The following is an excerpt of
the floor speech given by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) admonishing
his fellow senators to vote against the Homeland Security bill.December 2, 2002
December 9, 2002
December 16-23, 2002
December 30, 2002
Whole Body Health
The following is an excerpt of
the floor speech given by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) admonishing
his fellow senators to vote against the Homeland Security bill.
I remember years ago, when I was in the House of Representatives, sending out a little booklet to the people in my then-congressional district on how our laws are made. That is how the American people expect this Congress to operate. That is the way we are supposed to operate.
But the way this bill was brought in here, less than 48 hours ago, a brand-new bill. It had not been before any committee. It had undergone no hearings. It is a bill on our desks that has 484 pages. There have been no witnesses who were asked to appear to testify on behalf of the bill or in opposition to it. It did not undergo any such scrutiny.
The American people expect us to provide our best judgment and our best insight into such monumental decisions. This is a far, far cry from being our best. As a matter of fact, it is a mere shadow of our best.
If I had to go before the bar of judgment tomorrow and were asked by the eternal God what is in this bill, I could not answer God. If I were asked by the people of West Virginia: "Sen. Byrd, what is in that bill?" I could not answer.
There are a few things that I know are in it by virtue of the fact that I have had 48 hours—sleeping time included—in which to study this monstrosity. I know a few things that are in it, and a few things that I know are in it that I don't think the American people would approve of if they knew what was in there.
Even Sen. [Joseph] Lieberman, who is chairman of the committee which has jurisdiction over this subject matter, saw new provisions in this legislation as he looked through it. As his staff looked through it, they saw provisions they had not seen before, that they had not discussed before, that had not been before their committee.
This is one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation I have seen in my 50 years. I will have been in Congress 50 years come Jan. 3. Never have I seen such a monstrous piece of legislation sent to this body. Our poor staffs were up most of the night studying it. They know some of the things that are in there, but they don't know all of them. It is a sham and it is a shame.
We are all complicit in going along with it. I read in the paper that nobody will have the courage to vote against it. Well, Robert Byrd is going to vote against it because I don't know what I am voting for.
Listen, my friends: I am an old meat cutter. I used to make sausage. Let me tell you, I never made sausage like this thing was made. You don't know what is in it. At least I knew what was in the sausage.
We ought to demand that this piece of legislation stay around here a while so we can study it, so our staffs can study it, so we know what is in it, so we can have an opportunity to amend it where it needs amending.
Several senators have indicated, Sen. Lieberman among them, that there are areas in here that ought to be amended. What the people of the United States really care about is their security. That is what we are talking about. We don't know when another tragic event is going to be visited upon this country. It can be this evening, it can be tomorrow, or whatever.
But this legislation is not going to be worth a continental dime if it happens tonight, tomorrow, a month from tomorrow.
To tell the American people they are going to be safer when we pass this is a hoax. We ought to tell the people the truth. They are not going to be any safer with that.
I was one of the first in the Senate to say we need a new Department of Homeland Security. I meant that. But I didn't mean this particular hoax that this administration is trying to pander off to the American people, telling them this is homeland security. That is not homeland security. Mr. President, the attorney general and director of Homeland Security have told Americans repeatedly there is an imminent risk of another terrorist attack. Just within the past day, or few hours, the FBI has put hospitals in the Washington area, Houston, San Francisco, and Chicago on notice of a possible terrorist threat.
But this bill does not even go into effect for up to 12 months. It will be 12 months before this goes into effect. The bill just moves around on an organizational chart.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, on which Sen. [Ted] Stevens (R-Alaska) and I sit, along with 27 other senators, including the distinguished senator who presides over the chamber at this moment, the senator from Rhode Island, Mr. [Jack] Reed (D), tried to provide funds to programs to hire more FBI agents, to hire more Border Patrol agents, to equip and train our first responders, to improve security at our nuclear power plants, to improve bomb detection at our airports. That committee of 29 senators—15 Democrats and 14 Republicans—voted to provide the funds for these homeland security needs. Those funds have been in bills that have been out there for four months.
But the president said no, he would not sign it. President Bush is the man I am talking about. He would not sign that as an emergency.
These are actions that would make America more secure today. Did the president help us to approve these funds? No. Instead, the president forced us to reduce homeland security funding by $8.9 billion, and he delayed another $5 billion. This is shameful; this is cynical; this is being irresponsible. It is unfair to the American people. And then to tell them Congress ought to pass that homeland security bill—that is passing the buck.
Listen, senators. This is what The New York Times is saying to you, to me, to us: "If the Homeland Security Act is not amended before passage, here is what will happen to you: Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit and email you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend—all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ‘a virtual, centralized grand database.' Political awareness can overcome total information awareness, the combined force of commercial and government snooping. In a similar overreach, Attorney General Ashcroft tried his Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS), but public outrage at the use of gossips and postal workers as snoops caused the House to shoot it down. The Senate should now do the same to this other exploitation of fear."
How is it that the Bush administration's No. 1 priority has
evolved into a plan to create a giant, huge bureaucracy? How is
it that the Congress bought into the belief that to take a plethora
of federal agencies and departments and shuffle them around would
make us safer from future terrorist attacks?
|Top|
An outspoken populist congressman blasts his fellow House members for creating a new federal monstrosity.
Congress spent just a few short
hours last week voting to create the biggest new federal bureaucracy
since World War II, not that the media or even most members of
Congress paid much attention to the process. Yet our most basic
freedoms as Americans - privacy in our homes, persons, and possessions;
confidentiality in our financial and medical affairs; openness
in our conversations, telephone, and internet use; unfettered
travel; indeed the basic freedom not to be monitored as we g through
our daily lives - have been dramatically changed.
The last time Congress attempted a similarly ambitious reorganization of the government was with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947. Back then, congressional hearings on the matter lasted two years before President Truman finally signed legislation.
Even after this lengthy deliberation, however, organizational problems with the new department lasted more than forty years.
What do we expect from a huge bureaucracy conceived virtually overnight, by a Congress that didn't even read the bill that creates it? Surely more Deliberation was appropriate before establishing a giant new federal agency with 170,000 employees.
BUDGET NEUTRAL
When the Homeland Security Department first was conceived, some congressional leaders and administration officials outrageously told a credulous rank-and-file Congress that the new department would be "budget neutral." The agency simply would be a reorganization of existing federal employees, we were told, and would not increase the budget.
In fact, the agency was touted as increasing efficiency, rather than expwnding federal power.
Of Course the original 32-page proposal sent over by the White House quickly grew to 282 pages in House committees, ending up at nearly 500 pages in the final version voted on last week - with a $3 billion price tag just for starters.
The sheer magnitude of the bill, and the technical complexity of it, makes it impossible for anyone to understand completely. Rest assured that the new department represents a huge increase in the size and scope of the federal government that will mostly serve to spy on the American people. Can anyone, even the most partisan Republican, honestly say with a straight face that the Department of Homeland Security does not expand the federal government?
The list of dangerous and unconstitutional powers granted to
the new Homeland Security Department is lengthy. Warrantless searches,
forced vaccinations of whole communities, federal neighborhood
snitch programs, federal information databases, and a sinister
new, "Information Awareness Office" at the Pentagon
that uses military intelligence to spy on domestic citizens are
just a few of the troubling aspects of the legislation.
|Top|
SEC.812 LAW ENFORCEMENT POWERS OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AGENTS.
