December 1, 2008
December 8-15, 2008
Whole Body Health
December 22, 2008
December 29, 2008
BARACK OBAMA ENTHUSIASTS who were angered by the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, are hoping Obama will "pull a JFK" and work around Emanuel—a hawkish advocate for Israel—and those powerful pro-Israel families in Chicago who helped elect Obama.
One of John F. Kennedy's first appointments was Myer Feldman as his point man for Jewish and Israeli affairs—an important post, considering the Jewish lobby was suspicious of JFK's commitment to Israel.
Says author Seymour Hersh, "the president viewed Feldman, whose strong support for Israel was widely known, as a necessary evil whose highly visible White House position was a political debt that had to be paid."
However, JFK was determined to make certain that nobody—Feldman in particular—could circumvent any of his Middle East policy intentions: Hersh has written that "the president's most senior advisors, most acutely McGeorge Bundy, the national security advisor, desperately sought to cut Feldman out of the flow of Middle East paperwork."
Another JFK aide told Hersh:
"It was hard to tell the difference between what Feldman said and what the Israeli ambassador said."
JFK had his own suspicions about Feldman, according to his close friend, journalist Charles Bartlett, who recalled visiting JFK at his home in Massachusetts where talk turned to Feldman's Zionist agenda. JFK said, "I imagine Mike's having a meeting of the Zionists in the cabinet room." JFK's brother, Robert Kennedy, later said Feldman's "major interest was Israel" rather than the United States.
In fact, despite Feldman's position in the White House, JFK was making it clear to the foreign policy establishment that he (JFK) was determined to find a path to Middle East peace, stopping Israel from building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and helping the Palestinians violently displaced by Israel in 1948.
As part of his effort to stop Israel's bomb program, JFK worked behind the back of James Angleton, the CIA's liaison with Israel and a strong pro-Israel partisan. When JFK appointed a new CIA director, friend John McCone, he directed McCone to shut Angleton out of efforts to stop Israel's nuclear weapons program.
Like JFK, Obama forged relationships with billionaire Jewish families closely tied to Israel and to the Jewish organized crime network dubbed "the Supermob" by investigative journalist Gus Russo. A Chicago politician, Obama had to rely on Chicago-based billionaire pro-Israel families—the Crowns and Pritzgers —whose "Supermob" origins Russo outlined in his book Supermob.
But, as the historical record shows, JFK bucked these interests when he became president. JFK captured the White House by narrowly winning a number of states in which the Chicago crime syndicate arranged vote fraud on his behalf. Although legend presents Chicago under the heel of Italian-American gangster Sam Giancana, Giancana's nephew has revealed his uncle was no more than a front man for the real Chicago crime boss, Jewish mobster Hyman Larner, longtime partner of Meyer Lansky, chief of the national Jewish crime syndicate and its "Mafia" elements.
JFK's contact with the Jewish lobby was New York financier Abraham Feinberg, a major fundraiser (along with the Crown family of Chicago) for Israel's nuclear weapons program. Needing critical Jewish money and Jewish votes in the 1960 election, JFK met with Feinberg and other Jewish dollar barons at Feinberg's home. Later, Feinberg and his cronies agreed to come up with $500,000 for JFK. Feinberg later claimed JFK's "voice broke" and that "he got emotional" with gratitude.
However, according to Hersh: "Kennedy was anything but grateful the next morning in describing the session" to Charles Bartlett. Hersh noted that JFK had "driven to Bartlett's home in northwest Washington and dragged his friend on a walk, where he recounted a much different version of the meeting the night before."
"As an American citizen he was outraged," Bartlett recalled, "to have a Zionist group come to him and say: ‘We know your campaign is in trouble. We're willing to pay your bills if you'll let us have control of your Middle East policy.' Kennedy . . . also resented the crudity with which he'd been approached."
"They want control," JFK angrily told Bartlett. Hersh added that "Bartlett further recalled Kennedy promising to himself that if he ever did get to be president, he was going to ‘do something about it'"—that is, Jewish money dictating American elections and foreign policy.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Afghanistan now supplies over 90 percent of the world's heroin, generating nearly $200 billion in revenue. Since the U.S. invasion on Oct. 7, 2001, opium output has increased 33-fold (to over 8,250 metric tons a year).
The U.S. has been in Afghanistan for over seven years, has spent $177 billion in that country alone, and has the most powerful and technologically advanced military on Earth. GPS tracking devices can locate any spot imaginable by simply pushing a few buttons.
Still, bumper crops keep flourishing year after year, even though heroin production is a laborious, intricate process. The poppies must be planted, grown and harvested; then after the morphine is extracted it has to be cooked, refined, packaged into bricks and transported from rural locales across national borders. To make heroin from morphine requires another 12-14 hours of laborious chemical reactions. Thousands of people are involved, yet—despite the massive resources at our disposal—heroin keeps flowing at record levels.
Common sense suggests that such prolific trade over an extended period of time is no accident, especially when the history of what has transpired in that region is considered. While the CIA ran its operations during the Vietnam War, the Golden Triangle supplied the world with most of its heroin. After that war ended in 1975, an intriguing event took place in 1979 when Zbigniew Brzezinski covertly manipulated the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan.
Behind the scenes, the CIA, along with Pakistan's ISI, were secretly funding Afghanistan's mujahideen to fight their Russian foes. Prior to this war, opium production in Afghanistan was minimal. But according to historian Alfred McCoy, an expert on the subject, a shift in focus took place. "Within two years of the onslaught of the CIA operation in Afghanistan, the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer."
Soon, as Professor Michel Chossudovsky notes, "CIA assets again controlled the heroin trade. As the mujahideen guerrillas seized territory inside Afghanistan, they ordered peasants to plant poppies as a revolutionary tax. Across the border in Pakistan, Afghan leaders and local syndicates under the protection of Pakistan intelligence operated hundreds of heroin laboratories."
Eventually, the Soviet Union was defeated (their version of Vietnam), and ultimately lost the Cold War. The aftermath, however, proved to be an entirely new can of worms. During his research, McCoy discovered that "the CIA supported various Afghan drug lords, for instance Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. The CIA did not handle heroin, but it did provide its drug lord allies with transport, arms, and political protection."
By 1994, a new force emerged in the region—the Taliban—that took over the drug trade. Chossudovsky again discovered that "the Americans had secretly, and through the Pakistanis [specifically the ISI], supported the Taliban's assumption of power."
These strange bedfellows endured a rocky relationship until July 2000 when Taliban leaders banned the planting of poppies. This alarming development, along with other disagreements over proposed oil pipelines through Eurasia, posed a serious problem for power centers in the West. Without heroin money at their disposal, billions of dollars could not be funneled into various CIA black budget projects. Already sensing trouble in this volatile region, 18 influential neo-cons signed a letter in 1998 which became a blueprint for war—the infamous Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
Fifteen days after 9-11, CIA Director George Tenet sent his top-secret Special Operations Group (SOG) into Afghanistan. One of the biggest revelations in Tenet's book, At the Center of the Storm, was that CIA forces directed the Afghanistan invasion, not the Pentagon.
In the Jan. 26, 2003, issue of Time magazine, Douglas Waller describes Donald Rumsfeld's reaction to this development. "When aides told Rumsfeld that his Army Green Beret A-Teams couldn't go into Afghanistan until the CIA contingent had lain the groundwork with local warlords, he erupted, ‘I have all these guys under arms, and we've got to wait like little birds in a nest for the CIA to let us go in?'"
ARMITAGE A MAJOR PLAYER
But the real operator in Afghanistan was Richard Armitage, a man whose legend includes being the biggest heroin trafficker in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War; director of the State Department's Foreign Narcotics Control Office (a front for CIA drug dealing); head of the Far East Company (used to funnel drug money out of the Golden Triangle); a close liaison with Oliver North during the Iran-Contra cocaine-for-guns scandal; a primary Pentagon official in the terror and covert ops field under George Bush the Elder; one of the original signatories of the infamous PNAC document; and the man who helped CIA Director William Casey run weapons to the mujahideen during their war against the Soviet Union. Armitage was also stationed in Iran during the mid-1970s right before Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah. Armitage may well be the greatest covert operator in U.S. history.
On Sept. 10, 2001, Armitage met with the UK's national security advisor, Sir David Manning. Was Armitage "passing on specific intelligence information about the impending terrorist attacks"? The scenario is plausible because one day later—on 9-11—Dick Cheney directly called for Armitage's presence down in his bunker. Immediately after WTC 2 was struck, Armitage told BBC Radio, "I was told to go to the operations center [where] I spent the rest of the day in the ops center with the vice president."
These two share a long history together. Not only was Armitage employed by Cheney's former company Haliburton (via Brown & Root), he was also a deputy when Cheney was secretary of defense under Bush the Elder. More importantly, Cheney and Armitage had joint business and consulting interests in the Central Asian pipeline which had been contracted by Unocal. The only problem standing between them and the Caspian Sea's vast energy reserves was the Taliban.
Since the 1980s, Armitage amassed a huge roster of allies in Pakistan's ISI. He was also one of the "Vulcans"—along with Condi Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Rabbi Dov Zakheim—who coordinated Bush's geo-strategic foreign policy initiatives. Then, after 9-11, he negotiated with the Pakistanis prior to our invasion of Afghanistan, while also becoming Bush's deputy secretary of state stationed in Afghanistan.
Our "enemy," or course, was the Taliban "terrorists." But George Tenet, Colin Powell, Porter Goss, and Armitage had developed a close relationship with Pakistan's military head of the ISI—General Mahmoud Ahmad— who was cited in a Sept. 2001 FBI report as "supporting and financing the alleged 9-11 terrorists, as well as having links to al Qaeda and the Taliban."
The line between friend and foe gets even murkier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai not only collaborated with the Taliban, but he was also on Unocal's payroll in the mid-1990s. He is also described by Saudi Arabia's Al-Watan newspaper as being "a Central Intelligence Agency covert operator since the 1980s that collaborated with the CIA in funding U.S. aid to the Taliban."
Capturing a new, abundant source for heroin was an integral part of the U.S. "war on terror." Hamid Karzai is a puppet ruler of the CIA; Afghanistan is a full-fledged narco-state; and the poppies that flourish there have yet to be eradicated, as was proven in 2003 when the Bush administration refused to destroy the crops, despite having the chance to do so. Major drug dealers are rarely arrested, smugglers enjoy carte blanche immunity, and Nushin Arbabzadah, writing for The Guardian, theorized that "U.S. Army planes leave Afghanistan carrying coffins empty of bodies, but filled with drugs." Is that why the military protested so vehemently when reporters tried to photograph returning caskets?
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
AS THE FINANCIAL SECTOR continues its tailspin despite efforts to bail out Wall Street, among the few gainers in recent stock trading have been those companies looking for a new "shot in the arm" with government funding from the next administration.
With its strident rhetoric toward reestablishing the so called "pro-choice" agenda, the incoming administration has threatened a whole host of policies that would not only reduce restrictions on abortion, but would actually force people who wish to avoid participating in the procedure to support it.
As a physician who has delivered over 4,000 babies I am very disturbed by the continued efforts of those on the left to establish absolute rights to abortion. However, even more distressing is the notion that taxpayers should be forced to subsidize life-ending procedures such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research. In addition to the news that those who will benefit from federally funded stem cell research have seen an uptick in their financial position as a result of the election, comes news from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops that many health care facilities under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Church may be shut down as a result of the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" for refusal to perform abortions.
Not only does this act seem to have growing support in Congress, the president-elect and his administration have indicated support for this legislation. Since many people cast their votes in a way that they believed would help to improve and increase availability of health care, this is an ironic twist.
Of course, the government takeover of health care began a long time ago, but we should be wary of how far that takeover will go if more private providers are forced out of the marketplace. If enacted, the Freedom of Choice Act and the potential for increased federal funding of embryonic stem cell research will go to show that the incoming Congress and administration are far more dedicated to a government takeover than they are to affordable and available health care. Moreover, these approaches show no real concern at all for the free choices of taxpayers and health care providers who wish to be free from giving assistance to immoral activities.
These facts should also serve to remind social conservatives that they are better to leave the legislative remedies for important social issues at the level where they constitutionally belong, namely at the discretion of state and local officials. The centralization of power that seemed so attractive to many conservatives just a few years ago no longer seems pleasant at all in light of a more liberal-minded majority in both houses of Congress and the White House.
