herd, as is the case in Michigan and Indiana. A few states allow retail sales but no farm sales, and some are the other way. Pennsylvania law is rather lenient: It allows aales of raw milk both on-the-farm and at health food stores. The milk must be labeled as raw in such stores. The milk must be labeled as raw in such stores, but on the farm including Stump's, customers can even fill their own containers
CUSTOMER SPEAKS OUT
"It seems that the child here who got salmonella poisoning just happened to have a bottle of stump acres milk in the fridge," longtime Stump acres customer Jim Keith told AFP. "Well, the contents of the bottle tested negative, but that was just the beginning. Stump Acres has not been able to sell its raw milk since - even after hundreds of milk, feed, water and manure samples have been tested - all negative. They just cannot seem to get done and admit that it was not the milk. Stump Acres is one of the nicest dairy farms around - some 1,000 acres. Unfortunately for the Pennsylvania department of Agriculture, they are not going away or giving up."
So if the tests aren't finding anything to worry about at a well-managed farm that's been in business so long - where the cows are pasture-fed and not hormone-injected, which produces the best milk - what's the problem?
Mrs. Stump feels that state authorities have hounded her three times over the last two years because she and her son, Terry, serve on the area Raw Milk Association, which has 76 member-farms. She's the secretary treasurer and he's the president. As she sees it, shutting down Stump Acres would produce a ripple effect that would enable the state to more efficiently crack down on local producers of high quality raw milk.
A state agricultural inspector who would not speak to AFP allegedly told Mrs. Stump that regulators are trying to shut her down. She believes the state is acting in favor of corporate farm interests, perhaps including a large, local farm operation in order to shut down smaller, family-based operations and help corporate interests corner the market.
Stump, not one to easily give up, told AFP that one particular
customer with severe acid reflux needs raw milk; otherwise, he
can barely eat. Her concerned customers have been writing letters
to the editor and contacting State Sen. Mike Waugh for assistance.
Hanging in the balance in Pennsylvania is consumer choice for
a product that provides obvious benefits, amid a number of reports
over the years that processed milk typically spoils faster than
raw milk and is more prone to cause illness.
|Top|
RSG has now recruited over a dozen
of the largest conservative national patriotic organizations to
participate with us in our program to restore Constitutional self-government
by the voters. Their members will be working together with the
RSG local county chapters out amongst the grassroots in each county.
Our organization, RESTORE SELF-GOVERNMENT (RSG), proposes to restore Constitutional self-government by the voters. RSG is developing into a national grassroots populist network dedicated to recapturing our lost rights, effecting real political change and informing a brainwashed public. Who could deny the vital importance of this mission at this time in our nation's history? Our government has run amuck. Our "representatives" continually ignore the obvious wishes of the American voter. Why?
The intention of the Founding Fathers was that government consisting of a Congress and a President [not a huge irresponsive bureaucracy]... would act in response to the wishes of the nation.
Instead our government creates monsters which horrify the helpless people of the nation, insists on an immigration policy that is swamping our nation with millions of new people who are totally ignorant of our values and free institutions - who will make consensus amongst our voters impossible - and thus destroy self-government. Our government has pushed us into unpopular, pointless and unwinnable war after war, not one of which is ever in the best interests of our nation.
As the voters have demonstrated their clear opposition to the pointless war in Iraq, the Neo-Cons in the Bush administration have continued their preparations to attack Iran. Cheney says, "You can't stop us," showing his contempt for the People.
To defend our very existence against a bloodthirsty regime, WE MUST ACT NOW and decisively to stop the expansion of the police state. That would be the end of our personal freedom and our self-government for all time. This is no wild conspiracy thery. It's happening as we speak. Who would have imagined before the Bush administration, such cavalier political discussion of torture, pre-emptive war, "tactical" nuclear war, domestic wiretapping, incarceration without trial etc. They are merely setting the stage as we watch helplessly!
WE ARE NOT HELPLESS, HOWEVER. But just how could a grassroots organization like RSG halt the ever-expanding police state? And how can we prevent the attack on Iran, which would most likely result in WWIII?
We must do it at the grassroots level. RSG volunteers in each county and state will concentrate on building local citizen support against bad laws and unpopular issues. RSG will support sound local and national political candidates. RSG volunteers will recruit the local media to cover their meetings and their programs. Local papers and broadcasting stations are run by local people whose attitudes on issues are much like ours. It is the mainstream media that are controlled by the elite. With our support, the local papers and stations, might eventually replace the elite-controlled media.
RSG volunteers can also help the county sheriff (and get his commitment to recognize his unique Constitutional responsibility to protect constituents from federal abuse). Everything counts. Many of us want to impeach Bush and Cheney. But since impeachment is done by Congress, I wouldn't count on quick success.
Instead we need to educate as many people as possible to the facts about what is going on in America TODAY.
Congress and the President exist for the purpose of following the Will of the People, and they are not doing it. In as much as Congress (and the President) have not been fulfilling their Constitutional obligation of listening to and acting on the Will of the People, as the Founders intended.
There are so many things we can do if we just get organized.
We can supply more information and provide help and support in
your home state. Participating in RSG does not conflict with any
membership in any party or organization. RSG is inclusive, not
exclusive. The more the merrier. Our ads will appear in populist
newspapers and newsletters in the near future...
|Top|
There's great news. So much interest has been generated by
our initial promotions for Restore Self-Government that we will
be publishing an electronic newsletter to be emailed every two
weeks to members starting in August. The labor, cost and time
of mailing an RSG newsletter via the U.S. Post Office to thousands
of members every two weeks would be prohibitive as compared to
sending them via e-mail. We urge members to send their e-mail
address to us at RSGLeela@aol.com as soon as possible. Those who
may not have a computer should ask some family member, nearby
friend or neighbor with a computer if they would mind receiving
your newsletter for you. Just send us their e-mail and we will
forward it to them. We suggest a like-minded person you can trust.
|Top|
On March 2, AFP sat down with longtime patriot author and activist Cushman Cunningham, on of the key organizers behind the grassroots group Restore Self-Government, for an interview. Cunningham discussed this bold plan to bring honesty and integrity back to our government.
Can you tell us about your program, specifically elaborating on the name you have chosen: "Restore Self-Government" (RSG) and what it will mean to Americas?
Restore Self-Government" means just what it says: It is a grassroots movement to bring integrity and honesty back to our country - to essentially return power to the American people, where it rightfully belongs. Our Founding Fathers wanted it that way. However, two centuries later, the representatives we send to d.C. to work for the good of the people are working for wealthy elites, special interest groups and themselves. The American people have been left out of the formula.
It is clear to all of us that the president and Congress are ignoring the message sent by the voters in the 2006 midterm elections. The voters voted against the Iraq War and open borders. They rejected out-of-control miltary spending and reductions in Constitutional rights. However, since the election, neither our overpaid Congress nor the president has made any sign of carrying out the clear wishes of the voters. This is nothing new. Wonder why we have the same unresolved problems for decades? And this gets to the heart of our organization. Now we have an organization - a structure - to do something about it by working to restore self-government.