... In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, each Inspector General appointed under section 3, any Assistant Inspector General for Investigations under such an Inspector General, and any special agent supervised by such an Assistant Inspector general may be authorized by the Attorney General to-
(A) carry a firearm while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other stature, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General;
(B) make an arrest without a warrant while engaged in official duties as authorized under this Act or other statute, or as expressly authorized by the Attorney General, for any offense against the United States committed in the presence of such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if such Inspector General, Assistant Inspector General, or agent has reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony; and
(C) seek and execute warrants for arrest, search of a premises, or seizure of evidence issued under the authority of the United states upon probable cause to believe that a violation has been committed.
SEC.903. MEMBERSHIP.
The members of the Council shall be the following: The president, the vice president, the secretary of Homeland security, the attorney general, the secretary of defense, such other individuals as may be designated by the President...
SEC.904 OTHER FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES.
For the purpose of more effectively coordinating the policies
and functions of the United states Government relating to homeland
security the Council shall-
(1) assess the objectives, commitments, and risks of the United
states in the interest of homeland security and to make resulting
recommendation to the President;
(2) oversee and review homeland security policies of the Federal
Government and to make resulting recommendations to the President;
and
(3) perform such other function as the President may direct...
|Top|
The federal government is urging states to give governors awesome power over individual citizens.
The federal government is pressing state legislators to approve "emergency" laws that give governors and health officials authority to vaccinate you; quarantine you; ration, control and commandeer medicines and other private property, including guns, with a declaration of "public emergency."
This unconstitutional activity has been creeping into every state, and has already been passed in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia.
However, no state has passed the model measure handed down from Washington in its entirety.
A number of states have rejected or shelved it, including: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Four others, Louisiana, South Dakota, Utah and Vermont have managed to water down the proposal by passing an alternative bill.
A broad coalition of individuals and groups rose up in alarm after reviewing the model law, which was accompanied by bribe money called "aid" from federal coffers.
Dr. Jane Orient of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS), a leader of the opposition said:
"The model legislation provided by the Health and Human Services Department gives the governor the power to declare himself dictator in case of ‘a public health emergency.' Further, the governor could delegate this awesome power to unelected political appointees in state and local public offices."
The AAPS said the model, which is now reflected by numbered bills in every state legislature, is so alarming that it is opposed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the nation's bipartisan, individual membership organization of state legislators.
Most states will be considering the plan during this year's legislative sessions.
The proposal, put forward by the Department of Health and Human Services, is titled Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MEHPA). Under its provisions any governor, or his appointee could:
* Force you to take a vaccination or a medical treatment decided by the governor - or be arrested.
* Herd you into a public quarantine or isolation facility. Or take you children from your home to quarantine.
*Seize any of your property that the government deems may be necessary to cope with the emergency - including real estate, fuel, food, clothing and communication equipment.
* Destroy property deemed or alleged to be hazardous - without due process, without recourse, without compensation.
* Conscript you or your business into state service.
* Impose rationing, price controls, and quotas; and control the transportation or any use of any item deemed "reasonable and necessary for emergency response," specifically including firearms.
* Suspend state laws or rules that might hinder the program.
"The governors do not have to consult the public health authority, the legislature or the courts," Dr. Orient said. "They will not have to answer to anyone, for the consequences of their actions. HHS will probably try to bribe or coerce the states into passing this law by threatening to withhold federal funds for state Medicaid or other health programs."
And Schlafly, attorney for AAPS, denounced the plan before a New York State Assembly committee:
This is a completely irrational - and unconstitutional - deprivation of legislative authority and responsibility. There is no justification for this shift of power from one branch of government to another. It means that a two-thirds vote of the legislature cannot stop the governor during the 60-day period. Not even a unanimous vote of the legislature can do anything. Why?
Schlafly said New York's proposed law includes "every disease that ‘poses a substantial risk of a significant number of human fatalities or incidents of permanent or long-term disability.' he said.
Schlafly said the law allows officials to "order people
out of their homes into dangerous quarantines where there would
be no guarantee of safety from violence of contagion. Children
would be removed from parents and thrown into public quarantine
with others."
|Top|
The Pentagon's top civilian security adviser told an assembly of British politicians that the United states would attack Iraq even if UN inspectors fail to find weapons of mass destruction.
Richard Perle, President Bush's hawkish adviser known as "The Prince of Darkness," "stunned" British parliamentarians (MP) by saying a "clean bill of health" from UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix would no prevent a U.S. and British invasion of Iraq.
The provocative comments by Perle, who has been a lobyist for an Israeli arms manufacturer, were reported in an article titled "War, Whatever" in The Mirror, a British journal, on Nov. 20.
Former British Defense Minister and Labour Party MP Peter Kilfoyle said: "America is duping the world into believing it supports these inspections." President Bush intends to go to war even if inspectors find nothing.
"This makes a mockery of the whole process and exposes America's real determination to bomb Iraq," Kilfoyle said.
The Iraqi regime is in the difficult position of having to prove a negative - that it doesn't possess banned weapons.
As Perle told the MPs: "I cannot see how Hans Blix can state more than he can know. all he can know is the results of his own investigations. And that does not prove Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction."
Perle, who chairs a Pentagon advisory board said: "Suppose we are able to find someone who has been involved in the development of weapons and he says there are stores of nerve agents. But you cannot find them because they are so well hidden. Do you actually have to take possession of the nerve agents to convince? We are not dealing with a situation where you can expect cooperation."
Kilfoyle said: "Because Saddam is so hated in Iraq, it
would be easy to find someone to say they witnessed weapons building.
Perle says the Americans would be satisfied with such claims even
if no real evidence was produced. That's a terrifying prospect."
|Top|
Dangerous terrorists may be settling in this country as "refugees" under generous federal policies.
Critics of the Bush administration's immigration policies are fearful that a number of dangerous aliens may have entered the United States as a result of resettlement of refugees from the so-called war on terror in Afghanistan.
Since the war started in October 2001, 1,500 Afghans have been resettled in the United states. The State department continues to process Afghan refugees through its embassy and consulates in Pakistan. Between eight and ten Afghan refugees are being considered for resettlement in the United states each week.
Since the Taliban took over Afghanistan in 1996 the State Department has resettled more than 6,500 Afghans in America, most of them moving to California, Virginia, Texas, Florida, New York and Massachusetts - states with large Middle eastern immigrant populations. Others have resettled in large numbers in Georgia, Idaho, Washington and Missouri.
Steven Camarota, from the Center for Immigration Studies, has warned that some of the Afghans may harbor resentment over the U.S. bombing of their country and have ties with terrorist organizations.
As the Bush administration presses for war with Iraq, Iraqi refugees who have resettled in the United States are becoming more of an issue.
During President George H. W. Bush's administration, 35,000 Iraqi refugees who had fled to Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Storm resettled in America in 1991. At the time, 6,500 Iraqi Kurds also came to America.
"State Department field agents are going out to refugee camps on the Pakistani border to try and find people to give refugee status to some 280,000 Iranian-born immigrants and 270,000 Pakistani immigrants are now residing in America," Camarota said. This poses a national security risk.
"If nothing else," he said, "it provides cover
for the real terrorists."
|Top|
So eager are Republican leaders to toady to the Hispanic vote - much of which is illegal - they are trying to kick a "safe" House seat out from under a colleague.
Republican leaders in the White House and Congress are trying to oust a Republican congressman because he is leading the fight to protect America's borders.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has
a treasured "safe seat" in a House where the Republican
majority is still fragile - he overwhelmed his Democratic opponent
by 37 points in the election.
But, as head of the House Immigration Caucus Tancredo has angered Republicans in the White House and Congress by leading the fight to protect America's borders from illegal aliens. He advocates deploying military troops along the borders to perform their first mission - defending America from hostile invaders.
For this, Republicans want to drum Tancredo out of Congress.