This should be a good lesson for future conservative majorities, namely that the centralization of power never results in anything more than the most temporary of "gains" for those who are committed to traditional moral principles, and the power one administration consolidates for itself must inevitably be handed over to the next administration, which will use that increased power for its own agenda.
Ron Paul, a medical doctor, is a Republican member of the U.S. Congress who represents the 14th District of Texas. Often called "Dr. No" because he bucks his party establishment, refusing to support policies contrary to traditional constitutional principles, Paul was the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988. Call his weekly update line toll free at 1-888-322-1414 or visit his website at www.ronpaul.org.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
While the liberal intelligentsia was swooning over Barack Obama during his presidential campaign, I counseled "prepare to be disappointed." His record as an Illinois state and U.S. senator, together with the many progressive and long overdue courses of action he opposed during his campaign, rendered such a prediction unfortunate but obvious.
Now this same intelligentsia is beginning to howl over Obama's transition team and early choices to run his Administration. Having defeated Senator Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primaries, he now is busily installing Bill Clinton's old guard. Thirty one out of forty seven people that he has named so far for transition or appointments have ties to the Clinton Administration, according to Politico. One Clintonite is quoted in the Washington Post as saying – "This isn't lightly flavored with Clintons. This is all Clintons, all the time."
Obama's "foreign policy team is now dominated by the Hawkish, old-guard Democrats of the 1990," writes Jeremy Scahill. Obama's transition team reviewing intelligence agencies and recommending appointments is headed by John Brennan and Jami Miscik, who worked under George Tenet when the CIA was involved in politicizing intelligence for, among other officials, Secretary of State Colin Powell's erroneous address before the United Nations calling for war against Iraq.
Mr. Brennan, as a government official, supported warrantless wiretapping and extraordinary rendition to torturing countries. National Public Radio reported that Obama's reversal when he voted for the revised FISA this year relied on John Brennan's advise.
For more detail on these two advisers and others recruited by Obama from the dark old days, see Democracy Now, November 17, 2008 and Jeremy Scahill, AlterNet, Nov. 20, 2008 "This is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House."
The top choice as White House chief of staff is Rahm Emanuel—the ultimate hard-nosed corporate Democrat, military-foreign policy hawk and Clinton White House promoter of corporate globalization, as in NAFTA and the World Trade Organization.
Now, recall Obama's words during the bucolic "hope and change" campaign months: "The American people…understand the real gamble is having the same old folks doing things over and over and over again and somehow expecting a different result." Thunderous applause followed these remarks.
"This is more ‘Groundhog Day' then a fresh start," asserted Peter Wehner, a former Bush adviser who is now at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
The signs are amassing that Barack Obama put a political con job over on the American people. He is now daily buying into the entrenched military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned Americans about in his farewell address.
With Robert Rubin on his side during his first photo opportunity after the election, he signaled to Wall Street that his vote for the $750 billion bailout of those speculators and crooks was no fluke (Rubin was Clinton's financial deregulation architect in 1999 as Secretary of the Treasury before he became one of the hugely paid co-directors tanking Citigroup.)
Obama's apologists say that his picks show he wants to get things done, so he wants people who know their way around Washington. Moreover, they say, the change comes only from the president who sets the priorities and the courses of action, not from his subordinates. This explanation assumes that a president's appointments are not mirror images of the boss's expected directions but only functionaries to carry out the Obama changes.
If you are inclined to believe this improbable scenario, perhaps you may wish to review Obama's record compiled by Matt Gonzalez at Counterpunch.
Ralph Nader is a respected citizen activist and former presidential candidate.
This article appeared in a recent issue of Counterpunch.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Nearly 20 years after President George H.W. Bush, in a landmark speech, heralded "a new world order," which would crush any nation, leader or revolutionary group that defied the American empire, a second Bush is proclaiming the advent of a powerful and unified global financial order that will foster such "ideals" as free trade, debt and the supremacy of the dollar.
On Sept. 11, 1990, President George Herbert Walker Bush addressed the nation and voiced those now infamous words before a joint session of Congress: "The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward a historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective—a new world order—can emerge. . . ." Bush the Elder is a longtime luminary of the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg's brother group that has an interlocking leadership and a common goal of world government.
Two decades later, President George W. Bush, speaking before the neo-conservative Manhattan Institute in New York City on Nov. 13, said: "We must strengthen cooperation among the world's financial authorities. For example, leading nations should better coordinate national laws and regulations."
And with those words, the current Bush welcomed world leaders and economic experts from 20 of the world's largest economies to Washington to feast on rack of lamb, smoked quail and $500-a-bottle wine and talk finance at a global summit characterized by many as Bretton Woods II.
Though the Group of 20 meeting only lasted a day, it is clear that Washington seeks to involve itself more in the world while ignoring the mess in its own backyard. According to the White House, Bush and other U.S. officials discussed ways to "update," "coordinate" and strengthen international regulatory bodies, which would act to police markets around the world.
Ultimately, the leaders agreed to four rather vague points, which include: identifying companies that are critical to the world's financial system; creating "supervisory colleges" for large financial institutions that do business around the world; working toward coordinating global accounting standards; and, finally, taking a look at compensation policies for top speculators and traders.
It is worth noting that usually G-20 gatherings only draw finance and economic ministers. This was reportedly the first time that the leaders of the member countries actually attended.
And while the mainstream media focused on the specifics of the talks, many missed the important symbolic gesture of who was seated right next to Bush. It was not British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy or any of the other European Union leaders who attended. It was Hu Jintao, the president of China.
U.S. financial officials were certainly all ears as to what the Chinese leader had to say, given that the Asian country now holds $2 trillion worth of foreign reserves in its banks and could easily crush the United States economically overnight by simply unloading all of its dollar holdings.
After the G-20 talks wrapped up, Hu boarded a plane for highly publicized trips to Costa Rica and Cuba, where he discussed free trade deals with Latin American leaders and the prospects for increased Chinese investments throughout Central and South America.
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. Petherick encourages all readers with Internet access to sign up for AFP's free weekly email newsletter. It's loaded with house news and special offers available only to newsletter recipients and AFP web site users. See AmericanFreePress.net.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
the Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921 as a semi-secret presidium that enables the nation's richest, most influential people to virtually monopolize government policy - while posing as "advisors" and "scholars" - is about to move into a new Washington outpost.
Its 2008 report heralds the CFR's "bridge" from the world of great wealth to politics is now even closer to the center of federal power. The CFR has done well controlling the main levers of Washington power from its original New York central command bunker, and from its old Washington office at 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW. The CFR is heavily represented in Bilderberg and the Trilateral Commission.
This move is part of the "Washington Program." "Looking to the future," the new report says, "the council's Washington office is preparing to move to a new home at 1777 F Street NW - just a block from the White House, around the corner from the IMF and World bank and not far from the State Department."
The 2008 report states that the "Washington Program" will target Congress, the diplomatic community, corporate officials and, of course, major media. Indeed, being a self-proclaimed "one-stop-shop" for media, candidates, researchers, policy makers and others is a central function of the CFR. But it wants its voice to dominate, not just "advise."
"Drawing on the worldwide interest in the hotly contested U.S. primary election campaign, the council, in Washington, brought advisors to candidates from both parties together in a series called Campaign 2008 Conversations," the 2008 report recalls, showing how key "advisors" were carefully placed to put a lock on influencing the primaries. "Moving beyond the headlines and campaign rhetoric, this series took an in-depth look at some of the ideas that promise to evolve into the policies of the next president."
One of these CFR advisors (foreign policy for Obama) is Susan Rice, who is on the Obama transition team that includes Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano of the CFR. Several team members are not CFR members. But VP-elect Joe Biden is a longtime member.
At a recent confab, CFR fellows "presented their candidates" views on defense spending, the Iranian threat, and combating terrorism," the report notes, showing that Iran is pegged by the CFR as a "threat" to the U.S., which has never been factually established.
While getting CFR people close to all media-selected presidential candidates is a major tactic, the 2008 report (written before Obama became president-elect) also stresses strong media ties. There is a calculated CFR effort in its Washington Program and in general to harness the media and make it a CFR mouthpiece. Special CFR meetings with Washington-based reporters are planned as are press briefings with CFR experts that "focus on breaking foreign policy issues."
Under the Communications and Marketing heading, the 2008 report notes: "Continued vigorous media outreach led to Council [CFR] media mentions reaching an all-time high of more than 25,000." This wave of CFR-based media pronouncements over the past year is attributed "not only to the quality of council content," but "to increased direct outreach to journalists, editors and producers."
The CFR, as the nation's foremost "brain trust," is legendary for it members, or "former" one in "public service," popping up in all sorts of high government positions no matter which party is in power. No other organization even begin to match the CFR for the presence of its members in government. If another one did so, even the Rotarians or Boy Scouts, there likely would be a major investigation. But no such probes ever happen regarding the CFR's crew of brainy brigands guiding our ship of state decade after decade. Why not? Because top media anchors, reporters, editors and producers are either members or agree with the one-world "party line."
Page 11 of the new CFR report includes a photo of CFR boy Lawrence
Summers, a former World Bank and IMF official now reportedly at
the top of Barack Obama's list for Treasury secretary. Independent
reports claim that Summers' appointment by President Clinton in
1999 as Treasury secretary (yes, he's been at Treasury before,
so no "change" there) ushered in the adoption of the
Financial Services Modernization Act, which some consider a major
cause of the current economic "meltdown." And now he
may return to the Treasury Department.
|Top|
Jubilation was heard in Tel Aviv as Ha'aretz, the Israeli daily, boasted Nov. 6: "Obama kick-starts transition, picks Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff." Best known for his fund-raising prowess among wealthy Jewish Democrats, the naming of Emanuel as the presidential appointee echoes Sarah Palin's famous one-liner, "I love Israel."
In sharp contrast to Obama's claim that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, Emanuel claims he would do it again today. As chairman of the Democratic Congressional campaign Committee, he directed party funding to pro-invasion candidates and recruited candidates to appose anti-war Democrats.
Known in Washington as an outspoken pro-Israel hardliner, he joins Speaker of the House Nancy Pelose (D-Calif.) in bringing to the Middle East peace process a record of support for Tel Aviv's targeted assassinations of Palestinian political leaders. ("Pelosi supports Israel's attacks on Hamas group," San Francisco Chronicle, June 14, 2003).
The "assistant president" is the sone of a Jerusalem-born member of the Irgun, a Zionist-terrorist group active in Palestine from 1931-1948. He was born an Israeli due to his father's dual Israeli-U.S. citizenship.
As chairman of the Democratic Caucus and fourth-ranking in the House leadership, Rahm Israel Emanuel escorted Sen. Barack Obama to a June 2008 board meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) just after the candidate proclaimed Israel's security "sacrosanct."
In 1984, Emanuel and David Axelrod (Obama's senior campaign strategist in 2008) worked alongside AIPAC on a campaign to unseat Illinois Sen. Charles Percy who was then chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. That electoral success followed a victorious AIPAC-directed campaign in 1982 when Springfield attorney Richard Durbin was recruited to oppose Paul Findley, an 11-term congressman. Findley learned too late the political cost to those who challenge the Israelification of U.S. foreign policy. Durbin was just elected to hiw third term in the senate where he serves as assistant majority leader.
Emanuel's rapport with AIPAC's extensive financial network enabled Bill Clinton to amass a record-breaking $72 million in 1992. Those funds helped his fledgling presidential candidacy weather the media storm over an early sex scandal and a controversy over his Vietnam-era draft status. Emanuel's aggressive pro-Israel fund-raising strategy also drained funds from rival Paul Tsongas who soon withdrew, citing a shortage of funds. Emanuel then served for five years as a senior strategist for the Clinton White House before joining investment bankers Wasserstein Perella where he became managing director on the Chicago office.
Another top fund-raiser, Hungarian-American George Soros, represents a more modern modus operandi, having pocketed $2.9 billion in 2007 alone from a financial hedging operation. The new White House chief of staff showed an aptitude for Wall Street when, after two years with Wasserstein, he pocketed $16.2 million while preparing for his first congressional race in 2002.
