August 4, 2008
August 11, 2008
August 18, 2008
August 25, 2008
Russian bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons could be deployed to Cuba if the U.S. persists in plans to install a missile defense system in Eastern Europe, according to the state-control newspaper, Izvestia.
The report prompts memories of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when the U.S. and Soviet Union came to the brink of nuclear war after Nikita Khrushchev put nuclear weapons on the island. The weapons were eventually withdrawn in an apparent Soviet back down, but President John Kennedy secretly agreed to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey.
"While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba," Izvestia quoted the source, identified as a senior Russian air force official. Izvestia is frequently used for strategic leaks by the Kremlin and other officials.
Russian strategic bombers, mothballed since the end of the Cold War in 1991, resumed worldwide patrols last year on orders from then-President Vladimir Putin. The flights have continued under his successor, Dmitry Medvedev.
Cuba was a client state of Moscow for decades during the Soviet era. However, those ties have largely ended since the early 1990s. Russia closed its last base on the island, a radar facility, in 2002. It is unclear whether the Cuban government would grant landing rights to Russian bombers today.
Actually, Cuba's love affair with the Soviet Union was tactical. The late Andrew St. George was in the hills with Fidel Castro when he rebelled against the Batista regime.
It was there, St. George reported in the Spotlight (AFP's lineal ancestor), that Castro decided to ally with the Soviet Union. Doing so, he correctly reasoned, would result in more aid from the Soviets than Cuba would receive as just another client state of the U.S. Fidel had been educated at the University of Louisiana and was a pitcher for the Washington Senators' farm team.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Dripping in diamonds and gold and draped in designer clothes, hundreds of well-heeled supporters of Texas evangelist John Hagee's Christians United for Israel poured into the Washington Convention Center, July 21-24, for Hagee's third annual "Israel Summit."
Big on the agenda was promotion of Israel's—and Hagee's—long-standing demand that the United States destroy the Islamic Republic of Iran. Joining the applause for Hagee's campaign was Israel's ambassador to the United States, Sallai Meridor, a featured speaker at Hagee's "Night to Honor Israel" banquet on July 21.
Critics say Hagee's outfit is cult-like and not Christian at all, and that it places worship of the modern-day state of Israel (and the Jewish people) at its center, rather than devotion to Jesus Christ and His teachings. With this in mind, some traditional Bible-believing Christians greeted Hagee and his followers outside the convention center, waving picket signs and distributing literature exposing the un-Biblical and un-Christian nature of Hagee's theology.
These critics patiently explained to Hagee devotees who dared to listen that Hagee's theology is not Biblical in origin, but rather a product of the late 18th century and only came to popular attention in the mid-20th century. Critics denounced Hagee as a "Judas goat" and as a "false prophet" and urged him to repudiate the anti-Christ teachings of the Jewish Talmud.
Among those seeking to educate Hagee's followers was AFP correspondent Willis Carto, joined by AFP staffers Vince Ryan, Steve Lombardo, Mike Piper, AFP contributor Pete Papaheraklus, as well as veteran Christian writer E. Stanley Rittenhouse and others.
Inside the convention center, Hagee and his followers were warmly greeted by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), an Orthodox Jew who is a strong supporter of Israel and close friend and pivotal spokesman for Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (Ariz.).
Always popular with the so-called "Christian Right" —despite Lieberman's devotion to the teachings of the Jewish holy book, the Talmud, which makes unpleasant comments about Jesus—Lieberman praised Hagee, saying Hagee's support for Israel was "so much more important" than bitter anti-Catholic remarks made by the Texas evangelist.
Lieberman said he was "proud" to stand with Hagee and spoke of "the bond" he felt with Hagee and the members of his cult.
Other than Lieberman, at least one other member of Congress was advertised as among the guests, namely Rep. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican. Others who lent their prestige to Hagee's cult were: Jonathan P. Falwell, son of the late evangelist Jerry Falwell; and neo-conservative pro-Israel Muslim-bashing propagandists Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, Clifford May, Robert Satloff and Dennis Prager. Former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.)—defeated for reelection and angling for a comeback—and country singer Randy Travis also popped up.
Last, but far from least, joining the festivities were the Bilderberg group's William Kristol, editor of Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard, and Kristol's close friend and collaborator Gary Bauer, touted as a defender of "family values" in Republican circles.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
In the wake of an increased threat from al Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as growing skirmishes between militants and the Pakistani military, Pakistan has raised security levels at all its nuclear facilities.
Pakistani Gen. Khalid Kidwai recently confirmed that the "level of alertness" at nuclear facilities was raised and the military was more than capable of dealing with "all kinds of threats." He did not reveal how many nuclear weapons his country possesses though it is believed to be between 50 and 100, with an ongoing program of uranium enrichment for the building of more.
He was careful to avoid mentioning the fact that some of the country's nuclear missile sites were in Western provinces in order to have more warning time should India launch an attack. That means, however, some sites containing nukes are located in tribal areas controlled by al Qaeda and the Taliban.
One threat to Pakistan's nuclear security that is rarely mentioned in Washington is one that could come from that country's military, which has total control of the nation's arsenal. A chilling report by the Pakistan Security Research Unit at Bradford University in England hints at the growing role of radical Islamists with lower ranks of the military. In a briefing paper entitled: "Pakistan- The Threat from Within," one of the Research Unit's experts, Pervez Hoodbhoy, had this warning about the Pakistan army:
Musharraf and his corps commanders well know that they cannot afford to sleep too well. It is in the lower ranks that the Islamists are busily establishing bases. A mass of junior officers and low-ranking soldiers—whose world view is similar to that of the Taliban in most respects—feels resentful of being used as cannon fodder for fighting America's "war on terror." It is they who die, not their senior officers. So far, army discipline has successfully squelched dissent and forced it underground. But this sleeping giant can—if and when it wakes up—tear asunder the Pakistan Army, and shake the Pakistani state from its very foundations.
The alleged 9-11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, was arrested in Rawlpindi in 2002 in a safe house provided by a serving army officer. The officer, like many of his military contemporaries, was a member of Jamaat-i-Islami, an Islamic party that wants Pakistan to end its secularism and become an Islamic state.
Since 9-11 the United States has given more than $100 million to Pakistan's military toward the cost of securing its nuclear arsenal. Now, members of homeland security committees on Capitol Hill have taken a greater interest in the issue. In June 2008, Stephen Cohen of the Brookings Institute, who has written several books about Pakistan's military, told a Senate committee that Pakistan had become "virulently anti-American" and its role as a member of the nuclear club presented challenges for the U.S.
In his opinion, if Pakistan fell into serious internal strife, elements of the military, not necessarily aligned with the U.S., could seize parts of the nuclear arsenal as a political bargaining chip. Another risk, he found "hard to qualify," was the country's nuclear industry being penetrated by conspirators determined to steal a nuclear weapon or nuclear materials.
His antidote was for the U.S. to engage more fully with India and Pakistan and use increased targeted funding to gain a greater role in shaping Pakistan's nuclear security policy. But for all his optimism about finding a way to keep Pakistan's nukes out of the hands of the bad guys, he worried that it might not be possible. He said Pakistan "may yet fail comprehensively" and it was not outside the realm of possibility that a "truly authoritarian leader" would emerge.
Cohen's risk analysis of a conspiracy to penetrate Pakistan's nuclear security has added emphasis when one looks at what has happened since 2000. The former CIA chief, George Tenet, admitted in his memoirs that Osama bin Laden made approaches to the now disgraced nuclear proliferator, Dr. A. Q. Khan, who has been described as the "Father of the Islamic Bomb." Of course, there is also the case of the two Pakistani nuclear energy officials, Sultan Bashiruddin and Chaudry Abdul Majeed, who discussed nuclear issues with al Qaeda in two meetings in Afghanistan before and after 9-11. They were retired at the time and were working in Afghanistan for a non-profit group called Ummah Tamees-e-Nau (UTN)
It was later established that UTN had an interest in bio-weapons, a fact that was discovered when U.S. Special Forces came across a hoard of documents in Afghanistan. As a consequence, the Pakistani authorities arrested and questioned members of the board of UTN, who turned out to be former army officers and nuclear scientists. None was charged.
The exposure of UTN connections to al Qaeda and the Taliban clearly illustrated that within the Pakistani military and nuclear industry there were people with ideological links to dangerous militants. There is no reason to assume that people of that ilk do not still exist within, or on the fringes of Pakistan's nuclear weapons and uranium enrichment programs. It is especially disturbing if such people exist within the military responsible for guarding nuclear sites.
According to Pakistan's foreign ministry, nukes are "kept under multiple custody," implying three layers of security before a nuclear weapon can be assembled, moved or fired. It is believed U.S. has the most advanced command and control system for its nuclear arsenal, using computers, secret codes and a multi-layered chain of command. In the U.S. nuclear arsenal, nukes are on site to be fired within a very short time of a presidential order to strike at an enemy.
Yet, despite the sophistication of U.S. security, an unauthorized B52 flew six armed nukes from South Dakota to Louisiana in September 2007.Apparently someone at an Air Force base in Dakota had forgotten to remove the warheads from the cruise missiles while they were being loaded onto the B52.
Given that Pakistan's system is nowhere near as hi-tech as the one used by the U.S., there is fear in Washington about Pakistan's nuclear security. After 9-11 the U.S. offered to install a hi-tech system like its own to protect Pakistan's nukes but the country's military turned down the offer, presumably on the basis that the U.S. would have had joint control of nuclear triggers. Instead, Pakistan got $100 million to upgrade its security and received the most advanced helicopters and night vision technology to protect vulnerable sites.
Pakistan's nuclear weapons security is probably based on practices used by India and several other members of the nuclear club. That involves separating warheads, trigger mechanisms and delivery vehicles so that one individual cannot readily assemble a nuke. But Pakistan is known to be able to assemble a nuke within 30 minutes, so it maintains all the elements of each weapon within a given location. The only insight into the storage and security of nuclear weapons was revealed years ago and it related to the South African arsenal. That country's nukes were kept within a vault system in which individual components were stored in different vaults that could only be accessed with codes provided by senior political and military figures, including the country's president.
But, because Pakistan sees India as an ever-present threat, it has nukes on constant standby, resulting in less stringent levels of security because of the perceived need to assemble and fire the weapons within the 30 minute window.