Tancredo's criticisms of President Bush's immigration policies - and lack thereof - earned him a 40-minute rebuke earlier this year from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove told Tancredo "never to darken the door of the White House again."
Tancredo was not intimidated although White House access and invitations to state dinners and other events are treasured by all congressmen. He continued to loudly call for protecting America's borders.
Tancredo may break his popular pledge to serve only three terms, which allegedly angers his colleagues. This lacks credibility; they celebrated several others - such as Rep. George Nethercutt (R-Wash.) - who reconsidered such promises and kept their seats
Among those "infuriated" over Tancredo's possibly abandoning his self-imposed three-term limit(he was elected in 1998) is his political patron, former Sen. Bill Armstrong, according to Roll Call, a journal covering Congress.
"I'll be surprised if he doesn't have a primary [in 2004]," said Floyd Ciruli, and independent Colorado pollster.
Several Republicans, including Mike Coffman, the state treasure who just won his own landslide re-election, are considering challenging Tancredo in 2004. Other potential challengers include state Sen. Jim Dyer and former Arapahoe County Commissioner Steve Ward.
"It's a given" that someone will oppose Tancredo, Coffman said. "There are questions about his term-limit pledge. Then you have someone like Sen. Armstrong, who was his mentor, backing away from him - I think that resonates."
Even though he may not seek re-election in 2004 - and would consider running for the Senate if Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R) retires - Tancredo has abandoned the term limit pledge. "The term-limit pledge in and of itself is not the deciding factor if he will run again," said Tancredo spokesman Lara Kennedy.
But pollster Ciruli had a warning for those trying to unseat
Tancredo: "Nobody who's going to beat him in the Republican
primary or even in the general."
|Top|
As state governments face "the worst budget crisis since World War II," a foreign state—Israel—has confidently delivered "a special aid request" for an additional $14 billion from U.S. taxpayers, including $10 billion in loan guarantees to "ease its economic plight."
While Americans are being asked to get by with less as their state governments are forced to drastically cut services in the face of "the worst budget crisis since World War II," a foreign nation is confident it will continue to get even more benefits from U.S. largesse.
Despite a rising tide of red ink across the United States, Israeli officials confidently submitted a "special request" for an additional $14 billion in economic aid to U.S. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice on Nov. 25.
President Bush is "expected" to quickly approve the request—$4 billion in additional defense aid and loan guarantees for $10 billion—with minor changes, Israeli sources said. "The Israeli prime minister's office said the discussion about the request ‘was entirely friendly and positive and a response was promised soon.' "
This would be on top of Israel's annual gifts from taxpayers, which officially exceeds $3 billion but amounts to $10 billion a year when the manipulation of figures—such as U.S. "interest payments" on the aid—is factored in.
Any additional aid to Israel will require congressional approval. In order for Israel to receive the $14 billion aid package in the 2003 financial year, special budgetary legislation will be necessary.
The U.S. media apparently considered the huge financial request from Israel to be a "non-story" on Nov. 26. Although Reuters wire service carried the story, it only appeared in the Israeli press, The New Zealand Herald and The Washington Post, which reported the extraordinary request on page 24.
The Reuters article contained a half-truth which said, "Israel, which has never defaulted on its loans, would find it easier to raise funds with U.S. backing."
What the Reuters article did not say was that Congress has "forgiven" every loan that Israel has received and put the entire cost, principal and interest, on the shoulders of U.S. taxpayers.
U.S. aid to Israel has cost U.S. taxpayers $140 billion, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA). Of this amount some $50 billion has been in interest payments on the borrowed funds that have been given to Israel. The total cost per Israeli is about $25,000 according to WRMEA, which told AFP that these figures, not the latest or most complete, are probably much higher today.
What many Americans do not realize is that Israel, with a population of some 6 million, has a gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of more than $20,000, higher than oil-rich Kuwait or Saudi Arabia ($10,600), and higher than many European nations.
What U.S. papers were writing about on Nov. 26 was that Americans will soon see hikes in state university tuitions, cuts in school teachers' ranks and reductions in health care for the poor as states try to solve massive budget crises.
"It's a pretty dire outlook," Raymond Scheppach, executive director of the National Governors Association, said about the financial situation facing the states.
Scheppach said his "back-of-the-envelope" calculation shows states collectively will incur budget shortfalls of $40 billion in fiscal 2003. That's down from the fiscal-2002 shortfall of about $50 billion, but the back-to-back years of red ink add up to the worst budget crisis since World War II, Scheppach said.
Because state budgets are likely to remain bleak for at least two more years, many states will have to institute "draconian" cuts in Medicaid benefits, boost higher-education tuitions and cut state-supported workers, including teachers, he said.
ISRAELI MILITARY AID INCREASED
Meanwhile, the Department of State announced that the Bush administration would increase 2004 military aid to Israel to $2.16 billion, compared with $2.1 billion in 2003 and $2.04 billion in 2002.
The promised increase stems from an agreement under which military aid to Israel will be increased by $60 million a year while civilian aid will be reduced by $120 million. Military aid will reach $2.4 billion by 2008, while civilian aid will be completely halted.
Ministry of Finance director general Ohad Marani told the Israeli journal Globes that Israel's request for aid from the U.S. was "designed to help us cope with Israel's current military difficulties.
"The request is a result of the security situation," Marani stated. "This situation and the recession in the West are causing us temporary economic difficulties, particularly in the high-tech industry. Israel's growth is negative. We're under a heavy defense burden, and we need special aid."
At the same time, Washington is increasing foreign giveaways
to other foreign nations to buy friends and cover for its crimes.
Beneficiaries of increased hand-outs include Egypt, Turkey, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan to name a few.
|Top|
Following the 9-11 attacks and the administration backed off the idea of amnesty for people who illegally enter this country, but President Bush plans to raise the issue again in the new Congress.
The Bush administration will shrug off it post 9-11 timidity and ask the new Congress to grant amnesty to hundreds of thousand of illegal aliens from Mexico, according to the new U.S. ambassador.
Tony Garza went straight from his White House swearing-in ceremony to Mexico City, where he wold reporters that legalizing the status of illegal Mexican immigrants who are currently hiding in the United States continues to be a top administration priority. He also called for new guest-workers programs for Mexicans.
Bush administration efforts to legalize illegal immigrants from Mexico were put on hold after the 9-11 terrorist acts.
Garza's call for "hundreds of thousands" is modestly short of President Bush's pre-9-11 call for amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens. but in Mexico this was viewed as a first step toward a comprehensive opening of the border.
"If we don't do something about their status, we will be admitting that our country has a permanent underclass," Garza said. He failed to note that criminals, even if citizens, are considered an "underclass."
Garza said congress will take up the issue as soon as the economy improves because "people tend to discuss immigration issues more comfortably when the economy is strong.
A senior State department official said he is unaware of immediate plans to seek legalization of Mexican aliens but since Garza "came directly from the white House" he "may know something we don't." the official cited"competing concerns" called "security."
Among competing "security" concerns:
* The Immigration and Naturalization Service is unable to find half of the 4,112 registered immigrants to whom authorities wanted to talk after the 9-11 attacks.
* Up to 8.7 million illegal aliens now live in the United States, according to the Census Bureau.
*Immigrants, both legal and criminal, keep their noses in the taxpayers' trough in the amount of $68 billion a year, according to Americans for Immigration Control, an immigration reform group. More than 400,000 foreigners now collect Social Security benefits without having worked a day in this country. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely to collect welfare and 75 percent more likely to get food stamps, medical benefits and housing subsidies.
* Bilingual schooling doubles the cost of educating aliens. Schooling of immigrants costs an average of 90 percent more per family. Some parts of the country would have to build two schools a day to keep up with the immigrant wave.