Of the none democratic members of the Illinois delegation elected that year, Emanuel was the only one to support the October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing war in Iraq. In the course of winning his 2008 race with 74 percent of the vote, Emanuel was the topmost House recipient of campaign contributions from hedge funds and the securities industries.
A seasoned Chicago political operative while still in his 20s, Emanuel collaborated with AIPAC Executive Director Tom Dine to target Percy's Senate seat. Dine bragged about how the Diaspora focused its nationwide network on ousting a popular high-profile senator in an electorally important state as a means to intimidate American policy makers: "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy And American politicians - those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire - got the message."
Known as a "convinced Zionist," Emanuel and his brothers attended summer camp in Israel. During the 1991 Gulf War, he joined the Israel Defense Forces as a civilian volunteer where he worked in a motor pool repairing trucks. Operating throughout his career as a valuable adjunct to the Israel lobby - as political fund-raiser, white House insider and a member of Congress - Emanuel has long served as an effective sayan (Hebrew for "helper" in support of policies sought by Tel Aviv.
What message is conveyed by Emanuel's appointment? What change can be expected in the influence wielded by the Israel lobby that successfully induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the mass murder of 9-11 in which Iraq played no role? What changes will an Emanuel-administered presidency seek in the financial practices that catalyzed the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression?
When Parack Obama convened his foreign policy team, he put former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at the head of the table. Best known for her 1997 EPIPHANY THAT SHE WAS Jewish - after her appointment to the Clinton cabinet - Albright dispatched former AIPAC executive Tom Dine to Europe where, as a State Department official for the U.S. Agency for International Development, he oversaw the financial pillaging of Russia by a handful of predominantly Ashkenazi oligarches.
Dine was then assigned to oversee Radio Free Europe where he helped cover up the crime by portraying megathief Mikhail Khodorkovshy as a victim of those reverting to Moscow's Stalinist past. Rather than expose the loan-for-shares fraud by which an Ashkenazi elite gained controlling interest across a vast swath of the Russian economy. Dine used America's broadcasting outlet to portray the fraud as the rightful result of free enterprise.
Those who voted for Obama as the candidate of change may well
see a change in party but no policy.
|Top|
President-elect Barack Obama will make sure things remain "BAU," or "business as usual" insofar as Israel and her wars of aggression are concerned. None should be surprised after considering what Obama said in relevant speeches: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power... Everything," and his "Let thate be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."
There is his speech in June to AIPAC, the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee, to consider. Wearing his mandatory AIPAC lapel
pin, he 
groveled at the feet
of a foreign agency investigated several times for espionage and
whose top two executives - Kenneth Weissman and Steve Rosen -
are under indictment for passing highly classified material to
Israel.
Obama said: "I want you to know that today I'll be speaking from my heart asa true friend of Israel. I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever."
The fact that AIPAC's top executives are under indictment for spying against America has no effect on the soon-to-be commander-in-chief. Imagine the shrieking in the mainstream media if the first two letters of AIPAC acronym, instead of being "American Israel" were "Arab Islamic."
Obama's speech continued: "Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests - it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened.
Jis mention of the "1,200 students" calls to mind the spy scandal involving the Israeli "art students" first uncovered by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency just prior to 9-11, in which hundreds of young Israelis - all with backgrounds in intelligence and explosives work - were touring America under the guise of "selling art" while attempting to penetrate sensitive U.S. government facilities. Some of these same "students" were part of the infamous "high-fivers," a team of Israeli intelligence operative arrested in New Jersey on the morning of 9-11 after being seen "making fun of the world Trade Center ruins and photographing themselves in front of the wreckage."
This sane team was sent back to Israel by Michael Chertoff, current head of Homeland Security. The appeared on Israeli television saying they were sent to "document the event" indicating Israel's foreknowledge of the most devastating act of terrorism on American soil and the catalyst for America going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama said:
"We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary... as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security. Not when there are still voices that deny the holocaust. Not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israel's destruction. Not when there are maps across the Middle East that don't even acknowledge Israel's existence, and government-funded textbooks filled with hatred toward Jews. Not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot, and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school."
When Obama is visited by radical anti-free speech groups working for Jewish interests such as the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B[rith that want to see criticism of Israel and the questioning of the particulars of the holocaust prohibited, he will most likely lend his presidential hand toward criminalizing the First Amendment. This has taken place in European countries within the "free" West.
His mention of rockets "raining down" on Sderot, and Israeli town across the border from Gaza are nothing more than bottle-rockets that have killed 13 people in the last 12 years, while at the same time, over 4,000 Palestinian civilians - including over 1,000 children - have been slaughtered by Israel n the last five years.
Obama continues: "the question is how to move forward. There are those who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed. And then there are those who would lay all of the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters, as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region These voices blame the Middle East's only democracy for the region's extremism."
So, the "candidate of change" begins by criticizing how George bush and every other previous administration has dealt with Israel - namely by giving her everything she demands - ends by saying that as president his plan for "fixing" the problem in the Middle East is to give her everything she demands. He fails to mention that there was no "extremism" or "terrorism" in the region before the creation of Israel. He fails to mention that during and immediately after World war II the Arabs were friendly toward the West and looked forward to modernizing their soon-to-be nations along the western model. All of this was destroyed when the United States threw her weight behind the creation of the Jewish state and the expulsion of the Palestinian Christians and Muslims who had been living ther side by side for 1,400 years. In mentioning the only "democracy" in the region, what he did not say was that in Israel there are no rights for non-Jews. They cannot drive the same highways, they are forced to have color-coded license plates, they are not allowed to own land.
Obama continue: "Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the white House an unshakable commitment to Israel's security. That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat - from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United states and Israel is a model of success and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade - investments to Israel's security that willl not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world."
So Israel will continue to drain America's depleted financial
coffers and will be given a free hand to try out her new military
toys on "Amalek," the Old testament term used to describe
the non-Jewish people Israel is commanded to destroy by her god,
Yahweh.
|Top|
By most accounts the US economy is in serious trouble. Robert Reich, an adviser to President-elect Obama, calls it a "mini-depression," and that designation might be optimistic. The Russian economist, Mikhail Khazin says that the "U.S. will soon face a second ‘Great Depression.'" It is possible that even Khazin is optimistic.
I cannot predict the future. However, I can explain what the problems are, how they differ from past times of troubles, and why traditional remedies, such as the public works programs that Reich proposes, are unlikely to succeed in reviving the U.S. economy.
Khazin points out, as have others, such as University of Maryland economist Herman Daly and myself, that consumer debt expansion is the fuel that kept the U.S. economy alive. The growth of debt has outstripped the growth of income to such an extent that an increase in consumer credit and bank lending is not possible. Consumers are overburdened with debt. This fact takes monetary policy out of the picture. Americans can no longer afford to borrow more in order to consume more.
This leaves economists with fiscal policy, which, as Reich realizes, also has problems. Reich is correct that neither a reduction in marginal tax rates nor a tax rebate is likely to be very effective. Reich, a Keynesian, has an uncertain grasp of supply-side economics, but as one who has a firm grasp, I can attest that marginal tax rates today are not the stifling influence they were prior to John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. As Art Laffer said, there are two tax rates, high and low, that will produce the same tax revenues by expanding or contracting economic activity. Marginal tax rates are no longer in the higher ranges. As for a tax rebate, Reich is correct that in the present situation a tax rebate would be dissipated in paying off creditors.
Reich sees the problem as a lack of aggregate demand sufficient to maintain full employment. His solution is for the government to spend "a lot" more on infrastructure projects on top of a trillion dollar budget deficit --"repairing roads and bridges, levees and ports; investing in light rail, electrical grids, new sources of energy." This spending would boost employment, wages, and aggregate demand.
I have no opposition to infrastructure projects, but who will finance the baseline trillion dollar US budget deficit plus the additional red ink spending on infrastructure? Not Americans. The US savings rate is zero or negative. Home mortgage foreclosures are in the millions. Officially, US unemployment is 10 million, but if measured by pre-Clinton era standards unemployment is much higher. Statistician John Williams, who measures the unemployment rate by the pre-Clinton standards concludes that the rate of US unemployment is about 15 percent. President Clinton "reformed" the unemployment statistics by ceasing to count discouraged workers as unemployed.
For years, the US government's budget has been dependent on foreigners financing the red ink. Countries such as Japan and China and OPEC suppliers of oil to the US have huge export surpluses with the US. They recycle the dollars by buying US Treasury bonds, thus financing the US government's red ink budgets.
The open question is: how much longer will they do so?
Foreign portfolios are overweighed in dollar assets. Currently the dollar's value is benefitting from the financial crisis, as investors flee to the reserve currency. However, sooner or later the huge outpourings of dollar debts will cause foreign creditors to draw back. Already China, America's largest creditor, has sent a signal that that time might be drawing near. Recently the Chinese government asked, as they do indirectly through third parties, "Why should China help the US to issue debt without end in the belief that the national credit of the US can expand without limit?"
Is the rest of the world, which has demanded a financial summit to work toward a new financial order, going to permanently allocate the world's supply of capital to covering American mistakes?
If not, the bailout and the stimulus package will have to be financed by printing money.
And the bailout needs are growing. Car loans and credit card debt were also securitized and sold. As the economy worsens, credit card and car loan defaults are rising. Moreover, AIG needs more money from the government. Fannie Mae's loss has widened to $29 billion despite the $200 billion bailout. General Motors and Ford need taxpayer money to survive. General Motors says that its GMAÇ mortgage unit "may not survive." Deutsche Bank sees General Motors shares "as likely worthless."
Shades of the Weimar Republic.
What Reich and the American economic establishment do not understand is that the recession paradigm does not apply. There are no jobs waiting at US manufacturers for a demand stimulus to pull Americans back into work. The problem is not a liquidity problem. To the contrary, there have been many years of too much liquidity. Credit has grown far more than production. Indeed, US production has been moved offshore. Jobs that used to support the growth of American incomes and the tax bases of cities and states have moved, along with US GDP, to China and elsewhere.
The work is gone. All that are left are credit card and mortgage debts.
Anyone who thinks that America still has a vibrant economy needs to log onto www.EconomyInCrisis.org and face the facts.
Economists associate economic depression with price deflation. However, traditionally, debts that are beyond an economy's ability to service are inflated away. This suggests that the coming depression will be an inflationary depression. Instead of falling prices mitigating the effects of falling employment, higher prices will go hand in hand with rising unemployment--a situation worse than the Great Depression.
The incompetent Clinton and Dubya administrations, unregulated banksters and Wall St criminals, greedy CEOs, and a no-think economics profession have destroyed America's economy.
What is the remedy for simultaneous inflation and unemployment?
Three decades ago the solution was supply-side economics. Easy monetary policy had pushed up consumer demand, but high tax rates had curtailed output. It was more profitable for firms to allow prices to rise than for them to invest and increase output.
Supply-side economics changed the policy mix. Monetary policy was tightened and marginal tax rates were reduced, thus stimulating output instead of inflation.
Today the problem is different. The US has abused the reserve currency role, thus endangering its credit worthiness and the exchange value of the dollar. Jobs have moved offshore. The budget deficit is huge and growing. If foreigners will not finance the widening gap, the printing presses will be employed or the government will not be able to pay its bills.
The bailout funds have been wasted. The expensive bailout does not address the problem of falling employment and rising mortgage defaults. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson could not see beyond saving Goldman Sachs and his bankster friends. The Paulson bailout does nothing except take troubled assets off banks' books and put them on the overburdened taxpayers' books, thus endangering the US Treasury's credit rating.
What the Bush Regime has done is to stick the taxpayers with the banks' mistakes. An intelligent government would have used the money to refinance the troubled mortgages and stop the defaults. By saving the mortgages from default, the banks' balance sheets would have been made secure. By failing to deal with the subprime crisis, Bush and Congress have added a financial crisis to the exhaustion of consumer demand and the problems of financing huge trade and budget deficits.
Belatedly, Paulson has realized his mistake. On November 12, Paulson announced, "We have continued to examine the relative benefits of purchasing illiquid mortgage-related assets. Our assessment at this time is that this is not the most effective way to use [bailout] funds."
The financial crisis has cost taxpayers far more than the amount of the bailout. Americans' savings and pension funds have been devastated. Americans in investment partnerships, who have been required by IRS rules to pay income taxes on gains in the partnerships' portfolios, have had the accumulated multi-year gains wiped out. They have paid taxes on years of "capital gains" that have disappeared, thus doubling their losses.