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former news producer who now works for AFP so that he can write about "taboo" subjects he was formerly forbidden to discuss while working for mainstream publications.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
AS CONGRESS STRUGGLED with the housing crisis, it voted to reward crooked banksters and greedy consumers who deliberately bought homes they could not afford. True, some Americans were simply misinformed or uneducated about buying a home and easily manipulated by the loan industry. Perhaps they should be more pitied than censored.
But, amazingly, it develops that most home buyers were well-informed, if not by banksters, by their own lawyer, real estate agent or financial advisor about buying a home where the initially low interest rates would surge in a year or so, adding hundreds of dollars to their monthly mortgage payment and driving them into foreclosure.
This was addressed by Michael J. Derevlany, a lawyer in Wynantskill, N.Y. in a letter to the August, 2008 Readers Digest: "As an attorney, I saw far too many clients with unusual financing. I always brought it to their attention, but people want what they want. A colleague and I called these crazy deals, half in jest, the ‘foreclosures of the future.' Sadly, that's what some have become."
About 1.5 million mortgages entered foreclosure in 2007 and that will increase to up to 2.5 million in 2008, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said during congressional hearings.
The frivolous attitudes Americans have about spending money they don't have is demonstrated in their use of credit cards. In recent years, Americans, on average, have run up credit card bills of $10,000, paying only the interest. A few years ago, these credit-card bills were run up to buy shiny things, not essentials. Now, many Americans are jerking around different credit cards to buy food.
Nationwide, home prices have fallen about 17 percent from their peaks in 2006, according to the closely watched S&P/Case-Schiller Home Price Index.
Analysts predict that house prices will continue to fall for at least another year and futures market indicate prices could drop another 20 percent. Evil lenders offered these "subprime" loans without regard to a homeowner's ability to pay them back. Those who expressed concern about paying the mortgage when the rates would automatically leap were assured they could easily refinance before the increase because home prices would increase. But falling prices meant those homeowners were unable to refinance and obtain affordable interest rates.
Certainly, bankers who thus deceived and victimized ignorant
Americans should be dealt with harshly. Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac? These government-chartered institutions deserve harsh punishment
instead of the blank-check credit Congress authorized. But together,
they are buying off Congress. According to the Center for Responsive
Politics, Fannie and Freddie have contributed nearly $20 million
to congressional campaigns since 1990. They have spent $170 million
lobbying in the past 10 years. They have donated $1.68 million
to the current congressional campaigns.
A federal rescue of Fannie and Freddie could cost taxpayers $25
billion, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
But Congress is throwing them a lifeline. It's part of a plan to let hundreds of thousands of homeowners facing foreclosure refinance into more affordable, government backed loans at fixed rates.
The bill also sent $4 billion to neighborhoods hit hardest by the housing crisis—mostly black, inner-city ghettos. President Bush threatened to veto the bill unless this item is dropped. But he reversed himself and said he would sign the measure.
There's much wrong with this legislation and Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.), writing in USA Today, says it best. Bunning has been in Congress many years but may be best known as one of the greatest pitchers in the history of the Cincinnati Reds. The Senate has passed a similar housing bill.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The drums of war emanating out of Israel's two most important cities - Tel Aviv and Washington - have been pounding out the rhythm "unavoidable" in terms of a strike on Judea's ancient Persian enemies in Iran. Then, out of the blue came what appeared to be a moment of sanity from the administration of George W. Bush.
The U.S. said it was considering reestablishing diplomatic relations with Iran severed since 1980. Further, the U.S. announced it was sending Under secretary of state William Burns, No. 3 man at the State Department, to Geneva where discussion was taking place as to whether or not the sovereign nation of Iran could exercise its rights as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
Bush has demonstrated he prefers shooting first and asking questions later. So the world was taken aback. Could the fever gripping the warmongers in Washington, leading them to destroy Iraq and Afghanistan, have subsided, allowing cooler heads to prevail?
As it turned out, the "thawing" of diplomatic relations between Iran and Israel's attack dog in the Middle East was dead on arrival. Winin minutes of the meeting in Geneva, the Jewish press in America was screeching about "recalcitrant" Iran and how Iran refused to listen to reason when it came to its nuclear intentions.
None should have been surprised. Press reports published immediately prior to the Geneva meeting detailed Bush's support of an Israeli strike on Iran. A piece in The Times of London immediately prior to the tete -a-tete has an unnamed Pentagon official saying Bush told the Israeli government he is prepared to approve a military strike on Iran if negotiations "break down."
This latest attempt at appearing reasonable and willing to talk was part of a carefully scripted maneuver that has as its ultimate goal a shooting war against the sovereign nation of Iran.
The United states was being "diplomatic" in Geneva while assisting Israel in preparing her air force for a "shock-and-awe" attack on Iran. A whole cast of military and political characters from Israel is scheduled to be in Washington in coming days to meet with their counterparts.
This does not bode well for a peaceful solution to the situation
to the "problem" of Iran's desire to develop its own
nuclear program.
|Top|
While the benefits to the money creators go beyond this basic reason, the very purpose of the invention of paper "money was to transfer all production and wealth to the state and the banksters without payment.
Most Americans simply do not understand that gasoline prices are not up, but that the dollar is down. The recent doubling in the amount of Fed notes necessary to own gold and silver is but a reflection of the shrinking value of the paper currency. As more is created, such as with the harebrained scheme called "Economic Stimulus," where 130 million American households got $1,200 or so, nothing is stimulated except the soon-to-arrive hyperinflation. The modern "dollar" is a myth.
With imaginary money, such things as the "national debt" and "taxpayer's money" are imaginary, too. How can there be such a thing as "taxpayer's money" when there is no lawful money circulating in existence? The income tax funds nothing. Everything is "paid" with the creation of "money." The people are "taxed" to maintain the illusion that they are actually funding something and "paying their fair share" to keep the nation operating. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Are yo really concerned that Social Security will soon be broke? What an out-of-focus worry that is. Some blowhard senator planted that fear in your mind last year so he can claim to have fixed it next year. Note this: no government-funded program will go broke as long as the printing presses and credit computers are operating.
Americans have been living in this fantasy world since June 24, 1968 - the day that the banks quietly closed the window on silver redemption for the lawful Federal Reserve notes promising to "pay to the bearer on demand" the designated amount of lawful money. In short, the banksters reneged on the promis because they had created too much paper to possibly redeem with real specie. Such a move did manage to postpone the inevitable, but now the chickens are coming home to roost.
12 USC 152: "The terms ‘lawful money' and ‘lawful money of the United States' shall be construed to mean gold and silver coin of the United States."
The "notes" that have been issued since June 24, 1968 (and for five years before) are not lawful because they do not offer to pay anything to the bearer. In effect, the "receipt" for the gold and silver in the storehouse was transformed into the entity. A "dollar" was no longer a measurement of gold or silver but a simple piece of paper claiming to be the actual dollar. It was sort of like the hatcheck girl telling the patron that she was keeping his hat but that he could now wear the check on his head because it was the same thing.
Mainstream media "economists" like to write about the government's curbing of inflation and that it is "down" to 4 percent this quarter when it was "up" to eight percent (or whatever imaginary figure they want to portray) at this time last year. All of it is smoke and mirrors.
Their economic theory states that there are four major factors that determine the exchange rate between two currencies: the comparable interest rates; the relative inflation rates; the comparative level of income; and the macro policies of the respective governments - with a whole lot of blah-blah-blah in andd around each citing.
We say that there is a much simpler was for Joe Average in the street to understand why his favorite cigarettes are now $50 a carton and why he now has to think twice before taking his car out of the garage. There is no government hocus-pocus or gobbledy-gook here: the more paper "money" pieces you insert into the system, the less each individual piece becomes worth. Very little education is sufficient to understand this.
Short term interest rates and trade deficits be damned, fiat money is tyranny, and it guarantees a criminal government.
All modern wars are paper money wars. Paper money pays the politicians their lavish profligacy, and they all (except Ron Paul) keep their mouths shut about the fiat system. All the tyrants in modern history did their dirty work with paper "money." Governments suppress the truth ( with control of the press) and oppress the people (by arming more agents to enforce unconstitutional statutes) with the power of a paper currency creatable at will. Fiat money from its inception was created to defraud.
The phony monetary system builds the centralized power with
in the state and diminishes the individual. It bestows all power
on the money creators and enslaves the people. Paper money, personal
freedom and privacy are incompatible, and while its own inflation
will be its ultimate destroyer, the process will first take the
wealth, life savings, land and homes from a large percentage of
the people.
|Top|
As nearly every American is painfully aware prices of just about all goods, especially fuel and food, have escalated significantly over the past year. Even the government, which is loath to admit such things, has confirmed the obvious with the latest Labor Department report for the month of June showing a 1.1 percent increase in consumer prices.
The notion, often put forward by the clueless media, that the rise in overall prices is the result of higher fuel costs is a fallacy. Instead, the rising prices which Americans are suffering through is the result of the expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve is able to do such mischief because the U.S. dollar is not tied to a commodity (gold or silver) which thus allows the Federal Reserve, which has monopoly control of the money supply, to increase it ad infinitum. There is no check on such power.
The Fed's reckless expansion of the money supply (inflation) has been going on since the start of the current financial bust as monetary officials have sought to avert a general collapse by ailing out the mortgage industry. The "cost" of the bailout has been higher domestic prices and a fall in the purchasing power of the dollar overseas.
Until there is a limit put on the nation's central bank to print money or a different system is put in its place, price inflation will continue. The only viable solution to the current situation and the key to sustained economic growth is a return to a gold-backed monetary system and the termination of the Federal Reserve.
Under a gold standard, the only way money can be "produced" is by mining it or converting existing supplies. While it is true that governments have fraudulently found ways to debase commodity money throughout history, such underhandedness is difficult to do so on a routine basis. The present fiat system (today a feature of every nation) is a counterfeiter's, dream.
The "value" of a dollar, under a gold standard, would be determined by "market forces," not arbitrarily at the behest of the power elite. A gold standard wold benefit all, but especially wage earners, retirees, and those on fixed incomes while it would impose a mighty check on bankers and governments from inflating.
One of the great misconceptions ofthe present era is that the money supply is needed to be increased to sustain economic growth. Nothing is further from the truth.
Money, by its very nature, is a medium of exchange. It facilitates exchange, without it, mankind would quickly revert to primitivism becoming completely self sufficient and desperately poor.