* A Cuban-born economics professor, George Borjas, shows that immigration costs U.S.-born workers $133 billion a year in job losses.
* More than 25 percent of federal prisoners are immigrants.
In some areas, 12 percent of felonies, 25 percent of burglaries
and 34 percent of auto thefts are committed by illegal aliens.
|Top|
Part of the subversion effort to mongrelize the United States of America is called "Spanglish."
A significant part of the war on America's cultural heritage is promoting a hybrid language called "Spanglish," where Spanish is mixed with English.
Spanglish classes are taught in schools, injected into the culture through television and music and spoken by many of this nation's 35 million Hispanic residents, millions of whom are criminal aliens.
There is a Spanglish dictionary being prepared and a Spanglish translation of Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quixote has been completed. Both are the work of Ilan Stavans, a professor of Latin America and Latino culture at Amherst College.
Spanglish is on the radio, from the Spanish group Las Ketchup with "The Ketchup Song" to Mexican singer Paulina Rubio singing all her songs in Spanglish when she opens concerts for Enrique Iglesias. Then there is the TV cartoon show "Mucha Lucha" whose characters use Spanglish.
Spanglish is also in stores. Hallmark, the greeting-card giant, is expanding its line of Spanglish-language cards. These cards are aimed at the young, ot older immigrants who may disapprove of mixing languages, the company said. Magazines have picked up the Spanglish trend.
While those who promote "diversity" as a means of making this nation lose its national and cultural identity celebrate Spanglish as further neutralization and mongrelization of the United states, there are critics among the Hispanic population.
"Spanglish has no future," said Antonio Garrido, director of the New York-bases Instituto Cervantes. "A person who doesn't speak English well in the United States has no future."
Roberto Gonzalez Ecchevarria, a professor of Hispanic and comparative
literature at Yale University, agreed. "We're going to end
up speaking McSpanish, a sort of anglicized Spanish," he
said. "I find it offensive the United States' values and
cultural mores, all of that, are transmitted through the language
filtered into Spanish culture."
|Top|
Some populist critics of the major media giants in America say that "The Media Is the Enemy," Well, if other people have their way, the wealth and power of the mass media and its concentration in increasingly fewer hands will be greater than ever before.
If you think that the masters of the American media —men such as Edgar Bronfman, Sumner Redstone, Rupert Murdoch, S.I. Newhouse, Mortimer Zuckerman, Lawrence Tisch and others—are rich and powerful now, just wait till you see what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has in store for them.
The FCC is considering loosening or doing away entirely with regulations that limit the number of newspapers and radio and television outlets that a single company can own.
Americans have until Jan. 2 — no later — to register their opposition with the FCC. (See accompanying information on how to contact the FCC on page 20.)
Although all of this is being proposed in the name of "the free market," this would be a major boon to the increasingly smaller number of global corporate media giants that are swallowing up once independent local newspapers and broadcast outlets across America and around the world.
Such a move would also give expanded political clout to the already immensely powerful lords of the media allowing them — for example — to own a major television station and newspaper in the same town or city, thereby effectively having a monopoly on local news coverage.
Advocates of "deregulation" say that because so many Americans now have access to the Internet and can thereby call up many news sources—literally, worldwide—that there is no longer any need for "out of date" regulations.
In addition, advocates say that because of the expansion of satellite and cable television, previous concerns about the concentration of media ownership are no longer valid.
While it is true that the Internet has provided a communications/outreach explosion of unprecedented proportions—just in the last several years alone—most Americans get the bulk of their news and information from their local "mainstream" newspapers and television and radio which are themselves increasingly being grabbed up by major media monopolies.
For example, in the small city of Harrisburg, the capital of Pennsylvania, the New York-based Newhouse family controls the major daily newspaper, The Patriot. The Newhouse family's Advance Communications also controls a number of smaller weekly newspapers in both suburban and rural "bedroom" counties surrounding Harrisburg. Most of those people have no idea that their "local" newspaper is actually owned by a national media conglomerate held tightly in the hands of a super-powerful billionaire family.
Americans who use the Internet for "other" information tend to frequent the web sites of "major" widely-publicized and "fashionable" newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times.
However, what many of those who fancy themselves to be "in the know" because they access multiple "big name" newspapers do not realize is that the owners of The Chicago Tribune, for example, are also the owners of The Los Angeles Times and New York's Long Island-based Newsday and The Hartford (Connecticut) Courant, to mention several in the Tribune Co.'s stable.
So many readers who think they are getting "alternative" information from other news sources are victims of the growing media monopoly that prefers to keep its concentration of elite ownership out of the realm of public understanding and discussion.
As one would expect from an appointed bureaucrat with high-level political connections, the FCC's chairman Michael Powell — son of Secretary of State Colin Powell — is taking a non-committal position on the controversial issue. Unfortunately, the issue is only "controversial" to those who are aware of the issue, since the matter has been largely relegated to the business pages of the major metropolitan dailies.
The concept of media ownership and control being increasingly taken into the hands of fewer and fewer families and financial groups is not widely debated or understood.
There is something you can do about it: make your voice heard.
You have until Jan. 2 to contact the FCC and tell the commissioners
that you are opposed to all plans to loosen current ownership
restrictions. Urge the commissioners to tighten current standards
and restrict the growth of the media monopoly in America.
|Top|
Bush's policy of "preemptive action" opens the door to global gangsterism.
Through its words and deeds the administration of President Bush has shown its intent to disregard international law and pursue a criminal policy of "preemptive action," having adopted the Israeli term for what is otherwise known as "war of aggression."
"The president of course supports preemptive action," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Dec. 2. "The president has said that is part of America's doctrine because of different nature of terrorism."
Fleischer was responding to a reporter who had misquoted John Howard, the Australian prime minister, by saying: "Australia intended to take preemptive military action to fight terrorists in the wake of the Bali attack."
The reporter then asked: "Does the president support the preemptive military action against terrorists in Asia?"
Howard's contentious remarks about preemptive action were taken out of context and resulted in a flurry of protest from a host of Asian states.
Howard had said that the UN charter on self defense needed to be amended to allow states to use preemptive action against threats of terrorism.
The UN Charter is a treaty binding upon the United and other member states.
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force by a state that is not subject to an armed attack. Article 2 stipulates the states renounce "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Speaking about "non-state terrorism," Howard said: "All I'm saying - I think many people are saying - is that maybe the body of international law has to catch up with the new reality."
Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, told American Free Press: "Howard said that the UN charter has to be amended to allow for preemptive strikes to be legal."
Calls by AFP to the White House were not returned.
As the judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1945 noted, "resort to a war of aggression is not merely illegal, but is criminal."
"To initiate a war of aggression," the tribunal declared in its judgment, "is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
UN Security Resolution1441, which sent the weapons inspectors back to Iraq, does not authorize any use of force against Iraq, Boyle said.
Secretary of State Colin Powell tried, and failed to get language
into the resolution allowing the use of force, Boyle said.
|Top|
The great American establishment press has done it again. True to their consistent policy of keeping knowledge about genuinely significant events away from the people they have failed to report in detail on the recent "letter to the American people" that was supposedly written by accused al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
We say "supposedly" because no one knows for sure whether bin Laden actually wrote the letter. However, that is not important. What is of significance is the message in the letter, which cites specific reasons why the United States is so hated by the Arabs - something that would never reasonably be discussed in America's controlled press.
Our government likes to tell us that the Arabs are jealous of our liberties and all that we have and are able to do in this country. The Muslims and Arabs, we are told, especially hate us for our plethora of material goods.
Of course the astute reader knows that these are just lame excuses. The real reasons are found in bin Laden's purported letter.