Do you believe that mainstream america is truly ready to hear potentially controversial and candid information?
It is clear Americans have been unhappy with the performance of their government for decades. But now with the defiant, arragant attitude of George W. Bush, that unhappiness has become anger. The electorate is ready for true change. Just look at the midterm elections. Even though the leadership in the Democratic Party was actually spending money to undermine antiwar Democrats, any still won elections. It is clear that Americans are upset about things. RSG provides not just a steam valve for that anger, it also gives Americans a means upon which they can take action to effect real change. It is really positive and empowering - just the thing our fellow Americans are hungry for.
What are your goals?
Our goals ultimately involve restoring Constitutional self-government. But that is only part of it. We want to restore confidence and hope in our government again. Americans are so cynical today about the people who represent them in Washington. That's no surprise considering the egregious scandals of late. We have all read about the corrupt lobbyists, the crooked legislators and the pedophile congressmen - to name some of the more sordid outrages that have dominated the news this year. Washington is now viewed by many people as a den of iniquity.
If we can bring back morality, truthfulness and ethics to the system, than we should consider our efforts a success. That's what we're talking about. I'm not saying this will be easy. We'll be taking on groups with unlimited resources. But I believe strongly we can put up a good fight, and with the backing of the American people, it's not insurmountable. We wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think there's a chance.
Can you tell us how RSG will be organized?
It will be a grassroots volunteer system in which each chapter is independent. It is already spreading across the United States. As RSG grows in the coming years, the battle lines will be drawn, and it will become obvious very quickly what side everyone is on.
Is there anything else that you think Americans should hear to convincethem that the time is ripe for true change in government?
Time is rapicly running out for what remains of freedom in
America. It is no coincidence that the administration's Patriot
Act, the Homeland Security Act, the North American Union and the
transition to unverifiable electronic voting machines have all
happened about the same time - during the bush administration.
That all these threats to self-government have occurred simultaneously
is not only though-provoking, it is truly frightening. We Americans
need to band together and fight this growing police state, which
does not have the good of the people at heart. The sooner we act,
the sooner we can hope to bring government back to its lawful
and Constitutional limits - as our Founders intended.
|Top|
It seems that 2006 was marred by scandal after scandal. It's getting to the point that I have received letters from long-time readers, who say they just can't take the bad news anymore without any sense of hope. Well, there is hope for a fresh start, and it gives us a sense that there is something we can feel good about for a change.
There is a new group of seasoned activists, who are trying to inject some much-needed integrity back into Washington. Restore Self-Government (RSG) is the name of the group sporting the ambitious plan to restore honesty to government. As you have read in this special insert to American Free Press, the goal of RSG is to mobilize a network of Americans who want to return the country back to its constitutional roots, ensuring life and liberty for all Americans, not just those represented by wealthy special interest groups. It is a populist movement in the truest sense of the word, looking to return power to the people.
New figures reveal that lobbying organizations, in the past few years, have spent billions of dollars in D.C. pressuring government for their selfish causes. These include all-expense-paid junkets to far-off lands and fancy gifts for legislators and their staff. This is not what our Founding Fathers intended after they fought to build our great nation. The special interest groups include the military-industrial complex, financial giants and free trade organizations. What is missing from the list of these top influence peddlers? Not one of these groups actually represents the American people as a whole.
There is no doubting the fact that RSG is not up for an easy
battle. The group is taking on some of the wealthiest and most
powerful organizations in this country - really, the entire world.
That is why it is imperative that all Americans get behind RSG
for the good of the country. American Free Press readers
know that it took a small, determined hand of patriots to found
this country. Today, it will take a similar group to restore its
greatness. Here's our chance to make a difference. I believe in
this cause, and RSG has my full support. Acting together, we can
restore self-government and safeguard the Constitution for generations
to come.
|Top|
Presidential candidate Ron Paul
may not have the backing of the munitions makers, the K Street
lobbyists or the bankers on Wall Street, but his grassroots campaign
has been taking the country by storm - especially among the younger
generation on the Internet.
Though he spends most of his time in Washington these days, Paul has managed to steer clear of the stench of corruption and backroom deals so prevalent in today's politics. His refreshing views about reducing the size of government and sticking to the Constitution resonate with Americans who are increasingly fed up with politics as usual emanating from the capital.
Paul's message about returning sovereignty of the individual and self government back to the people is heartening to those who see the federal leviathan stealing Americans' hard-earned money and sending it overseas in the form of foreign aid or handing it ver to corporations in the form of subsidies.
Moreover, at a time when the U.S. dollar (fiat money) is losing its purchasing power here in the United states and is weak abroad, Paul's call for honest money in the form of dollars backed by gold provides hope to people who are literally living hand to mouth, trying to feed their families as their dollars seem to buy less and less every day.
It's not surprising that Paul is especially popular on the Internet. For example, his YouTube.com web site, which airs videos of his rallies and speeches, is one of the most popular on the web. With over 2.5 million viewers, it ranks far above well-funded candidates like Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). His Myspace page ranks higher than almost all of the other candidates - Republican and Democrat alike. And then there is Eventful.com, where users make requests for candidates to appear in their town. There he's beating former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) by over 10,000 votes.
Recently, at a rally in Kansas, City, Missouri, Paul spoke before a large group of enthusiastic supporters to hearty applause.
"People ask, How come you're doing so well on the Internet?'" Paul said, "It might just be that freedom is a popular idea.
He added: "Almost every problem we have is because we didn't follow the advice of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.... What we want is noninterference by the government in our personal lives."
Commentators have all made predictions about whether Paul can
or cannot win. But the truth is no one has any idea what will
happen in the coming year. If Paul's supporters can keep up the
grassroots pressure on the more mainstream Republican candidates,
it's only a matter of time before he can break the stranglehold
of the neo-conservatives on the Republican Party and restore self-government
to the people of the United States.
|Top|
For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government's abuse of the people's rights. I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.
What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.
The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.
The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.
Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.
True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing and income tax on us, or challenge a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and King have been.
Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, ti is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.
This is an edited portion of a speech Ron Paul gave before
the House of Representatives on May 22. See more from the Texas
representative at www.ronpaul2008.com.
|Top|
American
Free Press August 13, 2007Restore Self-Government heartily endorses American Free Press newspaper considering it one of the few wholly independent informational news sources available to the American public. If you are reading this and you are not a subscriber to AF P you should subscribe. For just $1 a week ($52), AFP will send you a one-year subscription (52 issues mailed to your doorstep) plus a FREE copy of Michael Collins Piper's underground bestseller The Secret History of the Neo-Cons (regularly sells for (20).