Unlike any other good, money is not "consumed" in an exchange such as food or gasoline. Since money is not consumed, it remains in "circulation." Thus, increasing its supply will only decrease its "value" (purchasing power).
The key to economic growth is savings. Savings allows for production which takes place over time. Savings "pays" for the wages, purchases the supplies and resources during the period of production before an eventual good is brought to market. Increases in the money supply will only dilute its purchasing power. Additional saving allows for more production and thus, in the long run, greater amounts of goods and services. Under a gold standard, money (which is gold) cannot be increased without it being mined and minted - an arduous process. In contrast, under ceentral banking, the Federal Reserve can create money virtually costless without restraint, by merely printing paper bills.
The existing political establishment wants nothing to do with a gold standard. Elites understand that if the U.S. or other nations convert to a gold standard, one of their chief power-enriching mechanisms would be lost. This is why they have tried to marginalize one of this era's great proponents of the gold standard, Ron Paul, in his recent presidential bid.
No one should be surprised that in a time when nearly every social institution is in steep decline, the lifeblood of economic life should also be corrupted. Gold has long since proven to be the supreme monetary medium of exchange. It is "honest money" which is why the Establishment has always sought to discredit it and those who have championed it.
Until there is a return to a monetary system based on gold,
American consumers can expect rising prices, economic stagnation
and the continual devaluation of the dollar.
|Top|
Recently appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen
flew to Tel Aviv to warn Israel's military establishment how "important"
it
was that "history not repeat
itself "—referring to Israel's deliberate attack on
the USS Liberty in June, 1967. The Establishment media blacked
out the event (in which 34 American men were killed) for decades—and
still does.
Given the fact that this brazen two-hour attack upon the United States has been hushed up for 41 years, the reason for Mullen's meeting is obvious—someone within the intelligence or military apparatus of the United States has concluded that Israel is planning a "USS Liberty Part II," meaning an attack on a U.S. ship, most likely in the Persian Gulf, leading to a massive loss of life to be blamed on Iran.
As was intended in 1967, when Israel attacked the Liberty, angry Americans would demand the "obliteration" of the guilty party, the false identity of which the Jewish media establishment in America would provide. And while all players involved have been tight-lipped about the particulars of this meeting, Mullen's impromptu trip to Israel and subsequent discussion was in effect a stern warning to Israel to "Not even think about it."
Some in Washington are beginning to realize that they've just put their foot into something nasty with regards to Israel's dirty wars in the Middle East that will never be finished as long as it exists. With oil and virtually all consumer products skyrocketing in price simultaneous to the U.S. economy going down the drain, some now understand that by signing on as Israel's pit bull in the Muslim world that America will wind up paying the ultimate price for her devotion to the Jewish state, meaning the complete destruction of her economy and her position as a world power.
America's top general officer seems to be wary of widening the present debacle to include war with Iran that may bring into the fray nuclear-armed nations such as Russia and China. He has now joined with saner voices both inside and outside the Bush administration who are trying to prevent an otherwise apocalyptic end to America.
In discussing an attack on Iran, Mullen recently stated that opening a third front would be "extremely stressful" on the U.S. military and added that it would lead to consequences "difficult to predict," adding that "There is need for better clarity, even dialogue."
Is this making Israel jittery to the point she would contemplate pulling off another USS Liberty?
"Respectable" people have begun to openly voice such thoughts as well. In a recent provocative article entitled "If Iran is Attacking, It Might Really Be Israel," ex-CIA officer Phillip Giraldi wrote:
Some intel types are beginning to express concerns that the Israelis might do something completely crazy to get the U.S. involved. There are a number of possible "false flag" scenarios in which the Israelis could stage an incident that they will make to look Iranian, either by employing Iranian weapons or by leaving a communications footprint that points to Teheran's involvement. Those who argue Israel would never do such a thing should think again. Israel is willing to behave with complete ruthlessness towards the U.S. if they feel that the stakes are high enough. Witness the attack on the USS Liberty and the bombing of the U.S. Consulate in Alexandria in the 1950s. If they now believe that Iran is a threat that must be eliminated it is not implausible to assume they will stop at nothing to get the United States to do it for them, particularly as their air force is only able to damage the Iranian nuclear program, not destroy it. . . .
Joined alongside Giraldi is former long-time CIA analyst Ray McGovern who in a recent essay entitled "Israel Planning a September/October Surprise?" writes the following with regards to the U.S. pulling out of the Middle East and what Israel might do as a result:
My guess is the Israeli leaders are apoplectic. . . . This dramatic change—or even just the specter of it—greatly increases Israel's incentive to ensure U.S. involvement in the area that would endure for several years. The Israelis need to create "facts on the ground"—something to guarantee Washington will stand by "our ally." The legislation drafted by AIPAC calls for a blockade of Iran. That would be one way to entangle; there are many others. The point is that the growing danger the Israelis perceive will probably prompt them to find a way to get the U.S. involved in hostilities with Iran. All Israel has to do is to arrange to be attacked. Not a problem. There are endless possibilities among which Israel can choose to catalyze such a confrontation. Viewed from Tel Aviv it appears an increasingly threatening situation, with more urgent need to "embed" (so to speak) the United States even more deeply in the region—in a confrontation involving both countries with Iran. A perfect storm is brewing. . . . In sum, Israel is likely to be preparing a September/October surprise designed to keep the U.S. bogged down in Iraq and in the wider region by provoking hostilities with Iran. And don't be surprised if it starts as early as August. . . .
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
ALTHOUGH THE MASS MEDIA ballyhooed Barack Obama's visits to a number of countries, greeted with large, enthusiastic crowds—even in Germany, said to be the bastion of "race hatred" in the 20th Century—the media notably failed to mention that in Israel—America's "closest ally"—polls have shown John McCain is more popular than Obama. In fact, Israel is the only country in the world where McCain's popularity outranked that of Obama.
That single fact—a not insignificant one, considering the clout of Israel's supporters in the U.S. arena— might be described as "the big secret" of the 2008 election that the average voter knows little about.
In contrast, McCain's popularity in Israel—coupled with serious reservations about Obama among both Israelis and American Jews—has been a staple of reportage in Israel and in American Jewish community journals and on Internet sites aimed at that audience.
Forward—perhaps the most influential Jewish newspaper in America—let the cat out of the bag on July 17, when it revealed:
Polls indicate that Israelis evince some of the lowest levels of support for Obama of any country in the world. In France and Germany, both stops on Obama's tour, respectively 65 percent and 67 percent of the population has said that they would vote for him if they could. By contrast, in Israel . . . only 27 percent of the respondents said that they would like to see him become president, with John McCain being the preferred choice of 36 percent. . . .
Now, although it is being said that Obama's popularity has risen in Israel since his visit, those claims seem disingenuous, a feeble attempt to show that Israel is "in sync" with the rest of the world, when, in fact, it is not.
The truth is that many Obama supporters have been astounded by the revelation that there has been such a striking contrast between polls in Israel and those in all other countries regarding Obama and McCain.
The contrast has been so blatant that when the much quoted Pew Research Center conducted a poll regarding Obama and McCain among 22 countries—from Europe to Asia to Africa to South America—Pew did not include Israel in its poll, a glaring omission considering the central part Israel plays in U.S. foreign policy.
Critics suggest Pew deleted Israel from the poll because McCain's support by Israelis would have been so glaring in contrast to Obama's popularity elsewhere. This would put Israel and its American disciples—especially those who are Democrats—in the awkward position of explaining to Obama supporters why Israel—America's ally—would be hostile to Obama.
In addition, Forward noted—and this is critical—that even within Israel's "center-left" (which many might expect to be Obama-friendly), there is significant support for Obama's "conservative" challenger.
The reason for the Israeli enthusiasm for McCain—according to Joshua Teitelbaum of Israel's Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies—is that "politics [in Israel] is very single-issue: people formulate their opinions on the basis of the Arab-Israel conflict."
And although Obama has made noises to assuage pro-Israel forces in the U.S., notably a fawning speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Dan Diker—cited by Forward as an "American-Israeli relations expert"—said that while "The Israelis know and understand McCain's positions. Obama's are surrounded with uncertainty." Obama is thus considered a wild card by Israel and its powerful supporters on U.S. soil.
This same Forward editorially asserted in the past that there was reason to believe that Obama may have indeed been a practicing Muslim earlier in his life as Obama critics (mostly pro-Israel agitators) contend, despite Obama's denials. That Forward would make this assertion (suggesting that Obama was prevaricating or even lying outright) did not go unnoticed by American Jewish readers who were already suspicious of Obama and hostile to his Muslim heritage.
In fact, from the beginning of the time when the Democratic presidential campaign began to narrow to a two-candidate race between Obama and Hillary Clinton, American Jewish newspapers—in alliance with Republican "neo-conservative" pro-Israel sources—were engaged in a thoroughgoing campaign to raise suspicions about Obama among Jewish Democrats.
One story in Washington Jewish Week noted that many attendees at a meeting of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith were quite suspicious of Obama. The subtle (but significant) difference in the way that the mainstream media (as opposed to the Jewish community press) has reported on Obama's relations with the Jewish community is interesting.
Although one mainstream voice, Time—controlled by Edgar Bronfman, prime power behind the World Jewish Congress—did publish a notable article entitled "Obama's Jewish Problem," most other media play up the fact that, according to polls—if they are to be believed—Obama leads McCain among American Jewish voters by roughly a 60-40 margin.
However, what is generally not pointed out to the "average" American is that Obama's lead is starkly less than what one would normally expect from a Democrat over a Republican challenger. In short, Obama is not doing as well as he should be among Jewish voters.
This could spell trouble for Obama. Here's why:
According to a report by Will Maslow of the American Jewish Congress, "The percentage of Jews . . . who involve themselves in party affairs as policymakers and fund-raisers, is probably higher than that of any other racial, religious or ethnic group. The result is that Jews play a role in the political life of the country whose significance far transcends their proportion of the total population."
In short, if key Jewish forces fail to provide support for Obama, it could sabotage his candidacy.
In addition, Jewish writer Lenni Brenner has noted the actual voting power of American Jews is nearly twice their numbers: "They vote in greater proportions than any other ethnic or religious grouping. Ninety-two percent of all Jews vote in national elections compared to only 54 percent of the people as a whole. Jews may only be 10.6 percent of New York State, but they are between 16 percent and 20 percent of the voters."