America's economic troubles will rapidly accumulate if the dollar loses its reserve currency role. To protect the dollar and the Treasury's credit standing, the US needs to curtail its foreign borrowing by reducing its budget deficit. It can do this by halting its gratuitous wars and slashing its unnecessary military spending which exceeds that of the rest of the world combined. The empire has run out of resources, and the 700 overseas bases must be closed.
Can Americans afford massive infrastructure spending when they cannot afford health care? In Florida a Blue Cross Blue Shield group policy for a 60-year old woman costs $14,100 annually, and this is a policy with deductibles and co-payments. Supplementary policies from AARP to fill some of the gaps in Medicare can cost retirees $3,300 annually. When one looks at the economic situation of the vast majority of Americans, it is astonishing that the Bush regime regards wars in the Middle East and taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street criminals as a good use of scarce resources.
US corporations, which have moved their production for US markets offshore in order to drive up their share prices and provide their CEOs with multi-million dollar bonuses, can be provided with a different set of incentives that encourage the corporations to bring employment back to the US. For example, the corporate income tax can be restructured to tax corporations according to the value-added in the US. The higher the value-added in the US, the lower the tax rate; the lower the value-added, the higher the tax rate.
Cutting the budget deficit by halting pointless wars and unnecessary military spending and reducing the trade deficit by bringing jobs back to America are simple tasks compared to confronting inflationary depression.
The world has had enough of American irresponsibility and is taking away the reins. At the November 15 economic summit, the world will begin the process of imposing a new financial order on the US in exchange for continued lending to the bankrupt "superpower."
With bailouts eating up the world's supply of capital, continued foreign financing for Washington's wars of aggression is out of the picture.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
during President Reagan's first term. He was Associate Editor
of the Wall Street Journal.
|Top|
A leading Russian political analyst has said that the economic turmoil in the United States has confirmed his long-held view that the country is heading for collapse, and will divide into separate parts.
Professor Igor Panarin said in an interview with the daily Izvestia published in that "The dollar is not secured by anything. The country's foreign debt has grown like an avalanche, even though in the early 1980s there was no debt. By 1998, when I first made my prediction, it had exceeded $2 trillion. Now it is more than $11 trillion. This is a pyramid that can only collapse."
Panarin, 60, is the spokesman for the Russian space program and is often quoted in articles around the world. He may be the highest-ranking official in any government to admit that the amero plan is real. He is a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and has authored several books on information warfare.
He predicted that the U.S. will break up into six parts—the
Pacific coast, with its growing Chinese population; the South,
with its Hispanics; Texas, where independence movements are on
the rise; the Atlantic coast, with its distinct and separate mentality;
five of the poorer central states with their large Indian populations;
and the northern states, where the influence from
Canada is strong.
The paper said Panarin's dire predictions for the U.S. economy, initially made at an international conference in Australia 10 years ago at a time when the economy appeared strong, have been given more credence by this year's events. (At least ten years before that, it was reported that this division of states was part of the globalists' plans already on the drawing board at the New World Order.)
When asked when the U.S. economy would collapse, Panarin said: "It is already collapsing. Due to the financial crisis, three of the largest and oldest five banks on Wall Street have already ceased to exist, and two are barely surviving. Their losses are the biggest in history. Now what we will see is a change in the regulatory system on a global financial scale: America will no longer be the world's financial regulator."
When asked who would replace the U.S. in regulating world markets, he said: "Two countries could assume this role: China, with its vast reserves, and Russia, which could play the role of a regulator in Eurasia."
Asked why he expected the U.S. to break up into separate parts, he said: "A whole range of reasons. Firstly, the financial problems in the U.S. will get worse. Millions of citizens there have lost their savings. Prices and unemployment are on the rise. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse, and this means that whole cities will be left without work. Governors are already insistently demanding money from the federal center. Dissatisfaction is growing, and at the moment it is only being held back by the elections and the hope that Obama can work miracles. But by spring, it will be clear that there are no miracles."
He also cited the "vulnerable political setup," "lack of unified national laws," and "divisions among the elite, which have become clear in these crisis conditions."
He even suggested that "We [Russia] could reclaim Alaska—it was only granted on lease, after all."
On the fate of the U.S. dollar, he said: "In 2006, a secret agreement was reached between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on a common amero currency as a new monetary unit. This could signal preparations to replace the dollar. The $100 bills that have flooded the world could be simply frozen, under the pretext, let's say, that terrorists are forging them and they need to be checked."
When asked how Russia should react to his vision of the future, Panarin said: "Develop the ruble as a regional currency. Create a fully functioning oil exchange, trading in rubles. . . . We must break the strings tying us to the financial Titanic, which in my view will soon sink."
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
According to the Ineligibility Clause of the United States Constitution, no member of Congress can be appointed to an office that has benefitted from a salary increase during the time that Senator or Representative served in Congress. A January 2008 Executive Order signed by President Bush during Hillary Clinton's current Senate term increased the salary for Secretary of State, thereby rendering Senator Clinton ineligible for the position.
Specifically, Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time." The provision is seen by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption.
Former President Richard Nixon circumvented this constitutional provision after appointing former Ohio Senator William Saxbe to the position of Attorney General. The Nixon administration managed to force legislation through Congress to reduce the salary for the position of Attorney General to the level that existed prior to Senator Saxbe's appointment. This scheme, known thereafter as "The Saxbe Fix," was also used to allow Senator Lloyd Bentsen to assume the position of Treasury Secretary under President Clinton.
"The Saxbe Fix" may reduce the salary of Secretary of State to previous levels, but it does not affect what is a clear constitutional prohibition. It cannot change the fact that the salary had been increased while Senator Clinton served in Congress. (President Ronald Reagan reportedly did not appoint Senator Orrin Hatch to the Supreme Court because of this provision.) Simply put, the Constitution does not provide for a legislative remedy for the Ineligibility Clause.
"There's no getting around the Constitution's Ineligibility Clause, so Hillary Clinton is prohibited from serving in the Cabinet until at least 2013, when her current term expires," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Barack Obama should select someone who is eligible for the position of Secretary of State and save the country from a constitutional battle over Hillary Clinton's confirmation. No public official who has taken the oath to support and defend the Constitution should support this appointment. And aside from the constitutional issue, Hillary Clinton's long track record of corruption makes her a terrible choice to serve as the nation's top diplomat."
For more on this, visit Judicial Watch's web site here.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2008/dec/judicial-watch-announces-hillary-clinton-constitutionally-ineligible-serve-secretary-s
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
"THE PROSPECTS OF A GOVERNMENT rescue for the foundering U.S. automakers dwindled as Democratic congressional leaders conceded that they would face potentially insurmountable Republican opposition," reported The New York Times.
Wow! The entire country is steamed up over the GOP bailing out a bunch of financial crooks who have paid themselves fortunes in bonuses for destroying America's pensions. Why do Democrats want to protect Republicans from further ignominy by not giving them the opportunity to vote down a bailout for workers? Quick, someone enroll the Democratic Party in Politics 101.
GM's divisions in Canada and Germany are asking those governments for help. It will be something if Canada and Germany come through for the American automaker and the American government doesn't.
Conservative talking heads are saying GM is a "failed business model" unworthy of a $25 billion bailout. These are the same talking heads who favored pouring $700 billion into a failed financial model.
The head of the FDIC is trying to get $25 billion—a measly 3.5 percent of the $700 billion for the banksters— with which to refinance the mortgages of 2 million of the banksters' victims, and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson says no. Why aren't the Democrats all over this, too?
Apparently, the Democrats still think they are the minority party or else their aim is to supplant the Republicans as the party of the rich.
Any bailout has its downsides. But if America loses its auto industry, it will lose the suppliers as well and will cease to have a manufacturing sector. For years no-think economists have been writing off America's manufacturing jobs, while deluding themselves and the public with propaganda about a new economy based on finance.
A country that doesn't make anything doesn't need a financial sector, as there is nothing to finance. The financial crisis has had one good effect. It has cured Democratic economists like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman of their fear of budget deficits. During the Ronald Reagan years, these two economists saw doom in the "Reagan deficits" despite the fact that Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation data showed that the United States at that time had one of the lowest ratios of general government debt to gross domestic product in the industrialized world.
Today, Reich and Krugman are unfazed by their recommendations of budget deficits that are many multiples of Reagan's. Moreover, neither economist has given the slightest thought as to how the massive budget deficit that they recommend can be financed.
Both recommend large public spending programs. Krugman puts a price tag of $600 billion on his program. If it takes $700 billion to save the banks and only $600 billion to save the economy, it sounds like a good deal.
But this $600 billion is on top of the $700 billion for the banks, the $200 billion for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the $85 billion for AIG. These figures add to $1.58 trillion dollars, a sum that must be added to the budget deficit due to war and recession (or worse).
This equals a minimum budget deficit of $2 trillion. The United States has never had to finance a deficit of this magnitude. Where is the money coming from?
The U.S. Treasury doesn't have any money, and neither do Americans, who have lost up to half of their savings and retirement funds, and are up to their eyeballs in mortgage and consumer debt. Unemployment is rising. There are only two sources of financing: foreign creditors and the printing press.
I doubt that foreigners have $2 trillion to lend to the United States. Thanks to the toxic U.S. financial instruments, they have their own bailouts to finance and economies to stimulate. Moreover, I doubt that foreigners think the United States can service a public debt that suddenly jumps by $2 trillion. At 5 percent interest, the additional debt would add $100 billion to the annual budget deficit. In order to pay interest to creditors, the U.S. would have to borrow more money from them.
Economists and policy makers are not thinking. This enormous financing need comes not to a well-managed economy that can take the additional debt in its stride.
Instead, it comes to an economy so badly managed that there are no reserves. Massive U.S. trade deficits have been financed by giving up U.S. assets to foreigners, who now own the income flows, as well. Budget deficits from six years of pointless wars and from unsustainable levels of military spending have helped to flood the world with dollars and drive down the dollar's exchange value. Consumers themselves are drowning in debt and can provide no lift to the economy. Millions of the best jobs have been moved offshore, and research, design and innovation have followed them.
Considering America's dependency on imports, part of any stimulus package that reaches the consumer will bleed off to foreign countries.
Generally, when countries acquire more debt than they can service, they inflate away the debt. If foreign creditors do not save the Obama administration, the Treasury will print bonds and give them to the Federal Reserve, which will issue money.
The inflation will be severe, particularly as Americans will not be able to pay for the imports of manufactured goods from abroad on which they have become dependent.
The exchange value of the dollar will decline with the domestic inflation. Once inflation is off and running, the printing-press dollars will only have goods made in America to chase after. The real crisis has not yet begun.
Paulson should rethink the automakers' and FDIC's proposals. A bank produces nothing but paper. Automakers produce real things that can be sold. Occupied homes are worth more then empty ones. Paulson's inability to see this is the logical outcome of Wall Street thinking that highly values deals made over pieces of paper at the expense of the real economy.
Nationally syndicated columnist, Paul Craig Roberts, Ph.D., a former editor at The Wall Street Journal, is the author of several books. He has been associated with the Hoover Institution, and the Institute for Political Economy and from 1981 to 1982 served as assistant secretary of the treasury for economic policy.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
An American gun manufacturer has hired a professional killer to tout the merits of its weapons. What better spokesman could a company have than one who has shot and killed a young mother with her baby in her arms?
The South Dakota company's Internet website has proudly published a letter attesting the greatness of its new sniper weapon.
"Pound-for-pound, component-for-component, dollar- for-dollar, you will not find a better rifle," says the new spokesman for H-S Precision in Rapid City. His name is Lon Horiuchi, a government assassin who retired from the FBI in 2006. AFP called to ask him if this was also the weapon he used to blow away the face of Vicki Weaver at the remote area of Ruby Ridge in Idaho in 1992, but he did not return the calls.
On Aug. 21, 1992, U.S. marshals perpetrated a sneak attack on the mountain cabin of the Randy Weaver family in northern Idaho. When the family dog, Striker, a docile and loving golden retriever, began to bark at the agents, they shot him dead "because he was giving away our position," one said later. Sammy Weaver, 14, saw the incident and screamed, and the agents nearly blew his arm off (the impact of which spun him around), and then zippered him through the back with a three-round blast from automatic weapons. The boy was dead before he hit the ground. His father, Randy, later told this writer that when he got to him, "his chest was blown out and his heart was like raw hamburger."