Call 1-888-699-NEWS toll free today to change a subscription
to Visa or MasterCard or send payment to AFP, 645 Pennsylvania
Avenue SE, #100, Washington, D.C. 20003. See more at www.americanfreepress.net.
|Top|
THE WHITE HOUSE said President Bush will veto the entire defense authorization bill if so-called "hate crimes" legislation contained in the bill approved by the House and pending in the Senate remains.
"The qualifications in the bill are so broad that virtually any crime involving a homosexual individual has potential to have hate crime elements," said White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto.
"The proposals they are talking about are not sufficiently narrow."
A coalition of religious leaders, including black Christian pastors, have lobbied the White House to reject the amendment, saying it could lead to suppression of free speech and religious expression.
"The bill is not about crime prevention or even civil rights," said Chuck Colson, a former aide to President Richard Nixon who now runs a Christian ministry to prisoners. "It's about outlawing peaceful speech—speech that asserts that homosexual behavior is morally wrong."
The proposal would add homosexuals to the list of blacks and women who are "protected" under current law. It would allow federal thought police to decide if the victim was mugged not only for money but because of "hate." It federalizes local laws, which are dealt with strongly at the local level, resulting in a vast expansion of power in Washington. Congress has yet to define a "love crime."
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|
President Bush said if the Senate in September approves the Kennedy/Smith hate bill as an amendment to the military reappropriations bill, he will veto it. He'll send it back to Congress to have the hate bill removed. He will not be bullied into approving this legislation.
With the president's popularity at a record low, he clearly perceives that those who oppose hate laws are becoming a significant power bloc - a group well worth satisfying. But this is not a time for lovers of freedom to rest on their accomplishments. Rather, we must continue pressure on members of the Senate to vote against the Kennedy/Smith amendment in September.
As the public becomes aware of how hate laws have taken away free speech in many countries, and intend to do so here, it sees through the deception of hate law rhetoric. The claim that "anti-hate" laws are against hate is now widely recognized as just as hollow as the abortionist's claim to be "pro-choice." What is true is that hate laws persecute Christians.
If we continue the offensive there is the real possibility that Bush, increasingly alienated from anti-war Democrats, may desire to realign himself more firmly with his original right-wing supporters.
This is a golden moment which we must take advantage of to
the fullest. If we take action now, we can guarantee our own freedom
and begin to roll back evil legislation which will oppress and
enslave our children.
|Top|
In the greatest service of his long public life, former President Jimmy Carter warns of the grave consequences of America's phenomenal subservience to Israel. In his latest book and recent lectures, he focuses on how Israel's cruel occupation, made possible by massive and unconditional U.S. support, has subjected the Palestinian people to terrible suffering for 40 long years.
Beyond that grave human tragedy, candid observers must cite U.S. complicity in Israeli lawlessness as the major factor that prompted the horror of 9-11 and lured America into launching three costly, wrong-headed and failing wars—Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror.
The linkage is easily identified. America's support of Israel's brutality was the main motivation for 9-11. Nine-eleven would not have happened if any U.S. president in the last 40 years had refused to finance Israel's humiliation and destruction of Palestine.
Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst now a consultant to CBS News, recently told a congressional committee that "our unqualified support of Israel" was the main reason for 9/11. Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, President George W. Bush's first special envoy to the Middle East, has stated that the United States invaded Iraq for Israel and oil.
The U.S. acts of war in Afghanistan and the war on terror were President Bush's retaliation for 9-11—Israel and only Israel—urged the United States to invade Iraq. Israel's lobby in Washington pushed hard and prevailed.
Despite this grim record, U.S. subservience to the wishes of Israel's leaders does not change. Israel is the only nation urging the United States to attack Iran. The lobby is pushing hard again. If the United States assaults Iran it will be on Israel's behalf.
Congress, like the rest of America, is totally devoid of debate on the amazing role of this small nation in critical U.S. policy. Members are fulsome in public praise of the Jewish state, but no politician mentions the illegal behavior of Israel or the staggering burden it imposes on our country.
How did Israel gain this influence?
It all started 40 years ago. On June 8, 1967, the U.S. commander in chief, President Lyndon B. Johnson, turned his back on the crew of a U.S. Navy ship, the USS Liberty, despite the fact that the ship was under deadly assault by Israel's air and sea forces. The Israelis were engaged in an ugly scheme to lure America into their war against Arab states. They tried to destroy the Liberty and its entire crew, then pin the blame on the Arabs. This, they reasoned, would outrage the American people and immediately lead the United States to join Israel's battle against Arabs.
The scheme almost worked. It failed because, despite the carefully planned multipronged assault, the Liberty crew managed to broadcast an SOS over a makeshift antenna. When the appeal reached U.S. aircraft carriers nearby, the commanders immediately launched fighter planes to defend the ship.
Informed of the launch, President Johnson ordered the rescue planes to turn back immediately.
For the first time in history, forces of the U.S. Navy were denied the right to defend a Navy ship under attack. Johnson said, "I don't care if the ship sinks, I am not going to embarrass an ally." Those were his exact words, heard by Navy personnel listening to radio relays.
The ally Johnson refused to embarrass was Israel. When the SOS reached the top military commanders in Israel, they immediately canceled the assault, claiming it was a case of mistaken identity. At the White House, Johnson accepted Israel's claim, even though he knew it was a lie. Then Johnson magnified the day's infamy by ordering a coverup of the truth. Liberty survivors were sworn to secrecy. Even those in hospital beds and badly wounded were threatened with court martial if they told anyone what actually happened. The coverup has been continued by every administration since Johnson's.
It proved to be a fateful turning point in Israel's power over U.S. foreign policy. The Liberty experience convinced Israeli officials that they could get by with literally anything—even the murder of U.S. sailors—in their manipulation of the U.S. government. Financial aid to Israel began to pour like a river, all of it with no strings attached. According to The Christian Science Monitor, this outpouring has now cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.4 trillion.
Costs go far beyond money. Thousands of American families are blighted forever, with America's once high moral standing in shambles. Because of its unqualified support of Israel, Washington is hated worldwide as never before.
The principal source of Israel's influence is the fear it seems to instill in every sector of our society. The most effective instrument of intimidation employed by its lobby is the reckless accusation of anti-Semitism, often leveled at anyone criticizing any aspect of Israeli behavior.
I can personally certify that for many years it has cast a blanket of fear over Capitol Hill and blocked any semblance of debate.
I unintentionally contributed to that fear in 1985 when my book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, was published. It reports in detail the efficiency of Israel's U.S. lobby, its history and tactics.
My book became a bestseller. I hoped it would inspire public officials and other citizens to revolt against the lobby's influence on U.S. policy, but several of my former colleagues told me it had the opposite effect. One said, "After what AIPAC did to you and (Charles) Percy, I vote with the lobby every time."