In this same realm, Jewish writer Stephen Silbiger, writing in The Jewish Phenomenon added:
About 80 percent of eligible Jews in the United States are registered to vote, compared to about 50 percent of all voting-age adults. In addition, registered Jews are twice as likely to vote. Combining the two multiplies Jewish voting power by a factor of three. Furthermore, 81 percent of Jews live in only nine states [New York, New Jersey, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania and Illinois] making them a significant political bloc, especially on the national level. In presidential elections, those nine states cast 202 of the 535 votes in the Electoral College. Thus, the Jewish population could provide the swing vote in any close presidential election.
So the Jewish vote (normally heavily Democratic) could tip the balance for McCain, especially since one of America's most respected Jewish figures, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), is making strenuous efforts on McCain's behalf. If Lieberman ends up as McCain's running mate, this could be another factor altogether:
Lieberman is known for his skill in extracting campaign funds from Jewish money kings across the land. Although two of the wealthiest Jewish families in America—the billionaire Pritzkers and Crowns, both of Chicago—are central players in Obama's "inner circle" (as described by The Washington Post) observers say this indicates only that pro-Israel interests are determined to maintain influence in the Obama camp.
The Crown family are primary figures in the "military-industrial" complex as longtime controllers of the General Dynamics arms giant. The Crowns have bankrolled institutions in Israel central to the development of Israel's nuclear weapons program.
In the meantime, there is an intriguing admixture of reportage about Obama and the issue of race appearing in the mainstream media.
Even the "liberal" Washington Post featured a front page story acknowledging that Americans do consider race a significant factor in their voting. That issue of the Post announced in a separate article that American "white racist" groups were blossoming in the wake of Obama's candidacy. This suggests "racist" voters have achieved an accord with significant numbers of the American Jewish community vis-a-vis Obama.
The New York Times featured a widely quoted commentary by veteran pro-Israel geopolitical theoretician Edward Luttwak suggesting that Obama—as the son of a Muslim who abandoned his faith—could be in danger from radical Muslims if elected president.
Contending that Obama is considered a Muslim by Muslims (even if he never practiced the religion)—although some Muslim observers disputed that—Luttwak claimed that, as a result, radical Muslims would consider Obama an apostate for calling himself a Christian and thus subject to punishment.
So while Luttwak hyped a scenario for a "threat" against Obama by "radical Muslims" others suggested "white racists" might also be plotting against him.
And in light of frequent media allusions to potential "strategic alliances" between white racists and radical Muslims, some are concerned a preparatory propaganda foundation is being laid for some sort of provocation against Obama to be attributed to such an alliance, perhaps "funded by Iran"—a pretext for a war.
Such an event could be catastrophic. The "big secret" about the 2008 election may, in fact, be a time bomb that we don't want to see explode.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is a regular contributor to American Free Press. He is the author of numerous books and has several on the way.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Federal authorities have long targeted charities and fund-raising organizations, which con donors out of vast sums of money, but do little to help the causes they claim to support.
But in the past couple of years, the fund-raising of some once-respected figures and organizations have come under serious scrutiny. As a result, it can be hard to know who to trust.
Take Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, for
example. Barr, a former U.S. congressman from Georgia, built a
massive war chest for his conservative political organization,
The Bob Barr Leadership Fund. His fund-raising for that fund has
raised some eyebrows.
|
Barr's fund was created to aid political candidates and organizations
fighting for "conservative" causes.
But reports released in early summer reveal that his political action committee (PAC) spent a paltry 3 percent of the donations it received helping like-minded candidates and groups.
According to public records, since 2003, Barr's PAC has raised $4.3 million. In that same time, he spent nearly $1 million on administrative costs—salaries, office expenses and travel. Only $125,000, or 3 percent, went to support politicians and committees that were up against "liberal" political candidates.
The vast majority of Barr's money went to raising more money. Some 78 percent went to pay for more fundraising, namely buying mailing lists, paying for postage and hiring telemarketers.
Barr neglected to mention this to potential donors. As recently as April 2008, Barr's group was sending out mailings that claimed his fund had played a "tremendous role" in ousting Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) in 2004 and provided "critical funding" in 2006 for freshman Rep. Michele Bachman (R-Minn.). But, despite having raised millions of dollars, Barr's group only made minimal donations in those races: $1,000 to John Thune, who was Daschle's opponent at the time, and $1,500 to Bachman. That's just one example of questionable ethics in the world of fund-raising.
Many conservative donors are still reeling from reports in 2006 that Chris Simcox's border watchdog group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corp (MCDC), somehow managed to lose an estimated $1 million in donations that were sent in by supporters.
The problems seemed to start for Simcox when nearly $2 million was "funneled" through a charity owned by the notorious neo-conservative Alan Keyes. While MCDC volunteers were sleeping in tents, using outdated equipment and eating old MREs (meals ready to eat), Simcox's organization could not account for nearly $1 million in donations it had received from donors who believed they were helping those out in the field trying to secure the country's borders.
Simcox had also promised supporters that MCDC donations would be used to pay for 2,000 miles of state-of-the-art fencing at a cost of $55 million. Last year, reports revealed that the "wall," which was supposed to be 14-feet high, was nothing more than some barbed wire fencing that ranchers in the area said was hardly more than a glorified cattle fence.
Sadly, questions remain to this day just how much money was collected by MCDC and how much disappeared into the coffers of Keyes and his neo-con "charity."
AFP's editor emeritus, Vince Ryan, said Americans should be wary of what organizations they support financially.
"It's really shocking," said Ryan. "You think you're supporting organizations that will actually dedicate funds to publicize and fight for your causes, but they're only enriching themselves. That's why it's so important to have groups like American Free Press and the FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT (a nonprofit 501c3). At least you know that your financial help is being spent judiciously in the fight for truly good causes."
Christopher J. Petherick is a freelance journalist and publisher based in Maryland. For more information on his company, see his website at www.brandywinehouse.us or write directly to BRANDYWINEHOUSE BOOKS AND MEDIA, P.O. Box 638, Cheltenham, MD 20623. Petherick is presently working on several new books.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
It was a dramatic non-impeachment impeachment hearing July 26 featuring many stars of the movement: Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), author of the pending Articles of Impeachment, former federal prosecutor-turned-author Vincent Bugliosi and others.
Bugliosi said it is "already beyond a reasonable doubt" that "under the law the Bush administration are guilty of murder for the deaths of over 4,000 young American soldiers . . . and let's not forget the over 100,000 innocent Iraqi men, women, and children, and babies who have died horrible, violent deaths."
Bob Barr, former Republican congressman from Georgia and now the Libertarian Party candidate for president, called for impeaching President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney on grounds that they are using the so-called "war on terror" to violate the constitutional rights of individuals. Bruce Fein, a constitutional lawyer and conservative who writes a syndicated column, made the same argument.
Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, was determined that it not be called an "impeachment hearing." Instead, he titled the hearing "Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations."
Democratic leaders said there will be no impeachment effort because there is not enough time left in the Bush administration and it would disrupt an election environment that heavily favors Democrats. This led to a bit of levity.
"It seems we are hosting an anger management class," said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Tex.). "We are here having impeachment proceedings," said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa. "whether it's called the power to remove, these are impeachment hearings." But "this is not an impeachment hearing," Conyers interjected.
"Maybe," said Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), "what we're here for is something called ‘impeachment lite'. . . . We're sort of in that Never-neverland of accusing the president of impeachable offenses but not taking actions to impeach him. Which I guess impugns but does not impeach him, but maybe it has the same effect in the court of public opinion."
"This committee should immediately begin impeachment hearings," said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla,), a key backer of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. "If lying about consensual sexual activity fits the bill for impeachment, then certainly lying to the American people about the reason for invading Iraq . . . qualifies as an official—excuse me—as an impeachable offense," said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). He was referring to former President Bill Clinton's sexcapades, for which the House impeached him but the Senate refused to convict.
Kucinich, the first witness, never used the word "impeachment."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
A vast majority of Americans still may not understand most of what is happening to them but, when asked, they are instinctively and overwhelmingly opposed to the notion that the United States of America should cease to exist her borders with Mexico and Canada dissolved and our countries and cultures.
Yet that is exactly what is happening right now. Without vote or public debate, every presidential administration since Nixon's has been working to merge our three countries under the guise of "free trade." Only a few of the voices on Capitol Hill: Tom Tancredo (r-Colo.), Ron Paul (R-Tex.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.) and a few others, are openly opposed to combining Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to form a North American Union (NAU), resulting from development of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) which is an extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The agenda is clear to those outspokenly opposed to free trade fraud. The Plan is to ratify international treaties that supercede the Constitution and the laws of the U.S. so that the interests of government and industry can be merged into one, large, fascist exploitation zone that promotes resource harvest with minimum regulatory oversight and the demotion of workers to third world slave status.
The members of the Idaho congressional delegation, to whom many of us of the state have voiced our criticisms, mention they are aware of the "concerns" their constituents are raising with regard to the NAU and the construction of "I-NAFTA" - a huge, "supersmart" (heavily ssurveilled) commerce corridor from Mexico to Canada through the Midwest United States ( and the CANAMEX corridor from Mexico to Canada through Arizona, Utah, Idaho and Montana). But they essentially belittle our "misinformed" concerns that it's all part of a New World Order globalist agenda.
It would appear that the various members of the House and Senate
do know that the U.S. is ceasing to exist, But are willing to
lie about it because, they believe, they know what's best for
us and that happy, free-trade "ends" will eventually
justify the "means: of omitting pertinent facts and deceiving
Americans.
|Top|
Private investigators in Oklahoma city, after a year and a half of sleuthing, have secured proof that the so-called "ringleader" and "mastermind" of the 9-11 attacks seven years ago traveled on a credit card supplied by the U.S. government. National radio talk show host Jack Blood of Texas called it "the last nail in the coffin of the 9-11 myth."
After 18 months of digging for the facts, Chris Emery and Holland Van den Nieuwenhof and others have exposed a blockbuster. The presence of Mohammed Atta and five drunken and brawling others in Oklahoma City only days before the 9-11 attack have now been proven with the existence of credit card receipts.
The break came as the team was continuing exhaustive research into the OKC bombings of 1995. They ran into witness after witness wanting to report that they had seen Atta and five 9-11 hijackers in Oklahoma city Sept.6-8, 2001.