The marshal directing the raid, Bill Degan, was also killed, maybe by his own men.
During the afternoon and night, all sorts of deceptive information was being transmitted from the scene to the FBI headquarters in Washington. The marshals, desperate after being caught in the act of breaking the law, had made up all kinds of cover-up stories—the most outrageous being that the Weaver family had them pinned down for eight hours in an all-day shootout in which Randy's 16- and 10-year-old daughters had been holding them off with high-powered weapon fire from the windows of the cabin.
Rather than eight hours, the whole situation had lasted closer to eight seconds at a location where the young girls were not even present. However, not only did the news media trumpet the lie, but Attorney General Janet Reno and the FBI brass in Washington bought it, too.
By nightfall, a government jet was hauling a mob of retaliatory killers from the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team to Idaho.
The next morning FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi lurked in the woods outside the cabin. When Randy and 16-year-old Sarah came out to visit the body of Sammy in a shed a few feet away, he shot Randy in the back as he reached for the latch. Fortunately, the bullet did not seriously wound him. Hearing the shot, Vicki opened the front door for them and friend Kevin Harris, who was later tried and acquitted (self-defense) for the murder of Marshal Degan, as they fled back into the house.
As Mrs. Weaver stood in the doorway holding her baby, Horiuchi delivered the next .308 slug through her right temple. Horiuchi was nearly prosecuted in 1997 by the State of Idaho but his lawyers were successful in getting the case removed to federal court where it was easy to get it dismissed.
Even though this incident happened most of two decades ago, Horiuchi's name was instantly recognized by someone perusing a print catalog from H-S Precision and saw the letter printed on its back cover. When he sent it across the Internet, the response of outrage began from the many others who remembered.
"I hope I am not alone in wanting to see a boycott against HS Precision," said one. "We should let them know how we feel about people who murder women holding their babies and how we feel about businesses who brag about murderers using their weapon to commit their murders."
"One of the murderers at Ruby Ridge and Waco used in an ad?" wrote another. "Killer of innocent women and children used to sell rifles? How sick does it get? This is almost like Oliver North getting a TV show. Let's put him back in hiding. He should be in prison but since we have no control over that, let's at least not let him have a normal life."
Ill-publicized at the time, the later Waco investigation showed that Delta Force and the FBI's HRT team were on the ground at the Branch Davidian church near Waco on April 19, 1993. When the fire broke out— all surviving Davidians said that it was not set by them—the assassination teams fired hundreds of rounds at the fleeing church members as they tried to escape.
This was confirmed by the FBI's own FLIR tapes shot from a hovering aircraft at 4,000 feet. It was long ago confirmed that Lon Horiuchi was on the ground that day, firing and presumably murdering more innocent people.
It makes an investigator want to ask, where else was he during his murderous career and who else might have been among his victims? Was Horiuchi in Lawrence County, Ark. in June of 1983 when the FBI and U. S. marshals murdered an unarmed and defenseless Gordon Kahl? How about in Philadelphia in 1985 when the black ghetto was bombed and burned down? OKC police Sergeant Terry Yeakey complained to his wife and friends of being hounded by the FBI only one day before he was found murdered on May 8, 1996. Was Lon Horiuchi in Oklahoma that week?
And consider the many "Arkancides" during Bill Clinton's gubernatorial and presidential regimes. Where was Horiuchi on 40 different dates in the 1980s and 1990s? That's a topic for another time.
[Call H/S Precision at 605-341-3006. Ask for Josh.—Ed.]
Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) thinks it's bad for some American political organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), to monitor the activities of their opposition. But he has no problem with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B'nai B'rith—an arm of Israel's intelligence service, the Mossad—conducting illicit spying and infiltrations against law-abiding American citizens whose only "crime" is to criticize U.S. favoritism for Israel.
That's the only conclusion that can be reached. Lautenberg is heartily distressed that for some 15 years the National Rifle Association is alleged to have deployed a paid spy, Mary McFate, to infiltrate pro-gun control organizations such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Citing reports about Mrs. McFate's activities that appeared in Mother Jones magazine, Lautenberg says that the debate on gun violence prevention "should be based upon an open and honest exchange of ideas, not on underhanded tactics" and he has publicly demanded that NRA President John Sigler:
* Admit whether these charges are true or false;
* If these charges are true, disclose the precise nature of the NRA's relationship with Mary McFate/Mary Lou Sapone, including how much she was paid, the time periods for which she received payment and the services she provided;
* Make public the names (including any aliases) of any other NRA employees, consultants, members, or volunteers who have joined gun violence prevention organizations in order to report to the NRA on their activities; and
* Denounce and discontinue the practice of asking or encouraging NRA employees, consultants, members and volunteers to infiltrate gun violence prevention groups.
American Free Press contacted Lautenberg's office and asked if Lautenberg was equally distressed by the actions of the ADL that mirror those attributed to the NRA.
A spokesman for Lautenberg refused to say that the ADL's actions reflect those of the NRA or that such actions could be construed to be inappropriate or deemed to be "underhanded tactics" that interfere with "an honest exchange of ideas."
Clearly, in Lautenberg's worldview—shaped by his religious and ethnic ties to Israel and his longtime open collaboration with the ADL—the ADL's behavior is sanctioned—even sanctified—and not open to criticism. What is sauce for the goose is not, it seems, sauce for the gander.
This author's work, The Judas Goats,* includes four full chapters on the subject of the ADL's controversial "fact finding" operations, not to mention many additional chapters outlining how the ADL has worked with the FBI, the CIA and other government police and intelligence agencies in illicit spying and other wrecking operations aimed against American citizens and political organizations.
In fact, as The Judas Goats documents, the ADL was on the front lines of the FBI's infamous "COINTELPRO" domestic spying operations, actually doing much of the leg-work and then turning over the fruits of its intrigue to the FBI. For example, much of the spying on Dr. Martin Luther King widely attributed to the FBI was the work of the ADL whose agents infiltrated King's inner circle and then provided the FBI data on King and his associates, including political activist and former comedian Dick Gregory.
Although groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (most commonly referred to as the ACLU) have often vocally criticized the FBI for its COINTELPRO activities, the ACLU has notably avoided mentioning the role of the ADL in these matters.
*Get a copy of The Judas Goats for $25 from AFP by calling
toll free at
1-888-699-NEWS (6397) and charging to Visa or MasterCard.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
You walk into your local brick-and-mortar chain grocery store against your better judgment, because you need to pick up some items for dinner for the family. Browsing the aisles, you're surprised to see the increasing number of products that have "organic" emblazoned across their labels. Believing that, because it says "organic," it must be better than the regular, old item next to it, you shell out the extra dollar or two for the organic brand. But the truth is, just because it says "organic," doesn't necessarily mean it's raised any differently than cheap food products produced on massive factory farms.
Take milk, for instance. Some large-scale agribusinesses have filed the paperwork to be certified "organic" under the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Program, because it means higher profits on certain goods. But that does not mean that those cows are treated as most people would think.
According to the watchdog group, the Cornucopia Institute, many f these certified "organic" factory farms still keep thousands of head of dairy cattle in confined feedlots where they are fed low-quality feed derived from corn and corn oil. In addition, Cornucopia reports, "a routine practice on these giant dairy feedlots, many with thousands of cows, is to continuously import calves from conventional farms, where animals have been weaned on blood, fed slaughterhouse waste and genetically engineered grains, and injected or dosed with antibiotics."
That could all change soon, however. Under pressure from citizen groups, the USDA has been forced to take action. The USDA recently issued a draft rule that would require the mandatory pasturing of organic dairy cows during their entire growing season. In addition, USDA would set standards requiring a minimum of 30 percent of an organic dairy cow's feed must come exclusively from pasture and not cheap feed.
Many factory farms choose to feed their cows on corn and other grains in order to maintain consistency - and ensure blandness - in milk. But studies consistently show thaat cows, that are pastured and have access to fresh grass produce milk that is better for you. According to a study by the University of Utah, dairy cows that were allowed to graze freely, without being fed supplemental corn silage of corn oil, produced milk that had 500 percent more of an essential fatty acid known as conjugated linoleic acid (CLA).
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) lauded the USDA's new rule, which is intended to weed out factory farms like Aurora, Horizon, Rockview and Shamrock that cut corners in order to supply cheap "organic" milk to Wal-Mart, Safeway, Costco and other chains.
As is to be expected from Washington, however, OCA is warning that the proposed measure contains a loophole so big that agribusinesses could drive a herd of dairy cows through it.
According to OCA, the proposal would "allow large dairy farms to bring non-organic heifers, or young milk cows onto their farms, and then call them organic." The problem here, say advocates of natural milk, is that farms could bring in cows that were on growth hormones or other drugs into a herd and still claim the milk has been produced on a certified "organic" farm.
The lesson here for consumers is, it helps to know the source of your food. Just because something has a label on it that says "all-natural" or "organic" does not mean it has been raised any better than if it were in a massive factory farm. Buying food that has been raised on local farms that allow visitors to see how animals are kept is the best way to ensure that your food is of the highest quality and is safe.
Unfortunately, when it comes to milk, many states have made
the sale of unprocessed milk illegal. To find out where - and
if - you can purchase high-quality milk from a local farm, contact
the Weston A. Price Foundation in Washington, D.C. at (202)363-4394.
|Top|
A landmark study produced for European nations reveals what most advocates of a more organic, natural lifestyle have suspected for years: Genetically engineered (GE) foods, commonly known as "Frankenfoods," are not safe for human consumption.
The study, published in the Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology took a look at results of safety tests submitted by chemical giant Monsanto to the European Commission when the company was seeking the okay to market a variety of GE corn called "MON863" in the European Union.
According to Monsanto's own records, rats that were fed the corn variety MON63, which was manufactured in laboratories at Monsanto, showed signs of abnormal weight gain and kidney and liver toxicity.
Despite Monsanto's own findings that its corn is not even safe for rats, the EU still gave the chemical company a license to sell it for human consumption. Officials had decided to ignore the findings and bury the results rather than spend more time trying to figure out whether the crop is hazardous to human health.
Thankfully, the story does not end there. A lawsuit filed by environmental group Greenpeace forced the European Union to release the results and make them available to the public.
Monsanto has since argued that what happened to the rats was normal and "not statistically significant."
"This is the final nail in the coffin for the credibility of the current authorization system for GE products," said Christophe Then, a representative from Greenpeace. "Once it's known that a system designed to protect human and animal health has approved a high-risk product despite clear evidence of its dangers, we need to start ‘strip-searching' all GE products on the market, and immediately abort this flawed approval procedure."
Though the corn is primarily grown in Europe, New Zealand and Australia, it is likely that most Americans have also come in contact with it.
Foods derived from MON863 include high-fructose corn syrup, corn starch, corn flour, breakfast cereals, baking products and corn chips.
Organic foods and any other GE-free ingredients would not contain
MON863.
|Top|
An old friend sent me a label from some toothpaste he had picked up while traveling. He pointed out the label said sodium fluoride was in the product and he asked "isn't that rat poison, or has that all been changed?"
Nothing has changed, I told him as I read him the accepted definition from an Internet site:
"Sodium fluoride is a colorless to white solid that is moderately soluble in water. It is used in the fluoridation of drinking water and in the manufacture of dental preparations such as toothpaste. It is also used in the production of steel and aluminum (to lower the melting temperature), glass and enamel, or as an insecticide, rodent poison and a preservative for glues and wood."
Despite decades of lies and propaganda from the Establishment, fluoridation community water turned out to be a bad idea because science says it does nothing good for teeth and has devastating health effects over time. Lately people around the world have rejected water fluoridaton proposals, so why should anyone want or need sodium fluoride in their toothpaste? Is it less toxic being absorbed through gum tissue?
F course not - smart people avoid it and buy toothpaste brands that advertise they have no fluoride of any kind.
Revisiting the controversies during the past 60 years, dredges up some very interesting information.
In 9174, a 3-year-old child swallowed 45 cubic centimeters of 2 percent fluoride solution, estimated to be triple the fatal amount, and died. The fluoride was administered during his first visit to the dentist, and the dental office was later found liable for the death.