Israel's grip on America seems impervious. Two distinguished political scientists, John Mearshiemer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, strode resolutely into the Middle East minefield a year ago by co-authoring a paper on Israel's lobby. More recently, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a book written by former President Carter, revered worldwide for his effective work on international conflict resolution, was published.
With few exceptions, America's major editors, producers, commentators, academics and politicians have given these courageous initiatives the silent treatment. Nationwide, the lobby's influence is pervasive, sustained and deep, a phenomenon unprecedented in U.S. history. It is impossible to explain the silence except as a reflection of profound fear.
The situation is highly dangerous. America has already paid a towering price for our subservience to Israel, and great additional burdens seem inevitable. If the United States is involved in acts of war against Iran, anti-American protest will rise to new heights, especially throughout the Islamic world. It will inevitably deepen the widely held belief among Muslims that America seeks to undermine Islam.
The outlook for reform is grim. Elected officials of both major political parties in Washington seem hopelessly captured by Israel's agents. So does every serious candidate for the presidency in 2008. All U.S. citizens must accept a measure of responsibility for Israel's grip on America. Those of us who knew what was happening did not protest with sufficient force and clarity. Those who did not know should have taken their responsibility as citizens more seriously. They should have informed themselves.
The scene is likely to improve only if U.S. elected officials are criticized so forthrightly from home that they fear a constituent revolt more than they fear Israel's lobby. This, of course, will not happen until the countryside benefits from a rigorous and edifying public debate about Israel's role in our national life.
Paul Findley, a U.S. representative from Illinois from 1961-83, lives in Jacksonville, Fla. He is the author of five books, including the Washington Post seven-week bestseller, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby, Chicago Review Press.
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|
Several young U.S. Marines in the same California hospital ward are suffering from the same aggressive form of leukemia, and the cancer may be linked to exposure to depleted uranium (DU). DU is a super-dense radioactive material that's mainly used as plating on U.S. munitions, functioning as an extremely effective kinetic-energy penetrator to pierce armor.
At least one Marine, Eric Renner of Oregon City, has died from this form of leukemia. However, Renner reportedly never even went to Iraq. It's believed DU exposure during live-fire training brought on his illness.
Renner's father, Steve, went public with his concerns about DU after hearing that another Marine, 22-year-old Andy Rounds, may have been exposed to DU when a munitions dump exploded at his base in Iraq—an event that resembles the incident at Camp Doha in the first Gulf War that spread enough DU particles and shrapnel around to qualify it for current-day research on DU's role in Gulf War Illness (GWI), otherwise known as Gulf War syndrome.
"Rounds's treatment is not being covered financially by the military because he was not diagnosed until after he was out of the Army," reported KPTV Channel 12, a Fox News affiliate in Portland, Ore. that ran this story regionally. Matters concerning DU rarely make the national news. The state of Oregon is covering Rounds's expenses.
The Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness, a VA-chartered panel meeting in Dallas, put DU on its research list but demoted it to a relatively low priority. The committee, with $15 million a year in funding for five years through fiscal 2010, is studying GWI diagnostic techniques and proposed treatments.
A doctor at the Dallas meeting told AFP that GWI was limited to the first Gulf War, and is not linked with the current conflict. This opinion was later disputed by Dr. Doug Rokke, who served as a DU cleanup specialist in Gulf War I, is himself sick from war exposures and opposes the continued use of DU, which started in Gulf War I by the U.S. military.
Rokke insists the government needs to follow its established procedures and regulations pertaining to DU exposure (medical testing of urine and feces should be done within 24 hours of suspected exposure to DU aerosols, residue and shrapnel from combat), and he is calling for the military to follow its own guidelines and clean up the environment in the Persian Gulf, as well as in the Balkans and anywhere else DU has been used.
The Israeli military uses DU as well. Scores of civilians in or near battle zones have been plagued by myriad illnesses, including cancers and birth defects at least partly attributable to DU contamination of soil, water, food, etc., Rokke says, based on his military experiences.
Meanwhile, as KPTV noted, the U.S. military denies a link: "The military says it has done extensive research and found no connection between depleted uranium and leukemia." Military spokesmen routinely refer to DU as having "low level" radiation that is "harmless."
Back when Renner visited his dying son at a California military hospital, "four other Marines in the same ward were said to be fighting the same cancer," KPTV reported. "I thought it was kind of strange," Renner was quoted as saying by KPTV, which on Aug. 2 posted its report on this matter on its web site, complete with a video link. "This is a bigger problem than anybody really knows."
Renner, who hopes speaking out about the DU-leukemia connection will help prevent more cases, told KPTV, "Maybe there's no conclusive evidence, but based on what I've seen and read, there is some responsibility on the military's part and on the government's part."
As for then-Private Rounds, in 2004, he was serving at a post near Kirkuk, Iraq. Rounds says that he and a few friends were walking one night when the sky lit up, due to a munitions dump filled with old weapons that exploded on his base. Because of brain damage and treatments, Rounds barely remembers the incident. But his mother, Lisa Rounds, believes that whatever exploded that night might have poisoned the surroundings.
"Why would a healthy, young guy get leukemia when it's mostly very young children who have a genetic predisposition to it or old people who've been exposed to radiation for many years?" she told KPTV.
Tests showed that Rounds had a white blood cell count of more than 400,000, 40 to 50 times that of a normal count, diagnosed as AML, or acute myelogenous leukemia. Rounds had been out of the military for about two years when he passed out on the floor and was rushed to the hospital, the incident that led to his diagnosis.
Doctor Tibor Kovascovics, a doctor at the Oregon Health & Science University Cancer Institute, was quoted as saying that "he cannot make a connection" between Rounds' military service and his leukemia.
Rokke, however, told AFP recently that DU exposure can manifest itself in many ways, from chronic fatigue to respiratory problems, nervous disorders such as ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease), fibromyalgia, immune system disorders, rashes, decalcification of teeth and cancers. He stresses that unless soldiers are properly checked for DU exposure right away, following established procedures that he says are ignored, time quickly passes and it becomes harder and harder to pinpoint what caused a soldier to develop a given illness.
Mrs. Rounds, contacted Aug. 7 by AFP, said that the purpose of getting her son's story out was to sound the alarm. "They have got to stop treating the soldiers like they're widgets in a machine," she said. She wants other soldiers and parents of soldiers to know that Rounds, whose health unfortunately was worsening as of Aug. 7, "started with a sinus infection" which seemed relatively minor, at first.
Everyone in this situation, even if it seems like a minor illness initially, should immediately get a CBC (complete blood count) "before it snowballs," she stressed.
Asked if she thinks DU is the culprit, Mrs. Rounds replied, "Oh, definitely," adding: "A lot of people would choose not to join the military if they knew they were going to be exposed."
American Free Press reporter Mark Anderson can be reached at truthhound2@yahoo.com Watch future AFP issues for more on America's welcome acceptance of biofuels and other energy alternatives, helping end our gluttonous addiction to foreign petroleum.