According to Emery, on Sept. 6, 2001 at 10 a.m. until noon, Mohamed Atta and four 9011 hijackers were spotted at, of all places, the OKC National Memorial Museum by an employee who later told Emery that the five were speaking in a Middle Eastern dialect, and they had become "boisterous" inside the museum. The employee had to tell them to "shut up" and behave or leave the premises. The five left the building immediately.
The employee vividly remembers the five because never in the history of the museum have any patrons been asked to contain themselves. It was "burned into the brain of the employee," said Emery, and was recalled again a few days later when Atta's cold stare was shown back on National TV after the 9-11 attacks. The employee allegedly tried to report the incident to authorities but was ignored.
The 9-11 himackers seen by witnesses with Atta have been revealed as: Abdulaziz Alomari, Saeed Algamdi, Ahmed Almame, and Hamza Algamdi.
On Sept. 23, 2001, the BBC in London reported all four of these men by name, along with Atta, as being still alive, placing the FBI's identification of them and 14 others in doubt.
Another, Waleed Al Shehri, now a Saudi Arabian airlines pilot, was one that the FBI said had piloted American Airlines Flight 11 and crashed it into the World Trade Center. His photograph was released with his denial, attesting to the fact that he was indeed the same person being accused but that he had left the U.S. in September of 2000, exactly a year prior to the attacks. He later appeared with his story on various European TV programs, none of which was aired in the U.S.
On Friday evening, Sept. 7, 2001, Atta and the others turned up again at an OKC bar. The investigators are not ready to divulge its name at this time, but offered that it is known to be frequented by police, "spooks" and questionable characters.
The group returned to the same bar the next night. Without a Koran or prayer rug in sight, the five were drinking beer and hard liquor, dancing, and eventually picking a fight with two local patrons.
The witnesses said this high-profile, anti-Islamic-fundamentalist behavior is not easy to forget. Atta, according to witnesses, was the ring-leader and the one picking the fight, while his four cohorts stood ready to jump into the fray.
In recent weeks, Emery and team were able to obtain the bar's credit card receipts from that night, and have spent most of the last 18 months attempting to trace the card numbers, and the authorization of the cards themselves, a time-consuming and painstaking task.
Amazingly, one card number used by Atta and crew had been expired a full six months before the September 7 and 8 dates the card was used and approved at this Oklahoma City establishment. The club's management said that they had never seen such a thing happen ever before, and, apparently, Atta had secured some kind of pre-clearance beforehand. This transaction was approved without delay.
A fifth "hijacker" was back in the same bar on the
weekend following the 9-11 attacks. He ordered Dewars scotch whiskey,
the same brand of liquor as had Atta. This transaction was paid
with another U.S. government credit card, also six months expired.
Again the purchase was approved without a hitch.
|Top|
There seems to be no particular "big issue" facing the American people. Of course there is the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the potential American involvement in Iran, the global war against terror and wherever there happens to be the immediate "need" for American forces to participate as combatants or as peacemakers. In fact, U.S. presence is in 110 countries, policing the world We are the world's lone "super power." It seems that we are more hated than respected or even feared.
In addition to the global war we are waging is the sagging economy at home. We have lost both our industrial and agricultural bases. The heart of America, the small family farm, has been superseded by big conglomerates. In most sections of the country the housing market has taken a real drubbing and people who had thought they were the backbone of Middle America with a suburban dream home and two cars in the garage have discovered the horrible truth: It ain't so.
As you know, AFP welcomes your letters and many of you have written us. This week I especially want to share with you a letter from a veteran of World War II who opposes World War III.
Dear AFP:
Sadly, all people do not show respect for, love of and patriotism to this nation. I will say it again that politicians have betrayed this republic and continue to do us harm. Yet enough voters continue to send them to Washington to continue the damage.
Citizens bemoan high prices in an economy that is in deep trouble. How can anyone believe that squandering billions of our tax dollars and wasting billions of barrels of fuel does not have a devastating effect on our economy? Those added to the costs of recruiting: my grandson just enlisted and he was paid $60,000 to join.
Troops in Iraq who re-up are paid $40,000 each. Training, transporting, supplying, family support and medical care for wounded are draining our national resources. Costs continue to increase. And politicians avoid talking about an unending expense of occupation. That will mean more costs.
Now some of the warmongers are clamoring for an attack on Iran. If I remember correctly, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Her enemy Israel has not and will not sign the treaty. Yet our politicians have given atomic power as well as the latest weapons of mass destruction to the enemy of Iran. The world can and does see the duplicity, hypocrisy and pandering of our politicians.
We citizens should demand that our politicians follow the advice of George Washington that we should not make permanent alliances with other countries.
Sincerely,
Tom Lindsey
Wyoming
Now, our interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were begot in lies. The Afghanistan war was meant to eradicate the al Qaeda menace from the face of the Earth. Bin Laden (whose chauffeur is on trial at Guantanamo Bay), was supposed to be hiding in a cave. But today the hint for him continues.
For us to unilaterally and aggressively invade Iraq, President Gush had to go up to Capitol Hill with a gigantic lie: the Iraqis possessed weapons of mass destruction. And he sold Congress on the idea that the "axis of evil" among Iraq, Iran and North Korea must be eliminated.
Congress then compliantly and unconstitutionally allowed Bush to go to war. Then, after the fact, they agreed to pay for the venture with taxpayers' money and the blood and lives of service men and women.
What can be done? Tell your senators and representative that they must pay attention to their constitutional duty to protect and defend the Constitution and bring these wars to an immediate close as Ron Paul has suggested. If not, say to them you cannot support them.
One more item: though the hour is late it's not too late to impeach Bush and Cheney. But does congress have the guts or the patriotism to do so?
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) has warned millions of radio listeners that the United States is heading into an illegal attack on Iran, stating his amazement at members of Congress who have openly voiced support for a criminal nuclear strike.
"If we do (attack) it is going to be a disaster," the congressman told the Alex Jones radio show. "I was astounded to see on one of the networks the other day that the debate was not are we going to attack, but are we going to attack before or after the election?" Paul continued.
Paul recently voiced concern over House Congressional Resolution 362 which he has dubbed a "virtual Iran war resolution."
"If that comes up it is demanding that the president put in place an absolute blockade of the entire country of Iran, and punish any country or any business group around the world if they trade with Iran," Paul told listeners.
Experts have predicted gas will rise to $6 per gallon if the resolution passes. Paul believes that may happen anyway, just by anticipation.
"The frightening thing is they say they are taking no options off the table, even nuclear first strike," Paul said. Paul believes from talking with his contacts in and around Congress that a strike on Iran has already been green-lighted.
"That is my sense because the Democratic leaders in the House are proposing no resistance whatsoever, Paul said. "We saw this when a supplemental bill came up and the president asked for $107 billion for the war, the Democrat leadership gave them $162 billion.
"It is still totally bewildering to me when I see men and women in the Congress that I know and like doing this just to get along. Most of them will say ‘I agree with you on all you say but the Iranians are bad people and they might attack us some day. . . . I hear members of Congress saying if we could only nuke them.'"
Ron Paul also spoke in detail about his new Campaign For Liberty Group and his views on the upcoming election.
This interview first appeared on www.infowars.net. Listen to the full interview at www.infowars.net/articles/july2008/040708RonPaul2.htm.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
IF YOU STILL DOUBT that the big media is determined to keep under wraps the organized crime origins of the $200 million fortune of John McCain and his wife Cindy, take note of how the prestigious Washington Post touched on the issue in its July 22 edition. Rather, instead, note how the Post covered up the matter.
The Post reported: Cindy Lou Hensley grew up as an only child, and a privileged one, on a large ranch in an upper-class section of Phoenix. Her dad, Jim Hensley, founded what became a large Anheuser-Busch distributorship, and her mom, Marguerite, was a proper belle who emphasized impeccable manners.
The Post also added, almost discretely, that Mrs. McCain's wealth "may" exceed $100 million (although most sources estimate it is worth $200 million or more) and—for the record—that "she was the apple of her father's eye."
The Post did not mention that Mrs. McCain's father was a highly-placed fixture in the Arizona branch of the national organized crime syndicate: He was the chief henchman of the late Kemper Marley, Arizona point man for infamous mob chief Meyer Lansky and his powerful partners-in-crime, the super-rich Bronfman family of Montreal.
In that capacity—for 40 years until his death in 1990—Marley was undisputed political boss of Arizona, acting as the behind-the-scenes power over both the Republican and Democratic parties.
As such, his wealth and connections played the primary role in advancing John McCain's political career from the start.
Although some Democrats have muttered that Mrs. McCain's business interests could impact on her husband's decision-making as president, none has dared cross the line and make reference to the fact this vast wealth was spawned by what others have indelicately (although quite correctly) called "the Jewish Mafia."
Correspondents for American Free Press have repeatedly referenced the McCain fortune's ties to the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate going back to 2000 when McCain first ran for president. Most recently, in its July 14/21 issue AFP reported the story again. At that time, AFP pointed out that in its June 30 edition, Newsweek (owned by the Washington Post's parent company) also suppressed McCain's mob link.
Newsweek said Mrs. McCain's family "was deeply rooted in Arizona," and that her father "was one of the most prominent men in the state," who was "a World War II bombardier . . . shot down over the English channel,"—in other words, a war hero like McCain.
Newsweek did not mention (or even hint of) the racketeering, corruption and murder associated with Hensley and his patrons.
Newsweek said Hensley "borrowed $10,000 to start a liquor business" which became one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the country and pointed out that the vast Hensley influence and fortune "got McCain access to money and connections" after he divorced his ailing first wife and married his then mistress, Cindy Hensley, and settled in Arizona where he first ran for office in 1982. But there was much more to the story.
Newsweek did not mention what AFP had reported and which is republished here in order to keep this important story before the American public:
To repeat: McCain's father-in-law was the top lieutenant for Kemper Marley, the Lansky syndicate's chief Arizona operative who acted, in turn, as the front man for the Bronfman family—key players in the Lansky syndicate.
During Prohibition, the Canadian-based Bronfmans supplied—and thus controlled—the "spigot" of liquor funneled to Lansky syndicate functionaries in the United States, including Al Capone in Chicago.