The authorities are aware, but don't really care: In 1997 the FDA toughened the warning on every tube of toothpaste label to read, "If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison-control center right away."
What about the "rat poison" claims?
Historically, sodium fluoride was very expensive for certain giant companies to dispose of - but in the 1950s and 1960s, Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry with a vast overabundance of this toxic waste managed to loby the FDA and the government into the insane notion that buying this poison at a 20,000 percent markup and then injecting it into the water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse was a good idea.
All this fluoridating was facilitated following a talk by Francis Bull, dental director of the Wisconsin State Board of Health, at a meeting of the State board of Health at a meeting of the State Dental Cirectors in June 1951.
Dr. Bull said:
"Now, in regard to toxicity, I noticed that Dr. Bain used
the term ‘adding sodium fluoride.' We never do that. That
is rat poison. You add fluorides. Never mind that sodium fluoride
business, because in most instances we are not adding sodium fluoride
anyhow. All of those things give the opposition something to pick
at, and they have got enough to pick at without our giving them
any more."
The "opposition" Dr. Bull referred to meant same citizens who knew better than to flood the environment with this toxin.
Sodium fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both Prozac and Sarin nerve gas. The technical name for Prozac is fluoxetine hydrochloride and for Sarin it is isopropoxy-methyl-phosphoryl fluoride.
In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military nerve gas. Why is it allowed to be added to the toothpaste and drinking water of the American people?
The risks in having more than a very, very tiny amount of fluoride
enter your body include dental fluorosis, skelatal fluorosis,
reproductive and developmental effects, neurological effects,
and endocrine effects. Topical exposure to excessive amounts of
fluoride may cause dental fluorosis, and excess systematic exposure
can lead to other effects. Young children are at risk for receiving
excess fluoride, and the ADA has recently issued and interim guidance
on their fluoride consumption.
|Top|
Fluoride is a very controversial topic, but how controversial I did not realize. The data reveals that fluoride is a chemical toxin. As ou can see by my studies and degrees, I placea large amount of confidence in nutritional methods for overcoming disease and place little in toxic drugs, synthetic chemicals and especially toxins, like fluoride.
A few years ago, I was asked by the head of our local health department to conduct a review of existing journal research on the toxicity of fluoride with emphasis on its cancer causing potential. I went to the National Medical Library and produced for him some 40 articles on the toxicity of fluoride. When we reviewed them, there was some discrepancy in whether or not fluoride was mutagenic.
Well, half of the articles said that it was and half said that it was not. But it can not be both ways.... We wondered what was wrong. Then the element of bias entered the picture, since Proctor and Gamble has paid for some of the "negative-concluding" research. We were still puzzled.
My only goal is to tell this information to the patients and let them decide. Isn't that fair? After all it is their decision. It is the patient's choice. The toxicity of fluoride has caused many countries to rethink the fluoride issue and many have rescinded fluoride in favor of the health of their people.
Those banning fluoride are Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Austria, France, and Netherlands. Despite these retractions of fluoride, the U.S. still presses on with the goal to fluoridate (poison) every community water supply in the United States.
All allopathically trained dentists are very familiar with the ADA and other "authoritative" positions on fluoride. They rarely mention its toxic potential or the few studies revealing increased tooth decay after fluoride use. The research of Burk and Yiamouyiannis revealed that every major city with fluoride had increased rates of cancer. Not a fair trade for "good looking teeth."
If you don't want to look at this data, that is your decision. As health professionals, we don't want to harm patients in any way and fluoride produces great harm. I am referring to taking fluoride internally, where it has been found to cause unscheduled DNA synthesis, sister chromated exchanges and yes, mutagenic effects on the cells.
These terms may not bother some people at all, but they mean that there will be an increase in cancer after the ingestion of fluoride. Takeki Tsutsui, et al. found that the addition of fluoride to healthy liver cell, in vitro, could establish changes that can only be described as cancerous.
The ADA's official position is that this stuff is safe, yet there have been deaths of children in the dentist's office due to fluoride, albeit very few. The point I am trying to make is that this is not to be taken lightly. In a letter to me from the ADA apologizing for fluoride, it stated, "There are three basic compounds commonly used for fluoridation drinking water supplies in the United States: sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride, and hydrofluorosilicic acid."
Now any chemist can tell you that these are not the sodium fluoride we are all told about. Sodium Hydrofluorosilicic acid is one of the most reactive chemical species know to man. Its toxicity is known in many chemical circles. It will eat through metal and plastic pipes and corrode many materials, including stainless steel and other metals. It will dissolve rubber tires and melt concrete. This is added to our water to produce "healthy teeth."
Fluoride does the following: inactivates 62 enzymes (Judd); increases the aging process (Yiamouyiannis); increases the incidence of cancer and tumor growth (Waldbott/Yaiamouyiannis); disrupts the immune system(Walbott); causes genetic damage (Tsutsui, et al); interrupts DNA repair-enzyme activity (Waldbott); increases arthritis and is a systemic poison.
L.P. Anthony, DDS, editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association in 1944, said, "We have very strong circumstantial evidence of systemic toxicity of the so-called absolutely safe concentrate of fluoridated water."
Roy E. Hanford, MD, in "Where is science Taking U.S.? in the Saturday Review; said "Don't drink fluoridated water.... Fluoride is a corrosive poison which will produce harm on a long term basis." Dr. Charles Heyd, past AMA president, said "Some 61,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. result from fluoridation each year. I repeat, 61,000." (Burk and Yiamouyiannis). One study found that fluoride elevates cancer mortality 17 percent in 16 years in large cities. Gerald Judd, Ph.D. said, "You have been led to believe that fluorine makes teeth harder. The fact is, it actually makes teeth softer."
George Meinig, a founder of the American Academy of Endodontics,said "The U.S. sees a 22 percent increase in decay every 16 years from fluoride use and a 50 percent decline in decay every 20 years compared with Finland's 98 percent, Sweden's 80 percent and Holland's 72 percent. And they are non-fluoridated. Gerald Judd: " My only goal is to tell the truth about the ill-effects of a known toxin. I mentioned the paper being published by the Health Freedom News on the neurotoxicity of fluoride. Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin, and this has been known for some time; at least since the early 1940s, well before the fluoridation experiment with Grand Rapids."
Dr. Judd found that fluoride can inactivate 62 enzyme systems. As a naturopath, nutritionist and master herbalist, I cannot endorse a substance that has known detrimental effects.
Geoffrey Smith stated, "Recent studies suggest that fluoride may be genotoxic." He added, "There is now a substantial body of evidence suggesting that fluoride is mutagenic." Gibson also noted, "Fluoride is one of the most toxic inorganic chemicals in the Earth's crust. However ... With increasing experience, doubts about both safety and efficacy have arisen."
And he added, "A possible link between fluoridation of public water supplies and an increase in the cancer death rate has been debated for over 20 years, and there is now no doubt that fluoride can cause genetic damage."
Gibson noted, "Inhibitory effects of fluoride on different enzyme system have been demonstrated, and a section of the population may therefore be at risk of compromised immune system function from water fluoridation schemes."
Get the drift? Fluoride is not everything it is cracked up to be. Mutagenic, enzyme inhibition, genetic damage, increased cancer rates, genotixic and controversial, all describe fluoride.
Tsutsui et al, noted a significant increase in chromosome aberrations at the chromatid level, sister chromatid exchanges, and unscheduled DNA synthesis were induced by NaF in a dose-and time- dependent manner.
The last thing I would say is that by endorsing fluoride you totally eliminate the real prevention of tooth decay: good, sound nutrition. Tooth brushing [important as it is] does not stop tooth decay.
I have watched many children go from all 20 carious deciduous teeth, to 20 eburnated [hardened] teeth, which are non-painful and hard as rock. I have never seen fluoride do this [after 21 years of dentistry], and fluoride is not even a part of my caries prevention program.
Dr. Ted Spence is a naturopath, nutritionist and dentist on
the eastern shore of Maryland.
|Top|
FOR TWO YEARS, Americans have heard an unrelenting mantra of change emanating from the campaign trail. But now that President-elect Barack Obama has begun forming his cabinet, we're seeing a cadre of more deeply entrenched insiders than any administration that has preceded it.
In regard to key foreign policy advisors, all three of Obama's selections either initially supported the Iraq war, or still do. On the economic front, each appointee maintains a close relationship with the Jewish triad of Ben Bernanke, Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan—as well as bailout engineer Henry Paulson. Barack Obama himself is a Council on Foreign Relations member, has strong ties to Zbigniew Brzezinski, and participated in a clandestine meeting with Hillary Clinton at Bilderberg member Diane Feinstein's house at the time when 2008 Bilderberg members were congregating only a few miles away.
Below is an overview of Obama's top 14 selections to date. When considering their collective histories, a trend becomes clear, proving that the more things change under Obama, the more they stay the same.
1. TIMOTHY GEITHNER – TREASURY SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, president and CEO of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, director of policy development for IMF, member Group of Thirty (G30), employed at Kissinger & Associates, architect of the recent 2008 financial bailouts, mentored by Lawrence Summers and Robert Rubin.
2. PAUL VOLCKER – ECONOMIC RECOVERY ADVISORY BOARD
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, North American chairman of Trilateral Commission, Federal Reserve chairman during Carter and Reagan administrations, president of Federal Reserve Bank of New York, G30 member, chairman Rothschild Wolfensohn Company, key figure in the collapse of the gold standard during the Nixon administration, longtime associate of the Rockefeller family.
3. RAHM EMANUEL – CHIEF OF STAFF
Member of Israeli Defense Force, staunch Zionist, House member, Board of Directors for Freddie Mac, member of Bill Clinton's finance campaign committee, made $16.2 million during 2.5 years as an investment banker for Wasserstein Perella. His father was a member of the Israeli Irgun terrorist group.
4. LAWRENCE SUMMERS – NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, treasury secretary during Clinton administration, chief economist at World Bank, former president of Harvard University, Brookings Institute board member, huge proponent of globalization while working for the IMF, protégée of David Rockefeller, mentored by Robert Rubin.
5. DAVID AXELROD – SENIOR ADVISOR
Political consultant whose past clients include Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Christopher Dodd; main Obama fixer in the William Ayers and Reverend Wright scandals.
6. HILLARY CLINTON – SECRETARY OF STATE
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, clandestine CIA asset used to infiltrate the anti-war movement at Yale University and the Watergate hearings, senior partner at the Rose Law Firm, key figure in the Mena drug trafficking affair, architect of the Waco disaster, implicated in the murder/ cover-up of Vince Foster, and many other deaths.
7. JOSEPH BIDEN – VICE PRESIDENT
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senator since 1972, member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, current chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, strong Zionist sympathizer who recently told Rabbi Mark S. Golub of Shalom TV, "I am a Zionist. You don't have to be a Jew to be a Zionist."
8. BILL RICHARDSON – COMMERCE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former U.S. congressman, chairman of the Democratic National Convention in 2004, employee of Kissinger Associates, UN ambassador, governor of New Mexico, energy secretary, major player in the Monica Lewinsky cover-up with Bilderberg luminary Vernon Jordan.
9. ROBERT GATES – DEFENSE SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former CIA Director, defense secretary under President Bush, co-chaired CFR task force with Zbigniew Brzezinski, knee-deep in the Iran-Contra scandal, named in a 1999 class action lawsuit pertaining to the Mena drug trafficking affair.
10. TOM DASCHLE – HEALTH SECRETARY
Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations, former Senate majority leader, Citibank lackey, mentored by Robert Rubin.
11. ERIC HOLDER – ATTORNEY GENERAL
Key person in the pardon of racketeer Marc Rich, deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, facilitated the pardon of 16 Puerto Rican FALN terrorists under Bill Clinton.
12. JANET NAPOLITANO – HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR
Council on Foreign Relations, Arizona governor, attorney for Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration, instrumental in the OKC cover-up, where she declared, "We'll pursue every bit of evidence and every lead," described as another Janet Reno, soft on illegal immigration (i.e. pro-amnesty and drivers licenses to illegals).
13. GEN. JAMES L. JONES – NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR
Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, European supreme allied commander, special envoy for Middle-East Security during Bush administration, board of directors for Chevron and Boeing, NATO commander, member of Brent Scowcroft's Institute for International Affairs along with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bobby Ray Inman, Bilderberg luminary Henry Kissinger and former CIA Director John Deutch.