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|
Call it a way of showing the neo-cons cabal running the executive branch that there is a constitutional way, when justified by extenuating circumstances, to go after America's foes without bombing largely defenseless nations into the stone age and spending half a trillion dollars to do it while killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians.
In his function as a congressman even while running for president, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has reintroduced legislation that he first wrote in 2001 to invoke the Constitution and seek out terrorists in a manner that drastically reduces costs and spares civilian lives, carried out through the constitutional provision for "letter of marque and reprisal," a time-honored approach which focuses small private forces only on nongovernment figures, such as the mysterious Osama bin Laden, or anyone else allegedly involved in dangerous anti-U.S. activities without resorting to full-blown military campaigns and wholesale destruction.
Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint srealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property, as a Paul congressional spokesman noted on Aug. 8.
The Constitution says: The Congress shall have power to "declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water." The idea of governments offering a bounty to privateers to go after bad guys harks back to the days of piracy on the high seas that was rampant in the centuries leading up to America's founding.
In 2001 Paul introduced legislation to grant letters of marque and reprisal against Osama bin Laden, "The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government," Paul explained recently on his campaign website, www.ronpaul2008.com . This matter was mentioned in one of the several radio ads candidate Paul prepared in advance of Aug. 11 Iowa Straw Poll in Ames.
In 2001,Paul's marque and reprisal legislation did not pass. But Osama bin Laden is still at large. He is occasionally shown on cave-dwelling videos released by U.S. intelligence agencies to invoke him as an elusive but persistent "menace," though one such video, shown on the 9-11 film exposé Loose Change, shows the desert chieftain lookng a little more portly, writing with his right hand when he's known to be left-handed. Many 9-11 investigators who doubt the official story see ben Laden as little more than a straw man designed to divert attention from many persons who maintain 9-11 was an inside job.
Paul's congressional spokesman said this legislation, reintroduced three weeks ago applies not just to bin Laden but to all "non-state actors." Since America is no closer to catching bin Laden - amid claims by the Bush administration that he's tied to 9-11 - Paul is putting forth an option to the current policy of occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and saber rattling for possible military excursions into Iran and Pakistan.
Upon re-introducing this legislation, Paul looked back to 2001
and noted: "I opposed giving the president power to wage
unlimited and unchecked aggression. However, I did vote to support
the use of force in Afghanistan. I also authored H.R. 3076, the
September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. A letter of marque
and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to
give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force
to those non-state actors who wage aggression against the United
States while limiting his authority to only those responsible
for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is
consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim
of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood
and treasure of waging such an operation."
|Top|
At a time when America finds herself bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and those with the power to do so are openly making preparations for widening the hostilities to include Iran, Syria and Pakistan, it is important to remember how this started. It started with the invasion of Palestine nearly a century ago that has forced innocent Christians and Muslims into concentration camps.
The fact that the media in America is dominated by Zionists whose main agenda is hiding the crimes in Israel means that Americans get only a smattering of the information necessary to form an educated opinion.
Americans, who for the most part have an organic sense of justice and fairness, easily fall prey to the propaganda of Zionist sirens, leading them to embrace the notion that Middle Easterners - irrespective of their nationality or religion - are violent, fanatical creatures with an ingrained hatred for the "Judeo-Christian" values of the West. The fact that their land was violently invaded and their innocent women and children killed on a daily basis these last 60 years means nothing. In the meantime, those living under this oppression look with horror as every July 4 Americans celebrate the American revolution.
In recent weeks, tragedies that seem to be more the stuff of Bolshevik-era diaries than modern day reality have been taking place in the lives of innocent people. Still there is a sizable number of Americans who have no idea what is ans has been taking place, who think that the Middle east problem is all about "fanatical Mooslims out to git us" and who are more interested in the latest Hollywood scandal than they are bout what is taking place in the land that was once home to the man Christians and Muslims hold int the highest regard, Jesus Christ.
One such recent tragedy taking place would, if broadcast, probably get people to rethink their blind support of Israel, a land destroyed 20 centuries past by the Romans in precisely the fashion that Jesus Christ predicted would take place.
At around 5 p.m. on July 3, 2007, one day before Americans gathered to throw back beers and hotdogs in celebration of their independence, 14-year-old Ahmad Mohsen Al-Skafi of Hebron left his home for a short walk down to the market to buy chocolate for his four-year-old sister, Isra'a. Between his home and the market was an abandoned house where a group of IDF soldiers and their highly trained attack dogs had holed up. The Israeli soldiers opened up with their American-made, American supplied machine guns, hitting him as many as 30 times. One soldier fired a grenade, which ripped a hole in his abdomen and caused his intestines to explode all over the sidewalk.
As the boy lay on the sidewalk, the IDF loosed their dogs on him and upon arriving at the gruesome scene, the dogs began eating him and lapping up his blood. Attack dogs are often used to enter a home at night and drag sleeping victims out into the street. The area was immediately declared a "military zone," allowing the IDF to cordon of the area and arrest any journalists who might try to report on what took place.
When asked about the event, the Israeli government claimed that Ahmad was carrying a toy gun, something that his parents and family deny vehemently.
Those who follow the events taking place in Palestine will note that this is an all-to-common excuse used by Israel when it murders Palestinian children, that these children, some as young as two years old - are carrying guns or convincing replicas. When asked for a possible reason for his grandson being killed, the family patriarch offered a theory - that it was out of revenge. Two of his sons were serving life sentences in Israeli prisons for taking part inthe effort to free their country of Zionist domination.
Through her tears Almad's mother Naemah said "I was not able to see my son, to look at him or to give him a last kiss... I lost my Ahmad in one second... I can't believe that I have lost him. His life ended vary early and very quickly. I was not allowed to see, to see the horrible way in which the IDF criminals killed him. They showed me part of his face for one second and they took him away very quickly. He loved laughing and playing. He never ate anything without leaving part of it for me and his smallest sister.
The next day, as the body of this innocent boy lay in a Palestinian morgue, cold and pale, his family gathered to grieve and to make plans for his burial. At the same time, Americans got together and celebrated their freedom, and George Bush - in an attempt to rally the nation behind his war - read a speech that was prepared for him by his Zionist handlers that compared the sacrifices being made by American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan to the sacrifices that were made by American patriots 200 years ago.
And throughout the rest of Palestine as news of this latest
tragedy spread, parents and family members everywhere wondered
when they would find themselves in the same position as the Al-Skafi
family. They recall the words of Israel's rabbis and IDF members
who talk of "purifying the land" of non-Jews and the
words of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, war criminal
and mass murderer, who one promised to "burn every Palestinian
born in this area" and particularly the women and children
whose "existence is more dangerous than that of the Palestinian
men, as the Palestinian child's existence infers that generations
will go on and on."
|Top|
American
Free Press August 20, 2007This article is copyrighted, but it may be read on the Internet
at:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/070801_barons.htm
|Top|
Leaders of Bilderberg have gathered the appropriate flunkies at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello, about 50 miles outside Quebec, to accomplish a North American Union without congressional action.