After Prohibition, Lansky-Bronfman associates such as Marley got control of a substantial portion of liquor (and beer) distribution across the country. Marley's longtime public relations man, Al Lizanitz, revealed that it was the Bronfmans who set Marley up in the alcohol business.
In 1948, 52 of Marley's employees (including Jim Hensley, the manager of Marley's company) were prosecuted for federal liquor violations. Hensley got a six month suspended sentence and his brother Eugene went to prison for a year.
In 1953 Hensley and (this time) Marley were prosecuted by federal prosecutors for falsifying liquor records, but young attorney William Rehnquist acted as their "mouthpiece" (as mob attorneys are known) and the two got off scot-free. Rehnquist later became chief justice of the Supreme Court and presided over the "fix" that made George W. Bush president in a rightly disputed election.
Arizona insiders say Hensley "took the fall" for Marley in 1948 and Marley paid back Hensley by setting him up in his own beer distribution business.
Newsweek implied Hensley's company was a "mom and pop" operation that became a big success, but the real story goes to the heart of the history of organized crime.
Hensley's sponsor, Marley, was also a major player in gambling, a prot?g? of Lansky associate Gus Greenbaum who, in 1941, set up a national wire for bookmakers. After Lansky ordered a hit on his own longtime partner, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel, who was stealing money from the Flamingo Casino in Las Vegas—which was financed in part by loans from an Arizona bank chaired by Marley—Greenbaum turned operations of the wire over to Marley while Greenbaum took Siegel's place in tending to Lansky's interests in Las Vegas.
In 1948 Greenbaum was murdered in a mob "hit" that set off a series of gang wars in Phoenix, but Marley survived and prospered as did Jim Hensley, who sponsored McCain's rise to power.
McCain's father-in-law also dabbled in dog racing and expanded his fortune by selling his track to an individual connected to the Buffalo-based Jacobs family, key Prohibition-era cogs in the Lansky network as distributors of Bronfman liquor.
Expanding over the years, buying up race tracks and developing food and drink concessions at sports stadiums, Jacobs enterprises were described as being "probably the biggest quasi-legitimate cover for organized crime's money-laundering in the United States."
In 1976, Hensley's mentor—Marley (at the height of his power)—was the key suspect behind the contract murder of journalist Don Bolles who was investigating the mob in Arizona, but Marley was never prosecuted.
Since McCain's career was sponsored by the Lansky-Bronfman syndicate, it is no coincidence McCain recently traveled to London where Lord Jacob Rothschild of the international banking empire raised money among American expatriates on McCain's behalf.
Rothschild has long been allied with the Bronfman family as major patrons of Israel.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial "underground bestseller" documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within and The Golem: Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb. All are available from AFP: 202-547-5585. He has lectured on these topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Iran, Canada, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Israel's Physicians for Human Rights, a group funded by the European Union, has demanded that Shin Bet, the country's internal security service, stop coercing sick Palestinians to become informers in return for medical treatment.
The group also claims that in recent years there has been evidence of the use of torture in Israel's detention system despite a 1999 Israeli Supreme Court ruling prohibiting it. In particular, two leading members of PHR—Physicians for Human Rights—allege that medical personnel have been "shamefully involved" in the use of torture.
The latest confrontation came in a statement carried in Haaretz, one of the country's leading newspapers. It said Shin Bet was exploiting sick Palestinians by detaining them at crossing points between Israel and Gaza and interrogating them for hours, demanding they become informers against Hamas to enter Israel for medical treatment. A man suffering from cancer was told if he did not agree to work for Shin Bet he would be sent home and the cancer would spread to his brain and kill him.
A journalist from Gaza was detained for hours after he went to a crossing seeking permission to enter Israel to have medical work done to save his eye sight. When he refused to become an informer he was denied entry and has since lost sight in one eye. He fears he will end up totally blind.
Shin Bet argues that it has a legal right to detain and question people and claims that in the past three years three people claiming to need medical treatment turned out to be suicide bombers. According to PHR, this is the "ticking time bomb" justification, which does not fit the reality.
The most damning criticism has been directed at chief medical officers and physicians whom PHR claims are acting as "collaborators" in the use of torture.
Hadas Ziv, who is executive director of PHR-Israel and Dr. Ze'evWeiner, a psychiatrist and member of the group's Ethics Committee reject the "ticking time bomb" argument. They say medical personnel should be prohibited by their professional bodies from participating in any way in the use of torture. According to Ziv and Weiner, physicians are turning a blind eye to torture or enabling it by monitoring the health of a prisoner during an interrogation. They offer the following solution to end torture:
"Some will ask why we focus on medical personnel; shouldn't torture itself be the focal point of the struggle? The answer is: Of course it should. However, we should not downplay the importance of removing physicians from the system as the most effective step towards eradicating torture entirely. Medical personnel are a central tool or a kind of fig leaf that enables others within the system to carry out this kind of activity under a veil. Try to imagine an execution taking place in the United States without an anesthesiologist to enable the execution to be conducted without pain. Or try to imagine the Shin Bet designing methods of torture without seeking medical consultation, or an interrogator working without a medical safety net to treat those who are injured. In addition, the mere existence of torture harms the whole of society and the involvement of physicians in torture destroys the ethical cornerstone of the medical profession. Its ramifications extend in general beyond the walls of the prison and interrogation facilities. If organizations such as Shin Bet and the Ministry of Defense lack ethical codes then the involvement of physicians in torture, in knowing, in acting, in failing to report or issue warnings is prohibited under every ethical code."
Ziv and Weiner also allege that detainees who have been seriously tortured have often come into direct contact with medical teams in the emergency rooms of general and psychiatric hospitals and it is up to those teams, who are not under the prison regime, to "resolutely protect" tortured detainees.
"We have been disappointed here too," say Ziv and Weiner. "It is enough to mention that several detainees who arrived at hospital with signs of torture on their body or mind who were returned immediately or several days later to the interrogation facilities, to their torturers. We should take into account here the fact that there exists a comprehensive system in Israel that dehumanizes the victim and places security considerations over the interests of the detainee-patient."
The two PGR executives quote the renowned academic, Prof. Daniel Statman, who said the fact torture is reserved for Palestinians and not Jews confirms that it is used to gain control over the Palestinians and to intimidate and restrain them – not to obtain information about a "ticking time bomb."
Richard Walker is the nom de plume of a former mainstream news producer who now writes for AFP so that he can discuss topics considered taboo in the mainstream press.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
The 90th birthday celebration of Nelson Mandela—longtime leader of the communist-backed revolutionary African National Congress—has brought the ever-controversial issue of the power and intrigues of tax-exempt foundations back into focus.
The Nelson Mandela Foundation is engaging in a broad-ranging public relations campaign highlighting its work. Here in the United States, the American affiliate of the foundation, known as the Friends of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, is reveling in the publicity—and the donations—that are pouring in.
Many Americans consider Mandela a global icon, a freedom fighter, a monumental figure in world history whose followers destroyed the hated apartheid regime in South Africa.
In contrast, many other Americans consider Mandela a symbol of the bankrupt and hated communist philosophy, a genuine terrorist who was trafficking in violence and murder long before anyone ever heard the dreaded term "9-11."
But what all of these Americans have in common is that—whether or not they actually make donations to the Mandela foundation's American affiliate—their tax dollars do subsidize the work of the foundation.
Under the 501(c)(3) rules instituted by the Internal Revenue Service, any American taxpayer who donates to the Friends of the Nelson Mandela Foundation can take a tax credit for the amount of that donation—and that means, then, that all other American taxpayers are helping underwrite the work of the foundation.
In addition, there are other American-based foundations, such as the Ford Foundation and the Charles Stewart Mott foundation, that are giving their own money (which comes in tax-exempt donations) to the Nelson Mandela Foundation.
And while many American "conservatives"—who consider themselves to be anti-communists—absolutely adore billionaire publisher Rupert Murdoch whose Fox News and Weekly Standard magazine help set the agenda for Republican Party thinking, through their own influence in GOP circles and think tanks, it turns out that Murdoch's HarperCollins book publishing company is among the contributors to the foundation.
So even Americans who purchase books published by Harper Collins are actually donating to Mandela's foundation by patronizing Murdoch's enterprises.
The tax exempt benefits enjoyed by the Mandela foundation are also enjoyed by many other tax exempt foundations, such as the aforementioned Ford Foundation and a variety of others, notably the powerful Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rand Corporation.
And while one would think that these foundations might be "rivals," the record shows that, in one instance, when the chairman of the Rand Corporation was also the president of the Ford Foundation, Ford gave a million dollar donation to Rand.
In many instances, these various foundations share an interlocking directorate, indicating that they are anything but rivals. They are all an integral part of the hidden shadow elite, using their lucrative grant-making powers to influence a wide variety of other public policy organizations and shape local, state and international affairs as a consequence.
In addition, a careful review of these powerful foundations demonstrates that they have historically worked in close conjunction with the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), with many key foundation officials serving as CFR members.
Although historically perceived—to the extent that its work has been publicly recognized—as an arm of the Rockefeller family, the truth is that the CFR has always been no more than an American off-shoot of the London-based Royal Institute for International Affairs, which, despite its name, is not a British government agency.
Rather, it is the de facto foreign policy arm of the global Rothschild banking empire based in "The City of London" which—again, despite its name—is not the geographic locale which constitutes the capital of England but, instead, is an independent entity inside London where the Rothschild empire operates: a financial center of historically unparalleled influence whose tentacles thus reach onto American shores through the CFR and the related foundations and think tanks.
As far back as the 1950s, Congress investigated the tax exempt foundations under a special committee convened by Rep. B. Carroll Reece (R-Tenn.) and concluded in its report that these foundations, operating both independently and in league with one another, have engaged in a carefully coordinated effort to undermine America's free enterprise system, traditional culture and national sovereignty. The foundations are indeed a driving force behind the agenda of what is generally referred to as the New World Order.
A new book by Phil Kent, Foundations of Betrayal: How the Liberal Super-Rich Undermine America, explores some of the depravities of these foundations.
Kent's book strips the hide off America's "charitable" beast within and exposes the foundations for what they are: political battering rams hiding under the banner of charity.
The "invisible government" of these rich and powerful foundations and the groups they fund and the politicians who fawn over them tend to operate under a cloak of secrecy. But Kent's book explains, in no uncertain terms, just what their agenda really is: and it has nothing to do with America or the interests of Americans, no matter how "nice" their programs sound.