14. SUSAN RICE – U.N. AMBASSADOR
Council on Foreign Relations, Rhodes scholar, campaign foreign policy advisor to presidential candidates John Kerry and Michael Dukakis, member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council and assistant secretary of state for Africa, member of the Brookings Institute (funded by the Ford Foundation and the Rockefellers), and member of the Aspen Strategy Group (teeming with Bilderberg insiders such as Richard Armitage, Brent Scowcroft, and Madeleine Albright).
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
THE 39 END THE FED RALLIES held across America recently inspired
two Milwaukee neighborhoods to create their own local currency.
The tanking economy—run with Federal Reserve debt notes that represent the captivity of the people's money and credit by entrenched private bankers—is aggravating an increasing number of Americans who are fed up with living in "Fedville."
The Chicago Tribune, to its credit, acknowledged the local currency idea in nearby Milwaukee. Tribune reporter Erika Slife, on Dec. 3, wrote: "They may be talking funny money, but it's not funny business. . . .Residents from the Milwaukee neighborhoods of Riverwest and East Side are scheduled to meet . . . to discuss printing their own money. The idea is that the local cash could be used at neighborhood stores and businesses, thus encouraging local spending. The result, supporters hope, would be a bustling local economy, even as the rest of the nation deals with a recession."
This money is scrip, which has a long and noble history.
Conventional reporters usually fail to realize that the real "funny money" is the "official" money that the U.S. Treasury prints for the private Federal Reserve for pennies on the bill, regardless of the denomination.
Only it's not funny that the Treasury turns the money over to the Fed so the central bank can loan it back to the federal government at full face value plus interest. Federal Reserve notes are loaned into circulation, not spent into circulation. This creates the paradox that more development means more debt. And since the Fed and commercial banks only loan credit to borrowers, there is always much more debt than there is cash in circulation to pay all the public and private debts. It is a debt-treadmill that helps only the international Rothschild money monopoly and their greedy, partner bankers.
In Milwaukee "you have all these people who have local currency, and they're going to spend it at local stores," Sura Faraj in Milwaukee, a community organizer who helped spearhead the plan, was quoted by the Tribune. "They can't spend it at the Wal-Mart or the Home Depot, but they can spend it at their local hardware store or their local grocery store."
A key aspect of this populist idea is spending the planned currency at local stores, not at the big chain stores whose main stock in trade is Asian merchandise, especially that from China. The chain stores help forge the chains that bind the American economy by creating a far-reaching distribution system for selling massive amounts of foreign manufactured goods, thereby overwhelming the fragile remnant of American manufacturing.
Any remaining productive American factories that are not eyeball-deep in debt like the Big Three automakers are as rare as a congressman who supports tariffs on imports to cancel the financial advantage for American-domiciled companies to outsource their manufacturing jobs overseas.
A local publication, ExpressMilwaukee.com, noted: "While creating cash for designated neighborhoods isn't an entirely new concept, it's definitely new to Milwaukee," adding that Ms. Faraj was recently quoted in Newsweek magazine about the plans of her organization, Riverwest Neighborhood Association.
"The currency is tentatively called ‘river currency' and if local businesses get with the program, it could be used as cash at their respective establishments," the local paper added.
Ms. Faraj also told the local paper, "We do hope this will boost the economy, and define what it means to shop locally." Incentives have been considered to entice consumers into using the new money. For example, they could trade $100 Fed notes for $110 in local scrip money, essentially netting them a 9.1 percent discount at participating stores.
And "as long as communities don't create coins, or print bills that resemble federal dollars, organizations are free to produce their own greenbacks—and they don't even have to be green," observed the Tribune, which historically was one of America's leading populist daily newspapers.
Yves Jacques, an advocate of the "social credit" monetary system, as advanced by the Pilgrims of St. Michael (the White Berets), told AFP by phone from a California monetary conference that it's too soon to tell how the Milwaukee experiment will go. He said it depends on the basis and nature of the system and how well it's planned.
But Jacques believes there is little to stop people from trying innovative, new ideas, given the sharp economic downturn Americans and other people are experiencing.
Recent newspapers (including The Michael Journal) and informational bulletins from the St. Michael Pilgrims note that local currencies have been tried or are being tried in some 35 countries, including Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Chile and Brazil.
Reach Mark Anderson at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
At the height of the 60-hour siege in the Indian financial capital of Mumbai , a phone call was placed to Pakistan President Ali Zardari. The caller, claiming to be Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, threatened war against Pakistan in retaliation for the terrorist attacks that killed almost 200 persons in Mumbai.
As a result of the phone call, Pakistan scrambled armed fighter jets and sent them screaming toward the Indian border. The Pakistani prime minister was called in the middle of the night. The foreign minister was hastily put on a plane and flown to Islamabad. Pakistan was put on a war footing and the major players needed for fighting a war were assembled in quick order. Preparations were made to divert thousands of troops from the western border with Afghanistan where Pakistan is currently assisting NATO forces in fighting terrorists.
For 24 hours the two nuclear powers were a hair trigger away from war. The United States—having close (and increasingly closer) ties to India—was contacted by Zardari, who informed the State Department about the increasingly dangerous situation. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice contacted her Indian counterpart, who informed her that no such call had been made.
For its part, Pakistan maintains that indeed the call originated from a recognized phone number within the Indian government's Foreign Ministry and, while some protocols were not followed in terms of verification, that it had all the earmarking of being "the real deal." Some will shrug this off as a prank call made by someone from within the Indian government angry at the terrorist attacks in Mumbai. However, there are more troubling explanations, one of which is that the call was a deliberate attempt on the part of certain unseen players who want to see a war between the two nations. So the question is cui bono? (Who benefits?)
ISRAEL'S USE OF ‘FALSE FLAGS'
Using false flag operations in order to get two nations at each other's throats is nothing new for the Zionist state of Israel. In 1954 Israel attempted to bomb American interests in Egypt for the purpose of destroying any growing rapprochement between the two countries in what became known as the Lavon Affair.
In 1967 Israel attacked and attempted to sink the USS Liberty, again to be blamed on Egypt in order to create tension between the U.S. and Soviet Union. During the Reagan administration, a Mossad team broadcast messages from a remote location in Libya (termed Operation Trojan Horse) implicating the Arab country in a series of yet-unsolved terror attacks that resulted in the United States bombing the home of Muhammar Qaddafi, Libya's president.
In 1983, Israel learned of and refused to warn the U.S. about a plot to bomb the American embassy in Beirut and its accompanying Marine barracks that resulted in the deaths of close to 250 Americans.
In 1995, immediately following the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Israeli spies and provocateurs working in the American media tried pinning the attack on Iraq.
And, of course, there is the mother of all false flags, 9-11, the worst terrorist attack to take place on American soil. These attacks were used as the pretext for invading and destroying Iraq, who Israel and U.S. neocons falsely portrayed as a major threat to the stability of the region.
Therefore, Israel—with very close ties to India—has everything to gain by starting a war between the mostly Hindu nation of over a billion and its Muslim neighbor to the west that Israel has always seen as a thorn in its side. [India also contains one of the world's largest Muslim populations.—Ed.]
FINANCIAL REASONS
Besides anomalies surrounding the attacks themselves that resulted in close to 200 deaths, there are other reasons to assume Israel has her hand in the entire event for her own far-reaching agenda. Given that India is one of Israel's biggest buyers of her armaments, a sustained war between Pakistan and India would be a boon for Israel, both in terms of sales and product testing. The weapons systems Israel is planning to use in her much-dreamed of war against Iran would get their dry run on the battlefields of India and Pakistan.
A former schoolteacher fluent in several languages, Mark Glenn spoke at the AFP-TBR conference on the Middle East panel. He is a prolific writer whose provocative essays have been published worldwide. He and his wife Vicki and their eight children maintain a ranch in northern Idaho. His book, No Beauty in the Beast, can be ordered from TBR BOOK CLUB (1-877-773-9077) for $28 ppd.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
President George W. Bush has said repeatedly, privately, in the past, that a pardon for wrongfully imprisoned former Rep. Jim Traficant (D-Ohio) is off the table. And it now appears that Bush intends to leave office with Traficant remaining in prison until his unusually long sentence (eight years) ends in August of 2009.
Former Youngstown Mayor George M. McKelvey—a Democrat—made national news in 2004 when he endorsed Bush. He has been urging Bush to grant Traficant either a presidential pardon or a commutation of his prison sentence.
McKelvey has been asking Bush, since 2004—two years after Traficant was sent to prison—to give Traficant his freedom, but the president refuses to act. For his own part, Traficant has refused a pardon, because to accept a pardon would require that he admit to committing crimes that he says he did not commit.
In a radio interview on December 1, McKelvey pointed out that Traficant is serving a longer sentence than most people convicted on second-degree murder charges, declaring the Traficant case "the greatest injustice in the history of this state."
Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff—a hardline advocate for Israel whose mother was a citizen of Israel—was, at the time of the Traficant prosecution by the Justice Department, the head of the department's criminal division and thus the individual who spearheaded Traficant's unjust prosecution.
Critics contend that Chertoff's hostility to Traficant stemmed from the fact that, as Traficant himself said both privately and publicly, Traficant was, in his words, "the No. 1 target" of the Israeli lobby.
The full, never-before-told story of the corrupt Justice Department campaign to destroy Traficant is told in Target: Traficant.
Another case of Bush's injustice is his refusal to commute the more than 10-year sentences of U.S. Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, who used firearms in the line of duty, protecting the border.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins
Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem,
Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and
My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
|Top|
Former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and Several Citigroup executives are facing a federal lawsuit filed by investors, who charge that the bankers created a "Ponzi-like scheme" to keep one of the largest financial institutions afloat so they could quietly unload their stock and protect their fortunes.
It's become a common story now on Wall Street: Bankers and investment firms packaged up bad loans, known as collateralized debt obligations, and sold them to investors around the world as safe investments. But when borrowers began to default on the lousy loans the whole house of cards came crashing down. Eventually, financial institutions were swamped with toxic assets and went running to the government for a trillion-dollar bailout.
In the case of Rubin, who is currently acting as an economic advisor to President-elect Barack Obama, and is cronies, they took an extra step that may have been illegal, according to the lawsuit. It is alleged that, starting four years ago, Rubin and some Citigroup executives started dumping the bad debt in various corporations to keep it off the books. Rubin and his banking buddies then slowly sold off stock, pocketing hundreds of millions of dollars to protect their own fortunes.
When news of Citigroup's troubled assets was made public, the stock tanked losing nearly 90 percent of its value in one year. But by this time, it was too late for most investors, who were forced to take the hit for the bank's exposure to mortgage-related securities and instruments.
Now, a group of investors has filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan, claiming that the bankers hid the bad debt from investors until the bottom fell out and they lost some $122 billion.
The lawsuit charges that Rubin and his pals were able to prop up Citigroup shares until they could cash out more than $150 million for themselves in "suspicious" stock sales that were "calculated to maximize the personal benefits from undisclosed inside information."
Citigroup executives created "a quasi-Ponzi scheme" to hide troubled assets and keep Citigroup's stock up while they unloaded some 3 million shares between Jan. 1, 2004, and Feb. 22, 2008, for massive profits.
In broader terms, the case against Rubin and Citigroup execs could be the start of a series of high-profile investor lawsuits targeting banks and other financial institutions, because it appears that most did this to save their own hides.
"If Citi is getting sued for this, who's going to be next?" analyst Christopher Whalen told Bloomberg News. "The whole industry did this."
For the incoming Obama administration, the lawsuit against Rubin, who has been advising the president-elect on the economic crisis, could prove embarrassing. A long-time advocate of deregulation Wall Street, which allowed financial institutions to consolidate into one-stop shopping for insurance, banking and investments, Rubin has been fingered as one of the former Clintonites who is responsible for the current mess.
Rubin is perhaps best known for pushing the North American Free Trade Agreement under President Clinton in the early 1990s. Derivatives are largely to blame for the financial crisis today.