Bilderberg met at the same site in 1983. The Aug. 20-21 session of the unknown Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is struggling to define its goal of a borderless union of the United States, Mexico and Canada as something Americans will welcome, after it has been accomplished.
On the agenda is a report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which is being translated into Spanish and French so all three governments can celebrate it together. The report explains how "hemispheric integration" will be a blessing for all and not a surrender of sovereignty. It is to be presented to the three governments in September.
The trustees of CSIS who are attending this closed meeting include Henry Kissinger, Bilderberg and Trilateral; Zbigniew Brzezinski, Trilateral; and Harold Brown, former defense secretary and Trilateral. Also participating is Richard Armitage, Bilderberg. Other Bilderberg-Trilateralists may be attending but have not been identified.
The "North American Future 2025 Project" report stresses "economic integration" and "labor mobility." It calls for the "international migration of labor" and "international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people." It stresses the "free flow of people across national borders." It calls for action to "integrate governments." The three nations are to work on "harmonizing legislation" and regulations.
Bilderberg is fighting back from severe setbacks in its long-range goal of dividing the world into three great regions for the administrative convenience of a world government under the United Nations. The European Union was to have been fully integrated into a single state by 2000, but seven years later, there is strong resistance in France, Germany and Britain.
NAFTA was to quickly expand throughout the Western Hemisphere with an "American Union" emerging. Now, there is great resistance to NAFTA itself among voters and, consequently, congressmen.
President Bush started the country on the road to integration on April 22, 2001, when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration." Participants claim it can be accomplished without legislation and their final agreement would not be a "treaty" requiring Senate ratification.
But when this "agreement" is sprung on the American people, Congress will feel compelled to react to the outrage.
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|
When I received the call from AFP
asking to cover the Security and Prosperity Partnership, I had
no clue as to what this organization was all about. I consider
myself in the know - I've read about bilderberg for years, follow
the alternative press closely, and have worked with AFP extensively.
What was this?
It was quickly explained to me that this little-known organization is a specific type of elitist meeting (tied in with Bilderberg) that seeks to merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into one entity. I absorbed this information and took on the task.
My instructions were to get as close to the Fairmont Hotel in Montebello, Quebec as possible, ask the staff and locals about the conference. So, I was to become a novice Jim Tucker, doing the footwork to expose the nefarious activities of the global elite. Maybe take a photo from under my newspaper in the hotel lobby.
To the internet I went and found a page called "Integrate This" created by the Council of Canadians. There was to be a public forum at the University of Ottawa against the manipulators with high-profile speakers and current members of the Canadian government participating. Individuals from the establishment were joing the anti-globalist forces.
KNOWN PARTICIPANTS
Maude Barlow,national chairman, Council of Canadians; Gusavo Iruegas, secretary of foreign affairs, Mexico; Michè Asselin, Féderation des femmes du Québec/RQIC; Michael Byers, author, Intent for a Nation: What is Canada for?; Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army colonel, anti-war activist.
Bonnie Brown, MP, Liberal Party; Serge Cardin, MP, Bloc Québécois; Peter Julian, MP, New Democratic Party and Elizabeth May, Green Party leader.
This situation could be a major powder keg - one that the mainstream media could not completely coverup - even in the U.S. I'm going to be there. I will be there for AFP when angry citizens from a wide variety of places and disances converge.
Jason Snow is AFP's webmaster and a longtime canadian nationalist.
|Top|
Obama exposed the fact that in the foreign policy realm, all of the leading presidential candidates of both major parties have actually come together as members of what some call "the War Party."
During a recent debate, responding to critics among his rival, Obama snapped, "I find it amusing that those who helped to authorize the engineer the biggest foreign-policy disaster in our generation are now criticizing me."
Obama was referring to the point that the other "top tier" Democratic candidates - Senators Chris Dodd (Conn), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) - all voted to support Republican George W. Bush's senseless decision to wage war on Iraq. (As an Illinois state legislator, Obama opposed the war.)
By publicly reminding grass-roots Democrats - some of the staunchest critics of the war - that their own party leaders lined up with Bush in waging the war, Obama effectively pointed toward an unspoken reality: that the primary motivation for Democrats to support bush's war was that destroying Iraq was at the top of the "want list" of the Israeli lobby and its American supporters who funnel tins of millions of dollars in campaign money to both major parties. Pro-Israel donors swell Democratic coffers to the tune of perhaps as much as 80% of all contributions. The level of pro-Zionist contributions to GOP campaign funds is not quite the high - but almost.
So now that the war has proven to be a catastrophe, Democratic office seekers are using the war as a campaign issue against Republicans, eager to keep voters from remembering that Democratic leaders - bankrolled by the same interests as the Republicans - supported the disastrous war in the first place.
And despite the anti-war rhetoric coming from Democratic presidential hopefuls, The New York Times laid out the truth in its lead story on Aug.12: "Even as they call for an end to the war and pledge to bring the troops home, the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years.
The only Cemocratic contenders truly opposing the war are former
Sen. Mike Gravel (Alaska) and Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), joined
by a lone Republican, Ron Paul (Texas). No wonder the three have
been shut out by the mass media.
|Top|
America and Britain are close allies but British generals and politicians are expressing serious concern about U.S. military tactics, especially in Afghanistan where the U.S.-NATO coalition is under fire this year for killing more civilians than the taliban with an overuse of air power.
Relations between the two allies were strained recently when a top British commander ordered U.S. Special Forces out of part of the Helmand Province of Afghanistan where the British believe they are getting the upper hand in a tough counter insurgency war against a resurgent Taliban. The British commander blamed U.S. Special forces teams for calling in heavy air power that was causing untold civilian casualties, thereby providing propaganda for the Taliban. The deaths were alienating the local population from the British and undermining their reconstruction efforts. The British, with a long history of fighting low intensity conflicts from Kenya to Aden and North Ireland, have warned for some time that heavy-handed tactics by the U.S. military were proving counter-productive.
There has been a growing concern within NATO that in Helmand, where as many as 300 civilians have died this year alone, there has been a tendency for U.S. Special Forces to call in"shock and awe" bombing runs when they are outgunned or outmanned. The result has often been civilian casualties either because the bomb coordinates were wrong or the bombs fell close to villages. In the past year, the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has been openly critical of U.S. air power, pointing out that a high civilian death toll has been turning the population against his government and its coalition sponsors.
News reports of the actions of the British commander in Helmand were down played by Britain and the U.S. The Pentagon even denied there was any disagreement and insisted Special Forces would remain in Helmand for the foreseeable future. Nonetheless, civilians are being killed by U.S. bombs and that was evident on May 8 when villagers at Sarwan Qala carried 21 bodies to a NATO compound. On May 11, the British confirmed that an adjoining village was hit by American bombs and 18 civilians were wounded.