Fortunately, there is at least one tax exempt foundation that genuine American patriots can support: FOUNDATION TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Donations to FDFA are—just like donations to the internationalist foundations—entirely tax exempt and they go toward supporting the First Amendment freedoms that (still in existence, just barely) make it possible for independent newspapers like American Free Press to continue publishing. FDFA has been involved in a variety of good efforts over the years.
For more about how you can help this American institution that places America first, click here.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Most people think that the figure "six million" eerged during World War II when it was claimed that Germany killed that many Jews in the "Holocaust." But the magic six million figure dates back to 1900. This item was submitted by Dr. Fredrick Töben, an educator in Australia and the founder of The Adelaide Institute. All are items gleaned from The New York Times from articles it published between 1900 and 1920:
• May 7, 1920: "Jewish war sufferers in Central and
Eastern Europe, where six million face horrifying conditions of
famine, disease and death.
• May 5, 1920: "To save six million men and women in
Eastern Europe from extermination by hunger and disease."
• May 5, 1920: "Six million starving, fever-stricken
sufferers in war-torn Europe appeal to us.
• May 3, 1920: "Your help is needed to save the lives
of six million people in Eastern and Central Europe."
• May 2, 1920: "... Six million human beings, without
food, shelter, clothing or medical treatment."
• May1,1920: "But the lives of six million human being
are waiting for an answer."
• Dec. 3, 1919: "Nothing on Earth except a miracle can
prevent the death by freezing and starvation of from five million
to 10 million people in Europe and the Middle East this winter
... atrocious Jewish massacre."
• Nov. 12, 1919: "... tragically unbelievable poverty,
starvation and disease about six million souls, or half the Jewish
population of the Earth ... a million children and five million
parents and elders."
• Sept. 29, 1919: "tragically unbelievable poverty,
starvation and disease ... about six million souls, or half the
Jewish population of the Earth."
• Aug. 10, 1917: "Germans Let Jews Die. Women and Children
in Warsaw Starving to Death ... Jewish mothers, mothers of mercy,
feel happy to see their nursing babies die; at least they are
through with their suffering."
• Jan. 14, 1915: "In the world today there are about
13 million Jews, of whom more than six million are in the heart
of the war zone; Jews whose lives are at stake and who today are
subjected to every manner of suffering and sorrow...."
But go one step further back in time. In 1900,Rabbi Stephen
Wise made the following statement before Jewish welfare organizations
in the USA: "There are six million living, bleeding, suffering
arguments in favor of Zionism."
|Top|
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R-Calif.), a major advocate of strong border control, said the holding of a U.S. Border Patrol agent at gunpoint by the Mexican military (AFP Aug. 18, 2008) "raises serious questions" about Mexico's presence and activities in the area.
"The fact that the Mexican military is operating in such close proximity to the border, without any identifiable purpose, calls into question its activities and raises concerns about the vulnerability of our southern land border," Hunter wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
"When considering the frequency of incursions and the threat these encounters pose to our Border Patrol agents, it is critical that we take the necessary steps to ensure that Mexican military and law-enforcement personnel do not cross into the U.S. without our knowledge and consent," Hunter wrote.
His letter was in response to an incident Aug. 3 during which a Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint by members of the Mexican military who had crossed the border into Arizona about 85 miles southwest of Tucson. The soldiers returned to Mexico without incident when backup U.S. agents came to assist. What would have happened if no agents were available for backup at that moment?
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Is the price of oil really determined by decreasing supply and increasing demand, or are financial speculators manipulating the markets for their monetary gain? With the early August drop in prices, speculation about speculators "gaming the system" makes a lot more sense than supply-and-demand dynamics shaping the market.
Evidence of speculators manipulating prices came in the last week of July when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the government regulatory body tasked with policing futures markets, charged Optiver Holding, two of its subsidiaries and three employees with "manipulation and attempted manipulation of crude oil."
According to the CFTC, Optiver was attempting to corner the market on crude. It had "amassed large trading positions," said a spokesman for the CFTC, "then conducted trades in such a way as to bully and hammer the markets."
Optiver just happens to be one of "dozens" of companies the CFTC is currently investigating.
The vigor with which regulatory bodies are checking up on traders stems from calls in Congress to look into commodity trading firms driving up prices. The bottom line is traders at Optiver had done what many suspect is common practice in oil markets today—they purchased large numbers of oil futures contracts just before markets closed, forcing prices up. They then sold them quickly to push prices down. Ultimately, the traders profited off the difference.
But in reality, it's more complicated than that. Investment dollars have figuratively been flooding commodities markets as hedges against the falling dollar and the volatile stock market. An unusual meeting of the minds between airline executives, consumer advocates and oil experts has redirected attention to the uncanny correlation between a fourfold increase in investment dollars in the oil futures market and a fourfold increase in the price of oil.
Experts chalk up some of the confusion over the role speculation plays in determining oil prices to legislation in 2000, which passed after significant lobbying on the part of energy giant Enron. Known as the Enron loophole, this highly questionable measure enacted by Congress allowed energy securities to be traded outside the New York Mercantile Exchange and without any oversight.
These securities now comprise a portion of the estimated $300 trillion in derivatives that are being traded on global markets. Greed governs in these dangerous speculative games, and the recent mortgage meltdown is a shining example of why bankers and global speculators can never operate on the honor system alone.
So who is right? Are speculators to blame, or is it supply and demand?
On July 11, Tyson Slocum, the director of the energy program at Public Citizen, explained it this way to the House Committee on Agriculture:
"There is no question that speculators and unregulated energy traders have pushed prices far beyond the supply-demand fundamentals and into an era of a speculative bubble in oil markets."
Slocum pointed to firms like Goldman Sachs, which "invest in and acquire significant physical oil assets like refineries and pipelines while holding substantial positions in the futures markets. . . . Controlling these assets affords a company's energy trading affiliates an ‘insider's peek' into the physical movements of energy products unavailable to other energy traders."
They can then game the system legally, reaping huge profits for themselves and their clients and sticking the American public with the tab.
So how much of the $100-plus cost of a barrel of oil is directly related to speculative forces? Speculators can buy up large amounts of oil and then sell them to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade over 20 times before anyone actually touches it. With each trade, the price goes up.
In an open letter to the public, airline executives placed the speculator effect to as much as $30 to $60 per barrel.
Some whistle blowers say they expect prices to drop significantly if Congress puts a cap on speculation. In testimony before Congress, hedge fund manager Michael Masters said that gasoline prices could fall to $2 a gallon if legislators would simply pass a measure like the one proposed by Germany's leaders, which would curb global trading by speculators.
There are a number of bills pending in Congress which would do such a thing. Rep. Bart Stupak (DMich.) recently introduced an updated version of a bill called the PUMP Act, or Prevent Unfair Manipulation of Prices Act.
The measure would close loopholes that facilitate the manipulation and inflation of the price of energy. "By closing all of these loopholes," said Stupak, following the introduction of his bill, "CFTC would be better able to monitor trades to prevent manipulation and help eliminate the unreasonable inflation of energy prices, helping protect American consumers."
Christopher Petherick is a journalist and publisher based in Maryland. For more information, see his website at www.brandywinehouse.us or write directly to BRANDYWINE HOUSE BOOKS AND MEDIA, P.O. Box 638, Cheltenham, MD 20623.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
George W. Bush and his neo-con cohorts are behind the Russo-Georgia war, inside sources on the ground in South Ossetia and in Washington have revealed. Israel is also involved on behalf of Georgia because of oil. The sources remain anonymous.
Russia's attack was in response to U.S. plans to install missile sites near its borders and to bring Georgia into NATO. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, giving his country a military presence reminiscent of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.
This threat emerged earlier (AFP, Aug. 4, 2008) but was blacked out by the mainstream media.
"We should restore our position in Cuba and other countries," Putin said, while hearing a report on a recent Russian delegation's trip to Cuba.
"It is not a secret that the West is creating a ‘buffer zone' around Russia, involving countries in Central Europe, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Ukraine," said Leonid Ivashov, head of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems.
"In response, we may have to expand our military presence abroad, including Cuba."
Earlier, Russia threatened a "military technical" response to U.S. plans to put missiles in Eastern Europe near its borders. Russia strongly opposes plans of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route oil and gas that transit Georgia through Turkey instead of linking them to Russian pipelines. Tel Aviv owns a heavy interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines.
The Swiss-based Israeli investigative journalist and author Shraga Elam reports that Israel, with U.S. connivance, was behind the attack against South Ossetia by the tiny former Soviet state of Georgia.
"There is an obvious Israeli involvement in the present conflict between Georgia and Russia," he says.
"There are hundreds of Israeli military advisers in Georgia. . . ." He quotes sources like military expert Yossi Melman in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz:
"Melman wrote that Georgia became a real El Dorado for Israeli arms dealers and numerous representatives of the army and intelligence services. Some former generals like Israel Ziv and Gal Hersh (with his company Defensive Shield) are very active there.
"Hersh and Ziv are mainly training and consulting Georgian army units. They are using the ‘chain' method common among Israeli arms dealers: a main contractor wins a tender and employs sub-contractors—in this case Israeli officers and former Shin Bet employees," wrote Melman.
According to him there was a project to sell Merkava tanks to Georgia, The Ma'ariv newspaper points out that the Georgian defense minister, David Kezerashvili, lived for a while in Israel and speaks Hebrew. In a lengthy article the military exports to Georgia are described. Ma'ariv estimates them to be of a value of at least $300 million. An Israeli marketing expert told Ma'ariv:
"To every Israeli agent representing an Israeli defense company is attached a cousin of the defense minister, who opens the doors for him."
Also, Israeli news web site (News First Class) confirms the massive presence of Israeli advisers in Georgia and writes:
"The Israeli military industries upgraded the Georgian air force, sold unmanned aerial vehicles, advanced artillery systems and trained infantry units."
U.S. "consultants" are helping the Georgian army. According to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, there are 127 U.S. military trainers there, of whom about 35 are civilian contractors.
In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the Kaiserslautern-based 21st Theater Sustainment Command, along with Marine reservists with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines out of Ohio, and the U.S. state of Georgia's Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry participated in "Immediate Response 2008."
Operation Immediate Response 2008 was held from July 15-July 30, with U.S. personnel training about 600 troops at a former Soviet base near Tbilisi, the largest city and capital of Georgia. The goal of this operation was allegedly teaching combat skills for missions in Iraq. The Marines left, but not the airmen.