The British and no doubt others who don't rely on the American media for their information, know about this important letter. The British read the letter in the Observer of Sunday, Nov.24. It first appeared in Arabic on the Internet and was translated into English by Islamist enthusiasts in Britain.
In the letter, bin Laden asks two questions of Americans:
1) "Why are we fighting and opposing you?
2) "What are we calling you to do, and what do we want from
you?"
He says the answer to the first question is simple: "Because you attacked us and continue to attack us." Then he enumerates instances of U.S. and Israeli force against the Arab peoples beginning with U.S. involvement in Palestine and the American role in the creation of the state of Israel, noting that the Palestinians are pure Semites and have a long history of living in the area.
He cites the wanton Israeli killing of Palestinians with full American consent. He goes on to note the U.S. attack on Somalia, support of Russian atrocities in Chechnya, Indian aggression against Kashmir and Israeli aggression in Lebanon.
About the wealth of the Mideast he charges the United States did "steal our wealth and oil at paltry prices because of your international influence and military threats. This theft is indeed the biggest theft ever witnessed by mankind."
Of the U.S. aggression against Iraq he writes: "You have starved the Muslims of Iraq, where children die every day. It is a wonder that more than 1.5 million Iraqi children have died as a result of your sanctions, and you did mot show concern. Yet when 3,000 of your people died, the entire world rises and has not yet sat down."
Bin Laden goes on to mention U.S. support of Israel's decision to make Jerusalem their world capital and to abet them and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in their plans to destroy the Al-Aqsa mosque.
Tellingly, he asserts that "the oppressed have a right to return the aggression...is it any way rational to expect that after America has attacked us for more than half a century that we will then leave her to live in security and peace?"
What is at play here is "blowback," an intelligence term that refers to the unintended consequences of or reaction from any action, a basic law of physics that is clearly operative here to anyone but a moron.
Noting that America is the land of freedom, he reminds us that "the American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their government and even to change it if they want. They don't have to slavishly follow the wishes of government leaders in those leaders' endless wars against handpicked enemies."
After all the American people pay taxes that fund these wars, especially those wars that Israel chooses for them. Last week's American Free Press, in a major story on U.S. aid to Israel, documented that U.S. taxpayers will support that rogue entity to the tune of $14 billion in the next coming years. All the while many Americans are hitting the bricks to find work to feed their families.
Bin Laden comments, "...This is why the American people cannot be innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us."
To answer his second question - what he wants America to do - bin Laden lists the following items, among others:
* America must stop its "oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery."
* America must "be a people of manners, principles, honor and purity; reject the immoral act of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling and trading with interest."
* America should not permit usury (interest), as a result of which "the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense..."
* America is a nation that "permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants.
*America is a nation that "permits acts of immorality." Noteworthy is the behavior of President Clinton whom "your did not bring to account, other than that he ‘made a mistake,' after which everything passed with no punishment."
*America is a nation that permits "gambling in all its forms." Companies practice this in making investments enabling the "criminals to become rich."
* America trades in sex and exploits women "like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them," and then allegedly supports the "liberation of women."
* America has used its "force to destroy mankind more than any other nation in history; not to defend principles and values, but to hasten to secure your interests and profits. You who dropped an nuclear bomb on Japan, even though Japan was ready to negotiate an end to the war."
* America has a "duality in both manners and values" and "hypocrisy in manners and in principles. All manners, principles and values have two scales: one for you and one for the others."
Bin Laden elaborates on this point by pointing out that the United States wants to forcibly remove from other countries, except Israel, weapons of mass destruction. He charges the United States as "being the last one to respect the resolutions and policies of international law yet you claim to want to selectively punish anyone else who does the same. Israel has for more than 50 years been pushing UN resolutions and the rules against the wall with the full support of America.
He asserts that the United States while claiming "to be the vanguards of human rights" and by issuing statistics on countries that violate human rights has since 9-11 taken thousands of Muslims and Arabs "into custody with neither reason, court trial, nor even disclosing their names."
Bin Laden wants the United states "to stop supporting Israel, "pack your luggage and get out of our lands." He further calls upon America to "end you support of the corrupt leaders in our countries. Do not interfere in our politics and methods of education. Leave us alone or else expect us in New York and Washington."
In a tone reminiscent of George Washington in his "Farewell Address," bin Laden calls on America "to deal with us and interact with us on the basis of mutual interests and benefits...and not to continue your policy of supporting the Jews because this will result in more disasters for you..."
Washington sternly warned that permanent alliances with other nations would be to the inevitable detriment of the United States.
And President James Monroe warned European nations to stay out of our business and we would stay out of theirs.
This sage advice of both presidents has long been ignored much to our sorrow. Current meddling foreign policies by internationalist presidents caused bin Laden to ask of Americans at the end of his letter:
"Do they now know why we fight them?"
Through his letter bin Laden promotes Islam as the premier
religion of the world. He strongly urges that the correct course
of action for all people would be to adopt Islam as their religion.
America, however, is a Christian country that was founded by Christians
who left their mother country so that they could practice their
religion in freedom and peace and live a better life. In no way
do we suggest that Americans adopt Islam.
|Top|
Despite the silence of the mainstream media, opposition to the misnamed Patriot Act is gaining momentum every day.
Twenty cities and town around the country have instructed public employees to defy federal authorities in implementing the USA Patriot Act. More are expected as local governments across the country initiate measures rejecting the freedom-deleting federal law.
Similar resolutions are pending in 40 municipalities in 24 states. Yet the mainstream media ignores this populist prairie fire. This silence prompted syndicated columnist Nat Hentoff to write:
"I find it remarkable and dismaying that so little print, radio or television attention is being paid to such authentic Americanism."
The American Civil Liberties Union is encouraging all municipalities to join the resistance. Said the ACLU's Laura Murphy "local governments can tell officials not to spy without evidence."
READ YOUR MAIL
Individuals are urged by the ACLU to tell their congressman and senators to closely monitor implementation of the Patriot Act, which permits federal bureaucrats to read your email, search your home or office without your knowledge, eavesdrop on your phone calls, and imprison you for life without being charged, much less receiving the constitutionally guaranteed "speedy trial."
Sol Kelley Jones, a high school sophomore speaking for Students for an Informed Response, told the Madison, Wis. city council, just befor the resolution was approved:
"We need to do more than just be passive observers of history because the decisions being made right now are our future...Laws like the U.S. Patriot Act were passed in the name of freedom, but what they really do is take away our freedom, to fully participate in our nation's democracy."
The Pentagon's new "vast electronic dragnet" is under attack for similar and obvious reasons. Every aspect of your life - where you live, what you buy, what you red, where you travel - is to be stored in this giant database.
This dragon can be slain - or at least badly injured - when
enabling legislation comes before the new Congress. Witnesses
can raise objections before House and Senate committees on intelligence,
appropriations and armed services.
|Top|
It is not ethical to give a medicine that will kill and maim persons for not demonstrable benefit.
A controversy over vaccines, specifically
the smallpox vaccine, is brewing in Washington. The administration
is considering ordering mass inoculations for more than one million
military personnel and civilian medical workers, ostensibly to
thwart a smallpox outbreak before it occurs. Yet dangerous side-effects
from the vaccine - ranging from mild flu symptoms to gangrene,
encephalitis, and even death - cause many to question the wisdom
and meed for such inoculations.
As a medical doctor, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are bad medicine. The available vaccine poses significant risks, even though the more serious complications affect only a statistically small number of people.
As with any medical treatment, these risks must always be balanced against the perceived benefit. Remember, not a single case of smallpox has been reported, despite the near-hysteria that characterized recent news reports.