All of this has greater echoes in Iraq where the civilian death toll from bombing has been exceptionally high. There, the British have continually expressed serious disquiet about the excessive use of U.S. firepower. In 20004, a leaked British government memo, published in the Sunday Times of London, referred to "heavy handed tactics" and warned that their use in Fallujah and Najaf had helped "fuel" Sunni and Shiite opposition to the coalition and "lost us much public support outside Iraq." In Fallujah, cluster munitions and phosphorous bombs were deployed yet there were no U.S. military figures for the numbers of civilian and insurgent casualties. The leaked memo also stressed the need for a more "sensitive and sensible" approach to the use of military force and pointed to serious diplomatic damage accruing from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
The British contend that their counter insurgency experience proves you cannot win a low-intensity war unless you have the trust of the civilian population because the enemy hides within that population. The moment you alienate civilians is the moment you hand the initiative to the insurgents. A case in point occurred in July 1970 in Northern Ireland in an episode called "The Lower Falls Curfew." In what British generals later admitted was a crude strategy, a massive military force was used to seal off and squeeze a Catholic enclave in Belfast. The result was that Catholics turned against the British army and young Catholic men joined the ranks of the emerging Provisional IRA. The British army never quite recovered from that episode. It was a classic example of how the use of excessive power against civilians ultimately benefits insurgents. With events like that in its background the British in Iraq and Afghanistan have been wary abut doing anything that would turn locals against their troops and provide succor and propaganda for the enemy.
Another worry voiced by the British has been about the use of "contractors"-mercenaries. In Iraq, they number well over 100,000 with approximately 45,000 originating with U.S. companies. The fact that there is no exact number is testimony to the unregulated character of this private army. For example, U.S. and British soldiers have been charged with killing governed by the same rules. One of the most controversial aspects of their operational roles in Iraq is that they are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Secondly, they cannot be tried by Iraqis for killing civilians because of an unusual agreement put in place by the Coalition Provisional authority - that ineffective body run by L Paul Bremer that governed Iraq for 14 months after the 2003 invasion. That agreement, which ensured U.S. soldiers and mercenaries could not be tried in the Iraqi courts, remains in place, insulating "contractors" from being held legally accountable for their actions. In a business that is said to generate anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion a year "contractors" have become a second military in Iraq, thereby raising the number of coalition forces from160,000 to as many as 260,000 with some estimates putting the total coalition military force at 300,000.
In the main, "contractors" are exceptionally well armed, sometimes better than regular U.S. and British combat troops, and are paid high wages. They provide security for U.S. supply convoys, visiting diplomats, congressional personnel and even U.S. generals like David Petraeus. Construction projects are among many of their priorities yet the failure of reconstruction in Iraq suggests the money used to hire mercenaries has not been well spent.
Like the British, U.S. troops on the ground have serious reservations about the unregulated behavior of the "contractor" force. A leaked video hit the Internet in 2005, showing "contractors" laughing and firing at civilians. No one was charged I the incident. The company involved, "Aegis" defended the shooting on the basis that it was allowed within the rules established by Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority. Ironically the CPA set up the Reconstruction Operations Center to monitor and list the numbers of mercenaries and their activities but like most CPA initiatives it turned out to be a failure. One ROC rule required mercenaries to report the wounding of killing of civilians. Unfortunately, the rule was not legally binding and was ignored as was an ROC request for mercenaries to register with the ROC center in Baghdad. As a consequence, there is now a lack of information about this private army, its activities, the numbers of civilians it has killed, and its funding.
The British have not been alone in calling for a reining in of mercenary companies and their personnel. Top-level U.S. commanders have begun to voice concerns, pointing out that because mercenaries are not under their control they can put the lives of regular soldiers at risk by their wayward behavior. They also have the potential to alienate the civilian population which general Petraeus is trying to win over as part of his "surge" strategy. The Lack of a chain of command within the shadowy "contractor army" has been one of the most serious issues for U.S. commanders. They have complained that when an incident occurs involving mercenaries there is no mechanism for raising the issue.
But, for all the experience the British acquired in their low-intensity wars it has not been enough to avert a failed campaign in the south of Iraq, especially around Basra. Privately, the British complain that there were never enough troops on the ground in southern Iraq and that the overall Iraq battle plan devised by the U.S. was seriously flawed from the outset. Some British military commentators have argued that the events at Abu Ghraib and the use of excessive force made winning over the Iraq population impossible. That may in part be true but is it too convenient an argument and ignores the reality that the bitter tribal history of Iraq, once unleashed, was always likely to lead to a civil war outsiders could never win.
The British more than the U.S. should have understood that Iraq was a place with dangerous divisions because they witnessed and helped with the emergence of Iraq from disparate elements in the early 20th century. They also oversaw the partitioning of Pakistan and India and the creation of Kashmir. It was Prince Charles' uncle, the late Lord Louis Mountbatten who created Kashmir from the partition of India and Pakistan. It seems the problem with military men and with politicians who have great designs but a meager knowledge of the past is they rarely understand intricate historical complexities. The tinker with them in ways that can later lead to the resurrection of deeply held historical aspirations and a bitterness that can generate untold misery for generations.
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream
news producer who now writes for AFP so he can expose the kinds
of subjects that he was forbidden to cover in the controlled press.
|Top|
Ames, Iowa - With 1,305 votes, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) placed a strong fifth out of 11 listed republican presidential candidates at the Aug. 11 Iowa Straw Poll, ahead of several "top-tier candidates. Paul trailed behind Mitt Romney (4,516), Mike Huckabee (2,587), sen Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) (2,192) and Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) (1,961).
Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson, after placing sixth with 1,039 votes, dropped out of the presidential race. And while "top-tier" GOP candidates Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) Did not officially take part, they received 183 and 101 votes, respectively. Giuliani had difficulty overcoming his big government image while trying to appeal to voters in the heartland.
Paul, whose platform calls for the most substantial, fundamental changes to the federal government - maintains he is in the race for the long haul in the wake of the Straw Poll. His speech in Ames' Hilton coliseum was greeted by the most enthusiastic band of placard-carrying supporters, who were numerous and vocal. Some wore colonial-era tri-corner hats. A few even played American Revolution music on fifes. The Dallas Morning News tried to claim Paul spoke to a small crowd, which is not true. C-SPAN footage clearly shows droves of people parading to the podium during and after his speech.
Paul pressed on even while his wife, Carol, was reportedly in a Texas hospital (but doing OK). Paul supporters came from around the nation. Paul campaign Chairman Kent Snyder noted in a statement: "On behalf of Dr. Ron Paul and his wife Carl, and the Ron Paul 2008 campaign staff, I thank our supporters and volunteers in Iowa and throughout the country for the strong showing in the Iowa Straw Poll. We are pleased and encouraged by the results. We have the three ingredients for success: The message of freedom, peace and prosperity; the man, Ron Paul; and you (the supporters)... Our campaign has begun."