Georgia had sent 2,000 soldiers to Iraq, who were recalled to face the Russian invasion. Washington has provided Georgia with materiel and advisers, and so did Israel—at least until Russia pressed it to stop, reportedly in return for promises to withhold advanced weapons from Syria.
The South Ossetia separatists claim U.S. intervention, saying there are black people among the Georgian casualties. But even if some American personnel went discreetly into action, that would not suffice to deter Russia from bringing Georgia to heel, if not physically occupying the country. And then the Western loss will not be limited to the independence of a small, remote, struggling democracy.
Among items Israel has been selling to Tbilisi are pilotless drone aircraft. Russian fighters shot one down in May, according to UN observers.
Russia sent Israel a letter of protest after the shooting incident asking it to stop supplying military hardware to Georgia "as Russia from time to time complies with Israel's requests not to supply weapons systems" to states seen as threatening Israel, according to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv. Israel is one of the world's leading arms exporters but does not detail the contents or value of its trade with individual countries.
In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military.
Howard Carson, AFP Southwest Bureau chief, travels widely and has influential contacts in Russia and other countries.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
In a "town hall meeting" shortly before the elections in Russia last March, bringing his protégé Dmitri Medvedev to power as president, Vladmire Putin had the following to say, not only to the Russian people, but to the warmongers in Tel Aviv and Washington:
"Thank God Russia is not Iraq.... It is strong enough to protect its interests within its national territory and, by the way, in other regions of the world.
Of all the war-torn countries he could have chosen, Putin cited Iraq, a resource-rich nation destroyed by the United States at the behest of Israel. What Putin was really saying in coded language, but to Israel and her Yankee attack dog, was:
"We know what your plans are for us ... to destroy our nation and rob us of our sovereignty and wealth as you have done to others. Understand this well, we will not allow it. Moreover, do not make the mistake of thinking we will limit ourselves to just meaningless protests from diplomats and bureaucrats...."
For nearly a year now, Russia has demonstrated publicly she means business. She has increased her long-range bomber training missions from two a month one a day, buzzing U.S. bases in the Pacific and elsewhere, as well as coming within seconds of penetration NATO-aligned European nations' airspace before turning back. In the Western Hemisphere, she recently rubbed salt into an old wound that never healed in the U.S. - using Cuba as a forward base for Russian military interests. One of her top generals, Yuri Baluyevsky, warned that Russia would use nuclear weapons preemptively against nations that threaten her safety. Putin backed this up with the promise that Russia would target with nuclear weapons former Soviet states such as Ukraine that allow their territories to be used as bases for NATO.
The message has been clear: Russia will not go the way of other nations who got on the bad side of the two-headed hydra operating out of Tel Aviv and Washington, and the bear has the teeth and claws.
Russia upped the ante considerably with the crushing retaliatory blow on what has become the new outpost for neo-con aggression in the Caucasus, Georgia. A nearly full-scale invasion has taken place.
AFP has warned often that a confrontation between Russia and Tel Aviv/Washington was inevitable. The same folks who authored papers outlining was in the Middle East years in advance and who swarmed within such groups as Project For a New American Century have made it clear that once the Islamic world has been "taken care of" there are other matters to "fix," including an assertive, nationalist-minded Russia that refuses to be a servant to the Zionist New World Order.
Israel has "set up shop" in Georgia in a big way.
Using Georgia's Defense Minister Davit Kezerashvili (former Israeli
fluent in Hebrew) as her "man on the inside," Israeli
has, along with the U.S., been providing Georgia with hundreds
of millions of dollars worth of high-tech military hardware yearly.
Israel has contracted out to Georgia high-ranking former generals
as "advisors" in training the Georgia military under
the auspices of "fighting terrorism." Another Georgian
minister, Temur Yakobshvili, who heads the office of"reintegration"
(the same office that in the early days of Israel's youth eventually
became Mossad) is also a Hebrew-speaking Jew and was quoted by
Israeli Army Radio saying "Thanks to Israeli training, we're
fending off Russia."
|Top|
OVER THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, more than two dozen of the world's most esteemed microbiologists—all of whom were focused on combating bioterrorism—have died under questionable circumstances.
One was stabbed with a sword, another run over by a car, while a third was bashed over the head until dead. A scientist was found with repeated stab wounds to the chest; another was shoved under a chair (naked from the waist down); one perished in a nitrogen-filled airlock; another was carjacked, with his keys still in the ignition and a full tank of gas.
None of these men died of natural causes. Their murders were deliberate, and it's sending a clear message to virus experts, immunologists, entomologists, and those researching bio-weaponry: your lives are in grave danger.
The latest casualty was bio-defense pioneer Bruce Ivins, who reportedly committed suicide on July 29 at Frederick Memorial Hospital from an overdose of Tylenol 3. (How he obtained enough pills to kill himself in a mental hospital is still open to question.) Ivins had direct links to the 2001 anthrax case; first via his potential development of a vaccine to combat the toxin, and secondly as a 2003 recipient of the Decoration for Exceptional Service—the most prestigious award a civilian scientist can receive. Ivins also assisted the government in its investigation of the anthrax scare.
Those closest to Ivins are publicly skeptical of the suicide story, pointing out that he was a Red Cross volunteer, played keyboards at his local church, enjoyed gardening and was married with two children. On the other hand, to paint the most horrific picture possible, an FBI-affiliated social worker named Jean Duley stated that Ivins was, in reality, a sociopathic, homicidal revenge killer who wanted to murder his coworkers in a blaze of glory after discovering that he was the target of a Justice Department investigation into the anthrax case.
This testimony is questionable on a number of different levels. Samples of human hair from a mailbox in Princeton, N.J. where the anthrax was mailed do not match Ivins, sources involved said. For 18 years, Ivins held one of the highest security clearances possible in the Department of Defense. As journalist Scott Creighton asked, "How did all those educated and degreed psychologists and psychiatrists miss this criminal intent that a social worker (Jean Duley) picked up on in one group session?"
If Ivins exhibited such homicidal tendencies, wouldn't it be identified at least once in nearly two decades, especially since he worked at Fort Detrick, home of the U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases at one of the most guarded facilities in the country?
Ivins is the second victim of a government witch hunt that began with the concerted harassment of Dr. Steven Hatfill, whose career and reputation were irreparably destroyed before receiving a $5.8 million settlement from the feds. Conveniently enough, less than a month after the government awarded Hatfill his judgment—with their anthrax case seemingly stalled and going nowhere because they pursued the wrong man for years—all of a sudden Bruce Ivins overdoses and the entire matter is suddenly solved.
Nobody has to ever again worry about anthrax-laced letters like the ones Tom Brokaw and former Sen. Tom Daschle received. But has the real culprit actually been identified, or is there someone else being shielded from prosecution?
The answer may lie with Dr. Philip M. Zack, a microbiologist who had already attempted to frame an Arab colleague, Dr. Ayaad Asaad, for the anthrax scare.
Zack, it turns out, is Jewish, and was fired from his post at Fort Detrick for continually harassing Dr. Asaad in an extremely discriminatory fashion because he was Arab.
Continued visits to the top-secret lab after his dismissal were recorded by security cameras. He was filmed entering Fort Detrick on numerous occasions. The individual who illegally let him in was Dr. Marian K. Rippy, also Jewish. In addition, Zack was well acquainted with military-grade anthrax, the same type that was used to lace postal packages in 2001.
Further evidence implicating the government were DNA tests linking the original source spores (which are very rare) to Fort Detrick. Zack again becomes a prime suspect because the anthrax scare occurred shortly after 9-11, at a time when the neo-cons and Israel were primed to begin their "war on terror." Zack was known as a rabid "Arab-hating-Jew," and the letters attached to each anthrax sample teemed with anti-Semitic rhetoric meant to implicate Arabs ("Death to Israel, Allah is Great").
Was the entire anthrax hysteria motivated to cast further suspicion on Muslims to justify the neo-cons' desire for a Mideast war? Was the anthrax scare akin to Saddam Hussein's purported WMDs, another tactic to push us toward an Iraqi invasion? Were Steven Hatfill and Bruce Ivins scapegoats used by the government to divert attention from Dr. Zack's involvement?
Finally, are many of the world's top microbiologists being murdered to minimize efforts to counter the effects of a future bio-terrorist attack? Who would have ever thought that brainy, isolated lab workers were in the world's most deadly white-collar profession?
Dr. Bruce Ivins was a shy, dedicated scientist. Following his death, he's been characterized as a madman wearing a bullet-proof vest who poisoned his victims via the nation's most deadly act of biological terrorism.
But, if the anthrax scare was simply another neo-con/Mossad psy-op, the implications for a coverup are enormous. Many of Dr. Ivins' colleagues and friends don't believe claims that he was a killer, and feel his "suicide" was the result of non-stop, heavy-handed harassment by government officials. Disease specialist W. Russell Byrne characterized him as "looking like a guy who was being led to his execution."
Has another number just been added to the mysterious microbiologist body count?
Victor Thorn is a freelance journalist based in Pennsylvania. He is the author of numerous books about the New World Order and 9-11. These books include: New World Order Exposed; New World Order Illusion; 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Connection to 9-11; 9-11 on Trial; 9-11 Exposed and AFP's Phantom Flight 93 and Other Astounding 9-11 Mysteries Explored. All are available from FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS at 202-547-5585.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americcan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, to rich, then let's destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that "an autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide."
First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a course for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy." Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.
Second, to destroy America, invent "multiculturalism" and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.
Third, we could make the United States a "Hispanic Quebec" without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently; :The apparent success ofour own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." I would encourage all immigrants to keep their won language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.
Fourth; I wold make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50 percent dropout rate from high school.
My fifth point for destroying america would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of "victimology." I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.
My sixth plan for America's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would clelbrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, of stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshiped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. E pluribus unum - From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the "pluribus" instead of the "unum," we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.
Next to last, I would place key subjects off limits. Make it
taboo to talk about anything against the cult of "diversity."
I would find a word similar to "heretic" in the 16th
century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words
like "racist" or "xenophobe" halt discussion
and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country,
having established multiculturalism, having the large foundations
fund the doctrine of "victimology," I would next make
it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop
a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America,
it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant
symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.
|Top|