Even if some individuals became infected smallpox spreads only with very close contact. Those in the surrounding community could then decide to accept vaccines based on a much more tangible risk.
As a legislator, I believe mandated smallpox vaccines are very bad policy. The point is not that smallpox vaccines are necessarily a bad idea, but rather that intimately personal medical decisions should not be made by government.
The real issue is individual medical choice. No single person, including the president of the United States, should ever be given the power to make a medical decision for potentially millions of Americans.
Freedom over one's physical person is the most basic freedom of all, and people in a free society should be sovereign over their own bodies. when we give government the power to make medical decisions for us, we in essence accept that the state owns our bodies.
The possibility that the federal government could order vaccines is real. Provisions buried in the 500-page Homeland Security bill give federal health bureaucrats virtually unchecked power to declare health emergencies.
Specifically, it gives the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - in my view one of the worst of all federal agencies - power to declare actual or potential bioterrorist emergencies; the administer forced "countermeasures," including vaccine, to individuals or whole groups; and to extend the emergency declaration indefinitely.
These provisions mirror those found in the Model Emergency Health Powers Act, a troubling proposal that was rejected by most state legislatures last year. That act would have given state governors broad powers to suspend civil liberties and declare health emergencies. Yet now we're giving virtually the same power to the secretary of HHS.
Equally troubling is the immunity from civil suit granted to vaccine manufacturers in the Homeland Security bill, which potentially could leave individuals who get sick from a bad batch of vaccines without legal recourse.
Politics and medicine don't mix. It is simply not the business of government at any level to decide whether you choose to accept a smallpox vaccine or any other medical treatment. Yet decades of federal intervention in health care, including the impact of third-party HMOs created by federal legislation, have weakened the doctor-patient relationship.
A free market system would allow doctors and patients to make their own decisions about smallpox inoculations, without the federal government hoarding, mandating, nor prohibiting the vaccine. Instead, we're moving quickly toward the day when government controls not only what vaccines patients receive but what kind of health care they receive at all.
Rep. Ron Paul represents the 14th District of Texas in Congress.
He is also a medical doctor.
|Top|
The cabal of war fanatics advising the White House secretly planned a "transformation" of defense policy years ago, calling for war against Iraq and huge increases in military spending. A "catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" — was seen as necessary to bring this about.
The huge increases in U.S. military spending that have occurred since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were planned before President George W. Bush was elected by the same men who are pushing the administration's "war on terrorism" and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Billions of dollars in additional defense spending are but the first step in the group's long-term plan to transform the U.S. military into a global army enforcing a terroristic and bloody Pax Americana around the world.
A neo-conservative Washington-based organization known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), funded by three foundations closely tied to Persian Gulf oil and weapons and defense industries, drafted the war plan for U.S. global domination through military power.
One of the organization's documents clearly shows that Bush and his most senior cabinet members had already planned an attack on Iraq before he took power in January 2001.
The PNAC was founded in the spring of 1997 by the well-known Zionist neo-conservatives Robert Kagan and William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.
The PNAC is part of the New Citizenship Project, whose chairman is also William Kristol, and is described as "a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership."
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz signed a Statement of Principles of the PNAC on June 3, 1997, along with many of the other current members of Bush's "war cabinet."
Wolfowitz was one of the directors of PNAC until he joined the Bush administration.
The group's essential demand was for hefty increases in defense spending. "We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future," the statement's first principle reads.
The increase in defense spending is to bring about two of the other principles: "to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values" and "to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles."
A subsequent PNAC plan entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century," reveals that the current members of Bush's cabinet had already planned, before the 2000 presidential election, to take military control of the Gulf region whether Saddam Hussein is in power or not.
The 90-page PNAC document from September 2000 says: "The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
"Even should Saddam pass from the scene," the plan says U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain, despite domestic opposition in the Gulf states to the permanent stationing of U.S. troops. Iran, it says, "may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests as Iraq has."
A "core mission" for the transformed U.S. military is to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," according to the PNAC.
The strategic "transformation" of the U.S. military into an imperialistic force of global domination would require a huge increase in defense spending to "a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually," the PNAC plan said.
"The process of transformation," the plan said, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor."
American Free Press asked Christopher Maletz, assistant director of the PNAC about what was meant by the need for "a new Pearl Harbor."
"They needed more money to up the defense budget for raises, new arms, and future capabilities," Maletz said. "Without some disaster or catastrophic event" neither the politicians nor the military would have approved, Maletz said.
The "new Pearl Harbor," in the form of the terror attacks of Sept. 11, provided the necessary catalyst to put the global war plan into effect. Congress quickly allocated $40 billion to fund the "war on terrorism" shortly after 9-11.
A Pentagon spokesman told AFP that $17.5 billion of that initial allocation went to defense.
The U.S. defense budget for 2002, including a $14.5 billion
supplement, came to $345.7 billion, a nearly 12 percent increase
over the 2001 defense budget.
Similar significant increases in defense spending are planned
for 2003 (to $365 billion) and 2004 (to at least $378 billion)
in line with the PNAC plan.
Veteran journalist John Pilger recently wrote about one of PNAC's founding members, Richard Perle: "I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan, and when he spoke about ‘total war,' I mistakenly dismissed him as mad," Pilger wrote. "He recently used the term again in describing America's ‘war on terror.' ‘No stages,' he said. ‘This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now.' "
"This is a blueprint for U.S. world domination — a new world order of their making," Tam Dalyell, British parliamentarian and critic of the war policy from the Labor Party said. "These are the thought processes of fantasist Americans who want to control the world.
"This is garbage from think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks,"
Dalyell said, "men who have never seen the horror of war
but are in love with the idea of war.
|Top|
Employees are dying - literally - to enrich the wealthy Wal-Mart company.
The merchandising giant Wal-Mart, the number one Fortune 500 company in America, is in trouble in several states for taking out insurance policies on its employees, payable to itself.
Wal-Mart in the 1990s purchased 356,000 of the policies on employees in its stores across America. The employees ranged from management personnel to stock clerks.
"It is our contention," said William Wertz, a spokesman for the Arkansas-based company, "that we did not benefit from the death of our associates. We had a considerable investment in these employees and we were ahead if they continued to live..."
On the other hand, David Slawsjy, a Concord, N.H., attorney who represents the widow on one of the deceased employees whose death Wal-Mart cashed in on, said, "It is absolutely reprehensible for a giant like Wal-Mart to be gambling on the lives of its employees. Our position is that it's a matter of a corporation taking advantage of its employees.
Slawsky represents Vicki Rice, whose husband was an assistant manager of a Wal-Mart store in Tilton, N.H.
When he died of a heart attack, Mrs. Rice discovered that the merchandising giant had taken out insurance policies on thousands of its employees.
For her husband's death, Wal-Mart received $300,000. she received nothing. Did Wal-Mart have an "insurable interest" in its employee worth $300,000?
"It just galls me," Mrs Rice told The Boston Globe, "that Wal-Mart was named the number one Fortune 500 company, and they helped themselves get there by collecting $300,000 on my husband's death.
Wal-Mart along with some other corporate giants, including GTE, Procter and Gamble, AT&T, Win-Dixie, and Walt Disney Productions, started the process of cashing in on their dead employees during the early 1990s when a loosening of insurance regulations in some states allowed them to buy policies not only on their top executives, which they had been doing for year, but on rank-and-file workers.
It is known in the industry as "janitors' insurance" and Wal-Mart decided to cash in big, spending a reported $150 million on premiums and using them as lucrative tax shelters. They also can borrow money on the policies and write off the interest on the loans.
The IRS put an end to this in 1996, deciding the policies did not serve a legitimate business purpose.