Paul's speech was a concise summation of his consistent call for restoring a strong national defense based on national sovereignty and non-interventionism (so as not to stretch the military too thin and deplete is soldiers and resources), while also calling for gradually changing the Social Security System so young people can opt out if they choose. Paul, the only candidate to use the word "peace" explicitly, also noted that a central bank such as the Federal Reserve System is contrary to our constitutional order and that sound money should be restored. He decried running federal deficits so monstrous that the U.S. now needs China to help pay its bills. And he was perhaps the only candidate to point to the outsourcing of U.S. jobs as another source of our woes.
Paul, a medical doctor and former air Force flight surgeon who has delivered more than 4,000 babies, also put more-than-usual emphasis on his belief that life begins at conception and that the unborn have the same inherent right to life as all other individuals.
Tancredo stuck with his demand for securing the U.S. borders, as Paul also believes, while taking a strong stance in favor of English as America's language and against multiculturalism in which American schools and universities provide time and facilities for Muslim religious observances while denying Christians equal treatment.
Romney preached a gospel of "strength" for the military, families and the economy while decrying cultural degeneracy, such as pornography and violence in movies, video games and on TV; however, Romney claimed that the current Mideast war should be continued in its current manner, which has cost the U.S. half a trillion dollars and climbing, while somehow strengthening the economy and keeping "taxes down" and "government small." He would add 100,000 troops to the Mideast quagmire. Lauding President Bush for keeping "us safe for the last six years," he expressed support for the post-9-11Patriot Act, which Paul opposes.
VOTING MACHINES ‘MALFUNCTION'
However, the votesin this traditional mock election among registered Iowa voters were counted with electronic Optical Scan machines that "read" paper ballots, which are not universally trusted because the proprietary software that counts the votes can be manipulated. At least one of the machines at the Straw Poll malfunctioned, as was widely reported right after the event. Some 1,500 ballots had to be "recounted" according to the Chicago Tribune.
Another account says that the Iowa GOP insisted on collecting and counting all Straw Poll ballots out of public view in spite of demands to have the ballots placed in a clear plastic box where everybody can see them, and have them counted in front of everybody.
Vickie Karp, co-author of a prominent book on election fraud, has told AFP in numerous interviews that "malfunctions" of these optical scan machines should come as no surprise, as the machines are inherently prone to breakdowns and seem custom-made for tampering (e.g., by machine manufacturer representatives whose employers are politically connected), so the software counts the votes differently from what voters intended on the paper ballots fed into the scanners.
The Iowa Straw Poll, besides being a mock election among Iowans, also is a GOP fund-raiser. Candidates and organizations such as Fair Tax and the National Rifle Association rent space. The state GOP reportedly raised $1 million. Romney got prime space for 25,000. Others paid $15,000 just for their space for personnel, literature and other functions.
Fred Tompson got 203 votes, Duncan Hunter got 174 and John
Cox, a newcomer, got 41.
|Top|
former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is a prime but unknown mover behind the NAFTA Superhighway, American Free Press has learned from a pioneer journalist who first exposed the Bilderberg plot. Because he wants to be president, Giuliani keeps his role hidden. But the silent support of the powerful, rich but secret Bilderberg Group is also a crucial asset.
AFP has been in the forefront of exposing the NAFTA Superhighway as a dagger Bush & Co. Are plunging into the heart of America. This concrete monster is to run from Mexico through Laredo, Austin and Dallas to Kansas City, which will serve as a Mexican inland customs port. From Kansas the corridor will split with one leg going to Winnipeg, Manitoba through Omaha, Nebraska. The other leg goes to Toronto, Ontario through Des Moines, Chicago and Detroit.
The NAFTA Superhighway is planned to be one-mile wide with as many as 10 lanes, incorporating double rails and pipelines. A second corridor is planned from Brownsville to Houston, up through Arkansas, Memphis, and on to Norfolk, Va. These corridors are to speed Asian goods into the Central and Eastern U.S.
The Establishment Media has not whispered about SPP, the NAFTA Superhighway, much less the fact that the leading Republican presidential contender, who touts himself as the candidate of national and "homeland" security, Giuliani is up to his ears in the NAFTA Superhighway - in which a foreign company is awarded the building of a mass highway system for the first time in U.S. history.
Diane M. Grassi was first to break this news and did an excellent job researching may of the devils in the details of this grand scheme. (See more at www.renewamerica.us). She uncovered what few suspected; Giuliani is a key culprit in foisting this debacle upon the American people.
AFP found the fingerprints of the usual suspects behind this planned "Iron Curtain" splitting and dividing the United states into more easily administered slave colonies of the New World Order.
In 1988 President George H.W. Bush, a Trilateralist, signed the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Defense Production Act of 1950. This gave the power to approve or disapprove foreign acquisitions of America to CFIUS (the Committee on Foreign Investments in the U.S.). CFIUS is supposedly set up to protect us by determining national security threats in foreign-direct acquisitions. CFIUS is worse than FEMA "saving" New Orleans, because CFIUS is fairly efficient at selling out American interests. Between 1988 and 2005, out of 1,555 reviews only two foreign acquisitions were not approved. According to Grassi's meticulous research, even these two are eligible for re-instatement.
There were so many problems that Sen. Richard Shelby, (R-Ala.), wanted hearings for congressional oversight of CRIUS approvals. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wanted congress to reclaim power to reject CRIUS approvals.
An example that almost woke Americans up was CFIUS' authorization of the Dubai Ports World to operate multiple East coast port operations including the Port Authority of New York, and the ports of Baltimore and Miami. (The outrage was so great, Bush announced Dubai would be out. Now that the hubbub has all quieted down, Dubai is still there.)
How does CRIUS fit in the big picture? Here are some pit stops on the road map.
In 1992 President Bill Clinton, a bilderberger, shackled American workers with NAFTA. In march 25, 2005, President George W. Bush, former Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, and former Mexican President Vicente fox authorized the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to submerge the remnants of our once constitutional Republic into a Big Brother bureaucracy from Guatemala to the North Pole.
In June, 2005, the Supreme Court delivered a controversial decision in which Justice David Souter cast a deciding 5-4 vote allowing state and local governments to seize private property by eminent domain and offer it to developers, or the highest bidders.
August 2006, Bush crafted a signing statement claiming it's
"constitutional" for his administration to withhold
information from or deny authority required from the Congress
on the SPP and its prima facie unconstitutional negotiations.
This summer one of the amendments they tried to sneak through
via the "grand compromise" giving amnesty to an estimated
20 million illegal aliens would "legalize" the SPP and
NAFTA superhighway schemes.
|Top|