With Mrs. Rice's suit facing them, Wal-Mart's troubles over the death benefit scam may just be beginning.
Wall-Mart has already lost one case in Texas, where the law forbids corporate-owned life insurance on low-level employees.
A federal district judge in Texas has sided with Jane Sims, whose husband's death brought Wal-Mart an insurance settlement of 60,000.
Wal-Mart is appealing its loss in Texas through the Fifth Circuit Federal court of Appeals, claiming that Georgia law, which allows such policies, should prevail because it was through Georgia that the proceeds from the insurance carrier to the company were funneled.
Wal-Mart is currently suing the companies that sold it the policies, contending that it was not advised that the policies were illegal in some states.
Some state laws restrict companies from insuring lower-level
employees because it is feared that it may encourage negligence
resulting in employee deaths that may financially benefit the
companies holding policies.
|Top|
Students from both poor and wealthy neighborhoods do well when teachers are allowed to teach them and are not constrained by silly fads in education.
Two new studies demonstrate that when teachers direct the instruction, students rich and poor do well. But when children decide what they want to learn - a growing if irrational trend - all students do poorly.
What would be stating the obvious a generation ago is, however silly, a raging issue. Most public school teachers want the kids to decide what they want to learn, if anything, in what they call "student-centered learning." Students taught at home or in private schools where the traditional "direct instruction" is employed do well.
Traditional methods of education refer to teaching kids reading, writing and arithmetic and reject much of the social engineering that regularly occurs in schools today.
In determining that poverty and inadequate family support - while of immense influence - is not an impassable barrier to education, slum children were placed in traditional school settings and did well, as did their more privileged peers.
A study by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), titled "They Have Overcome: High Poverty, High-Performing Schools in California," found that when traditional teaching is employed in high-poverty schools, students do well. The other study, "What Do Teachers Teach?" is a Manhattan Institute Civic Report that explores what teaching methods are most often used by the nation's fourth- and eigth-grade teachers.
The PRI study shows that schools using research-proven teaching methods and curricula succeed even when students suffer poverty and deprivation.
"If all public schools, their districts and the state adopted these strategies, the quality of education for California children would rise quickly and dramatically," said Lance T. Izumi, author of the PRI report.
Teaching methods that are most successful in high-poverty areas are generally least favored among teachers in a typical elementary school, according to the Manhattan Institute. Only two teachers in five say teachers and administrators should decide what students will learn. Most teachers favor "student-directed" learning, where the children's interests are considered more important than mastering traditional subjects.
Chester Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, predicted an "education train wreck" when taxpayers and parents learn that what they are demanding through standards-based accountability programs is not happening behind classroom doors.
It is "nearly impossible to imagine standards-based reform succeeding in classrooms where students direct the key decisions about what will be learned," Finn wrote in the forward to the Manhattan Institute study.
The California study examined the success of eight elementary schools serving poor (and predominantly "minority") students taught by traditional methods. All did well, showing a ranking of at least seven out of 10 on the state's Academic Performance Index. Few if any schools in poor areas using "student-centered" teaching have reached such heights.
The Manhattan Institute study offered a look into the mindset of "student-centered" teachers. Only one-quarter emphasized accurate answers, only a minority assign vocabulary words and written assignments, less than half expect students to spell correctly and 70 percent permit the use of calculators.
"Teachers do not seem to have terribly high expectations
for their pupils when it comes to how much and how well they will
end up learning," Finn told the journal School Reform
News.
|Top|
There is a growing grassroots movement to fight federal regulations which allow corporate agribusinesses to spread toxic waste on their crops and call it "fertilizer."
Farm, consumer and environmental health groups filed a lawsuit in December to overturn an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that allows hazardous wastes to be used in fertilizers. Under the rule, toxic heavy metals, including lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium may be applied to farm lands and home gardens without further restrictions.
While industries have long been disposing of their hazardous wastes through fertilizers, the practice was not officially authorized until this rule.
Many of the heavy metals that will be recycled into fertilizers are highly toxic substances. Lead has been known to cause behavioral problems, learning disabilities, seizures, and even death. Mercury may also cause neurological abnormalities, including cerebral palsy in children and severe deformation in animals. Arsenic and cadmium may damage internal organs, skin, and nerve function.
The rule would allow these heavy metals to be applied to farms and gardens in concentrations that exceed the limits set for disposal of the hazardous wastes in lined and monitored landfills.
"The government's own studies show that, over the past few years, heavy metal levels in children's diets have risen," said Patty Martin, a former mayor of Quincy, Wash., and the founder of Safe Food and Fertilizer (SFF). "Rather than take steps to reduce the toxic burden on children, however, the EPA is illegally authorizing a practice that will put our children at even greater risk for exposure to lead, arsenic, and other toxic heavy metals."
Groups are concerned that farmers and consumers could unknowingly buy and use hazardous waste-derived fertilizers, because the fertilizers will not be labeled.
Once applied, heavy metals in the fertilizers could migrate through the soil, run off into streams, and leach into waterways, affecting neighboring lands.
"In Oregon alone, over 1.6 billion pounds of fertilizers are used each year," said David Monk with the Oregon Toxics Alliance. "On a national level the cumulative effects of these fertilizers could be staggering."
Safe Food and Fertilizer, Family Farm Defenders (FFD), the Oregon Toxics Alliance (OTA) and the California Public Interest Research Group (CAS-PIRG) claim that the "land ban" provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act prohibit the EPA from allowing hazardous wastes to be put in fertilizers that end up on farm fields and home gardens.
While treated wastes may be placed in land disposal facilities, the facilities must be designed to prevent migration of the hazardous wastes and have, at a minimum, double liners and leachate collection systems. The EPA's rule defies this scheme, by allowing hazardous wastes - including untreated wastes - to be disposed of on farmlands and home gardens.
In 1994, the EPA banned a similar type of practice in which hazardous wastes were being used in road deicing chemicals. The EPA justified that ban by noting that hazardous wastes could not legally be applied to the land in an uncontrolled manner.
"The EPA has already recognized that it has no authority to allow this type of uncontrolled land disposal of hazardous wastes," said Melissa Powers, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in this case. "This rule will not withstand judicial review."
Safe Food and Fertilizer is a grassroots citizens group whose mission is to proactively protect human health and the environment, by advocating for a ban on the use of hazardous and other industrial wastes as fertilizer, soil amendments and animal feed.
SFF works to empower other grassroots organizations and consumers locally, nationally, and internationally. SFF was founded by Martin, who learned of illegal hazardous waste recycling while she was the mayor of Quincy.
Family Farm defenders is a coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the creation of a farmer-controlled and consumer-orientated dairy industry.
FFD adheres to the principle of democracy by empowering farmers to speak for and represent themselves in the quest for economic justice and sustainable agricultural policies.
The Oregon Toxics Alliance is a statewide grassroots organization working to eliminate contamination and unnecessary toxics use and expose the harm they cause to human Health and the environment.
OTA is committed to achieving fundamental changes in the practices and policies that permit toxics use and contamination. OTA supports citizens' efforts to avert the dangers of toxics use in their communities and throughout Oregon.
California Public Interest Research Group monitors government and corporate decisions and advocates on the public's behalf.
The mission of CALPIRG's toxics program is to stop the dumping of toxic chemicals into our air, water and on our land. The group seeks to reduce the use of toxic chemicals, and guarantee citizens the right-to-know about toxic chemical use and exposure.
The Western Environmental Law Center (WELC) is a not-for-profit public interest law firm with offices in Eugene, Oregon, Taos, New Mexico and Ketchum, Idaho. WELC provides litigation services to grassroots groups, Indian tribes, and local governments seeking to enforce U.S. environmental laws.
This article first appeared in the December 2002 issue of
Acres USA. Renowned populist economist and agriculturalist
Charles Walters is the publisher. For subscription information,
call 1-800-355-5313 toll free.
|Top|
Beware propagandists bearing false hype - especially when it comes to nutritional supplements.
Another salvo was fired recently in the battle for the hearts and minds of dietary supplement people. This came in the form of a media blast against Ginkgo biloba - a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and hyped by the major media - saying that: Ginkgo biloba does not enhance memory in healthy adults."
Such headlines prompted a lot of concern among millions of Americans who have been taking ginkgo. The negative wave was exactly what the establishment wanted.
Before covering the details, here is the conclusion you can take to the bank: Ginkgo has far more positive research - and more recent positive research - than the small study hyped for this negative propaganda campaign.
The negative study was done by researchers at Williams College, who randomly assigned 230 "healthy" men and women aged 60 years or older receive 120 mg of ginkgo or a placebo daily for six weeks. At the end of the study the researchers determined that, based upon a series of tests on learning, memory and concentration, there was "absolutely no difference between ginkgo and placebo."
Those with an agenda determined to denigrate the value of dietary supplements and preserve the status quo of our drug culture made certain the media picked up this "hot{" story.
However, as always, the sin of omission helped bury the whole truth.
The media did not prominently display that the lead researcher could not rule out that ginkgo could be effective at higher doses or for a longer period of time.
The "purpose" of the study was made clear by Dr. Paul Solomon, the lead researcher:
"I think our goal was to test the claims made by the manufacturer. We used a 120 mg dose as recommended. Additionally, the manufacturer of this version claims you ought to see benefits in 4 weeks, so we went 6 weeks. There was no trend toward significance on any of the measures."
Just for good measure, the "agenda propagandists" made sure the following paragraph was attached to the "news" stories about this small, narrow research project:
"The study calls attention to a serious public health and consumer issue, namely that claims of cognitive enhancement for ‘natural products' can be made without ‘scientific' support," comments ?Steve Ferris of the Silberstein Institute for Aging and Dementia, NYU School of Medicine, New York. "Hopefully the unequivocally negative results of this study will help convince governments that the public interest requires ‘rules of evidence' for the efficacy and safety of nutraceuticals that are rigorous as the rules applied to prescription drugs."
And therein lies the crux of this entire tempest in a teapot that has been hyped into a nationwide alarm.
According to Dr. Phil Harvey of the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA), "There are more current and well-designed studies that have also analyzed people with normal mental function that arrive at directly contradictory conclusions. These more current studies report significant improvement in the study subjects' memory, attention and cognitive clarity due to the use of ginkgo."
Harvey cited two more recent studies, they are:
* Mix, JA, Drew W.D.; A double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial of ginkgo biloba extract Egb761 in a sample of cognitively intact older adults: neuropsychological findings. Published in Human Psychopharmacology Clin Exp 2002; 17:267-77.
* Lebars PL, et.al:Ginkfo Biloba for dementia, Journal of the American Medical Association 1997;278: 1327-1332
"What is important to remember is that it is difficult to increase the cognitive ability in healthy adults to a significant or even measrable degree," said Harvey. "To do so would likely require a longer trial, with doses of ginkgo titrated to a higher level over time.
Dr. Steven Dentali of the American Herbal Products Association added important information from the longstanding European experience:
"Let's not forget that over a half century of controlled trials on ginkgo have clearly demonstrated that those with even mild to moderate memory problems and poor concentration - symptoms often associated with the onset of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias - are helped by taking ginkgo. This study should not be the last word on ginkgo's effectiveness. Previous well-designed and executed studies have indicated ginkgo's significant benefits in improving circulations and mental function and should be taken seriously as a totality of the scientific evidence about ginkgo."
The myrmidons serving our drug culture in their haste to denigrate any idea that dietary supplements offer tremendous benefit without nasty side effects leaped upon this small study as a propaganda blast. The truth should make the effort backfire.
Ginkgo is one of the most clinically studied botanicals in the world. It has been exhaustively examined for its potential to increase circulation to the extremities, including the brain and especially in the elderly. It has also been studied for the treatment of tinnitus (ringing in ears), male impotence, and degenerative nerve conditions such as multiple sclerosis.
It should also be noted that the study cited above - the 1997 JAMA study - was the first "large scale" American study on ginkgo and cognitive function in the elderly.
The researchers concluded that the herbal extract is "safe
and stabilizing" and that "in a significant number of
patients, it improves cognitive performance and social functioning."
|Top|
To satisfy wealthy corporations, federal regulators are dancing around the issue of harmful effects of certain types of fats.
Instead of outlawing the destructive man-made fat known as trans fatty acids, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is trying to waltz around food industry power by coming up with a typically bureaucratic labeling proposal.
The FDA is suggesting a "footnote" attached to the nutrition facts labels that syas: "Intake of trans fat should be as low as possible."
The excuse for this bad idea is "the label should not be misleading because it give them (the consumers) more information to make decisions about healthy food choices."
The statement is attributed to a spokesman for the National Food Processors Association.
The American dietetic Association, another establishment lobby, said the footnote would benefit consumers.
This is official, bureaucratic tomfoolery because the FDA has already established that trans fatty acids can "clog arteries and lead to heart attacks."
In a published study presented at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association in 2000, FDA scientists showed that by eliminating trans fat from the food supply many thousands of lives would be saved each year.
The dietetic group spokeswoman lied by saying trans fat and saturated fat are equally bad, and consumers know not ot eat a lot of it.
The lobbyists both said they were "pleased" with
the FDA's label proposal.
|Top|
When Congress starts its new session, legislators will begin mulling a bill which proposes to ban the use of mercury in fillings.
After decades of controversy, congress may be moving to curb the unfettered use of mercury amalgam fillings by dentists. Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.) has introduced the Mercury in dental Fillings Disclosure and prohibition Act(H.R.4163), a bill that will prohibit the use of mercury after January, 2007.
Action on this bill will be pending before the new congress which convenes Jan. 7.
The use of toxic heavy metal in dental fillings has been around for almost 150 years. From the beginning, mercury was steeped in controversy because of its effect on human health.
Dental amalgam is slightly more that 50 percent mercury. Decades of modern research has shown that the "methyl mercury vapors" emanation from the fillings in teeth can be highly toxic.
The American Dental Association has argued vehemently that the toxicity is inconsequential ever since the controversy erupted anew in the 1980s following revelations by Hal Huggins DDS and others that many individuals became seriously ill due to fillings in their teeth leaching mercury vapor into their systems.
In 1984 the now defunct populist newspaper, The Spotlight, was the first newspaper to report on charges made by Huggins. Following those reports, several individuals noted that they took the time and expense to have their fillings removed, and their failed health improved.
The vast majority of persons with amalgam fillings do not notice any overt symptoms. But science has determined that the mercury vapor leaching in micro amounts goes on in every mouth with the action of chewing and with heated foods and drink.
Methyl mercury is extremely toxic even in tiny amounts. It is known to damage kidneys, nervous system, liver and other vital systems over time.
The ADA has stonewalled the facts of toxicity for decades, arguing that the amalgam of many metals keeps the mercury from leaching and doing damage.
In September the Senate passed S.351, the Mercury Reduction Act of 2002. This bill amends the Solid Waste disposal Act to reduce the quantity of mercury in the environment by limiting the use of mercury in thermometers and improving the collection and disposal of the metal.
Dentists are forced by law and good sense to handle mercury
with protective gloves, yet they argue it is harmless to put it
into people's teeth.
|Top|