So far this year, citigroup has benefitted from $306 billion
in bailout money from the government and low interest loans from
the Federal Reserve.
|Top|
The head of the NRA, Wayne Lapierre, says Barack Obama lied in his campaign promise not to go after america's guns. "He's not enven in office," LaPierre said, "yet he's fired the opening salvos in a war against the future of the Second amendment, our hunting and shooting traditions, and you. Add it all up, and you have the potential for a Second Amendment, our hunting and shooting traditions, and you. Add it all up, and you have the potential for a Second amendment disaster unlike any other we have ever faced,"
He then cited five Obama actions:
* Appointing Illinois Rep. Rahm to be White House chief of staff. In Congress, Emanuel earned an "F" rating from NRA, and in the Clinton administration, he was known as the point man on gun control."
* If Hillary Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state, she'll rip the Second amendment right out of the bill of Rights. She'll be the nation's top diplomat with the power to determine whether the United Nations will pass, and Obama will sign, a global gun ban treaty that will surrender our second amendment rights and our national sovereignty.
* Nominating ex-senator and former majority leader Tom Daschle - an avowed enemy of NRA - to be secretary oof health and human services. NRA was responsible for defeating Daschle when he ran in South Dakota for re-election to the senate. If Daschle is confirmed, he could hold the ultimate power to declare guns a "public health menace" and regulate away our essential liberties.
* Nomination Eric Holder to be attorney general. As former assistant attorney general, Holder wasa key architect and vocal advocate for the Clinton era's sweeping gun ban agenda. He supported national handgun licensing, mandatory trigger locks, and ending gun shows as we know them.
Holder opposed the Supreme court's District of Columbia's Heller decision that declared the Second Amendment and individual right. Holder also called for reviving the Clinton gun bans and, as attorney general, would fight in court to prevent the landmark Heller decision from being made applicable to state and local governments. Holder wold control BATFE and wield enormous power to harass gun owners and sue America's arms makers out of existence.
* In the job application for the Obama administration, Obama made it clear that gun owners are second-class citizens and told 80 million gun owners not to even bother applying for a job. In the "White House Personnel Data Questionnaire" he asked:
"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage." That question endorses gun registration - a mandate in only five states - and buys into the anti-gun premise that firearms are inherently dangerous and gun owners are prone to misusing them.
"That's an outrageous mind set, especially for the president-elect
whose sworn duty will be to uphold the U.S. constitution, including
our rights to keep and bear arms," said LaPierre. "Obama
clearly wants to make gun registration the law of the land."
|Top|
and
AFP StaffWhile the Supreme Court, as expected, declined to hear the first challenge to Barack Obama's constitutional qualifications for president, the fight is far from over. More challenges are making their way to the high court. If, as likely, they, too, are rejected, more cases will be filed as Obama, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, imposes his legislative agenda on the American people.
When the high court, without comment, refused to accept the first case on December 5, it effectively upheld a lower court ruling that citizens have "no standing" to raise the issue because they cannot claim injury. (A citizen is "not injured" if his president is unqualified.)
But when "President" Obama pushes through, for example, a tax increase to "redistribute your wealth," a citizen can have "standing" because of the "injury" to his wallet. Many Americans plan to make this case.
It only takes four of nine justices to force a full hearing and ruling by the Supreme Court. This means that at least one of the four "conservatives" failed to vote to hear the case: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. All the justices will be receiving mail from outraged patriots. They do read their mail.
It is possible that three justices wanted a full hearing. The court rarely allows the public to know such things. In refusing to accept the case, the court said only that, "The application for stay addressed to Justice Clarence Thomas and referred to the court is denied." The court is historically mute about its divisions. The decision in 1954 to integrate the public schools was announced as "unanimous." Years later, as justices died and memoirs were published, it was learned that some justices dissented, but agreed to have it called "unanimous" to avoid dividing the nation further.
There is hope that, ultimately, the Supreme Court will accept the case and force Obama to produce an unedited birth certificate. The least outcome will be the education of millions of Americans that "President" Obama is unqualified because he is not a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution.
On what may be the greatest constitutional crisis since 1861, the mainstream media have continued to dodge Obama's "natural-born American" issue as deftly as he has dodged it himself and have managed to keep the controversy out of the minds of the very large majority of Americans by simply ignoring the developments of the story for six months. Except for an occasional letter to the editor and only recently a few biased columnist distorting the facts and belittling the "conspiracy theorists" for pursuing such "folly," both print and electronic media have been virtually silent on the matter.
WorldNet Daily (WND), and Internet news service, reported that more than 60,000 "urgent overnight" letters and e-mails were delivered to the court from the WND website subscribers alone, asking that this case be heard, lest an alien be illegally ensconced in the White House.
Unlike the Philip Berg suit filed in federal court in August and later stonewalled, as previously reported by AFP, Leo Donofrio, a retired New Jersey attorney who identifies himself as a "citizen's advocate," did not challenge Obama's claim of being born in Hawaii. His suit against New Jersey's Secretary of state Nina Wells says it made no difference considering the British citizenship of Obama's father.
"Do you understand that my suit is not about Obama's birthplace?" Donofrio asked AFP. "The birth certificate issue as an ancillary matter in that the person I sued, the New Jersey secretary of state, should have, at the very least, requested to see Obama's birth certificate. But that is not a core issue in my case. And I have publicly criticized those who brought lawsuits but failed to nail the main issue - that Obama can never be a "natural born" citizen - even if he was born on the Mall in D.C. with two million witnesses - since, at the time of his birth, he was born as a British citizen/subject.
"Despite how the media distort it, my lawsuit is challenging Obama's eligibility on the fact that he has admitted he was a British citizen ‘at birth.' His own web site told me so. And FactCheck.org backed it up with their analysis of Britain's Nationality Act of 1948."
News people who have cited FactCheck.org as a "nonpartisan" source should know that the same source has confirmed that Obama was a British citizen "at birth" through his father.
The New Jersey suit firmly argues that John McCain was not eligible to be president, either, and Donofrio has handled McCain's decision to run - and the Senate's faux resolution saying he could run - with harsh treatment,. Donofrio said, just as AFP did earlier this year, that McCain is not a natural-born citizen since he was born in Panama and, despite, popular belief and the Senate's sanitizing, the military base there was not on U.S. soil (as per the Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual 1116.1-4(c). However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1964 that Sen. Barry Goldwater, Republican presidential nominee, was eligible even though Arizona was a territory, not a state, when he was born.
Should the Electoral college somehow be convinced to reject Obama and install McCain a whole ne can of worms could be opened, now that the legal doors would have sprung wide. Should they not, which is far more likely, then legalists have already pointed out that until his "natural-born" position is ascertained, every executive order, veto, pardon, and congressional approval that he signs can be legally challenged by "We the People."
Donofrio was questioning Obama's citizenship because the former Illinois senator, whose mother was from Kansas, was born in Hawaii and his father was a Kenyan native and therefore a British national. Therefore, Donofrio argues, Obama's dual citizenship does not make Obama "a natural-born citizen" as required by Article II, section I of the U.S. Constitution. The fact that he also became a citizen of Indonesia, and became "Barry Soetoro" at age six via his mother's next marriage, futher muddied the legal waters.
Following the rejection of Donofrio's suit by New Jersey's courts, Justice David Souter had rejected a petition that asked the court to prevent the meeting of the Electoral College on Dec. 15, which will certify Obama as the first half-black/half-white president.
In a highly unusual move, Justice Clarence Thomas had asked his colleagues on the court to consider the request of Leo Donofrio. This is unusual because it is outside the unwritten protocol for one justice to attempt to trump another, and should it happen, the court almost never accepts it. Nevertheless, the high court's only black brought the matter to his colleagues asa result of the writ that was filed by Donofrio, who had discovered under Rule 22, the matter can be submitted to another justice for consideration.
Donofrio's choice of Thomas may have been a touch of genius. Not only did it remove any potential charge of "racism" by the Obama backers, but Donofrio remembered that when Obama was on the campaign trail and was asked which, if an, Supreme Court justice he would not have appointed, he replied, "Clarence Tomas." Donofrio knew that Thomas would harbor no bias in favor of Obama, even though they are both of African descent.
However, while it was enough to get the consideration to a private conference of the justices, it was all for naught when they said "No" to certiorari without comment.
Some are saying that Donofrio's case is off-target and that the real issue is where Obama really was born and because of the video testimony of Obamas's relatives swearing they were present at his birth in Mombasa, Kenya, there is great uncertainty (and no proof yet) that he was born in Hawaii. If Obama was born in Hawaii, then all those proud-as-can-be relatives of his in Kenya are lying.
As mainstream America sits, those who have pursued the truth are inflamed. A letter to the editor of Phoenix's Arizona Republic said in part:
The issue of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible to become president of the United States is the most important political issue of this century. Ultimately it will determine whether the Constitution of the United States of America will ever again be respected as the supreme law of the land. It is not inconceivable that this issue will determine whether our 232-year experiment in self-government will disintegrate in civil conflict.
If Obama does not prove his birthplace with unquestionable
veracity, he will not be considered president by a very large
and very angry segment of American society. If this issue is swept
under the rug, a lot of people are not going to feel like playing
nice.
|Top|
Hardly a day goes by without some article, usually a lament, appearing in the so-called mainstream media. Recently Washington Post writer David broder, who usually writes a column on politics from the Democratic point of view, wrote a column on education. Yes, it is from the Democratic point of view and is titled "Rescuing a College Education."
Broder wants to save American colleges from being the private playgrounds of the elite and made available to the backbone of America, the middle class. His knight in shining armor who will rescue the colleges is President-elect Barack Obama.
Broder cites a former North Carolina Democratic governor, Jim Hunt, as another champion of affordable college education. Hunt recently headed up a commission of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education which issued a report: "Measuring Up 2008: The National Report Card on Higher Education."
Hunt is no newcomer to the role of champion of education. When he was governor of North carolina he liked to be called the "education governor." He led a literacy program where volunteers, including Hunt himself, taught people of all ages how to read and write.
College education today is simply unaffordable for most people. In fact, the cost of college, including tuition and fees, has risen three times as fast as the median family income. To cap it off, student borrowers have increased by 50 percent and their debts have doubled.
The report finds that the affordability barrier to college is eroding America's standing in the world. Amont Americans between the ages of 35 and 64 the United States is second only to Canada in the percentage of people holding at least two-year degrees. But among those ages 24 to 34, we lag behind not only Canada but also9 Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, France and Denmark. When it comes to college completion rates, we are 15th out of 29 rated nations, barely above Mexico and Turkey.
Hunt urges all governors to make higher education a priority, too. He notes that states have focused on K-12 education and improved performance of elementary and secondary schools and then on kindergarten and pre-K.
He says that many professors are underworked and their course load must be increased. Incidentally, it is no secret that some professors teach only six to nine hours a week.
In 2003 Charley Reese, whose column appeared regularly in AFP before his retirement last September, said "The main problem with public education is that it is a political institution controlled by politicians. They have screwed it up, but as usual, they will not admit their own failings and instead blame teachers, students and parents.
"I got a pretty good education in public schools, but that was before the era of political correctness and before crackbrain theories began to flow out of colleges of education like orders out of an outhouse.
"We did not take standardized tests, and there were no social promotions. Fear of failing was a great motivator. The idea of having to repeat a year sitting in a classroom full of younger children was, ugh, a nasty thought to children of my era. There was also the fear of what our parents would do.
"I think public education is so messed up, it needs to be abolished.... the public school industry - that's what it has become - is too riddled with entrenched bureaucrats and too politicized to ever be reformed. It should simply be dismantled, along with the colleges of education, which are hotbeds of claptrap.
All the "education" experts like gov. Hunt and Barack Obama and their promoters like newspaperman David broder ought do some original thinking and step back from the children manipulators of the education industry.
They should heed the commonsense and practical wisdom of people
like Charley Reese whom, I am sure, they would have no trouble
finding.
|Top|
Tragically, over the Thanksgiving holiday, the world was reminded how evil and cruel people can be. According to emerging accounts of the events in India, about a dozen well-armed and devastatingly well-trained terrorists laid siege on the city of Mumbai, killing almost 200 people, and terrorizing thousands.
Regardless of the reasons, the indiscriminate shooting upon masses of unarmed and defenseless people is chilling and reprehensible. How were these terrorists able to continue so long, relatively unchallenged, killing so many?
India's gun laws are her business, of course. However, once the shock of these events and the initial reaction of fear passes, Americans should take away a valuable lesson about real homeland security and gun control from this tragedy.
Gun control advocates tell us that removing guns from society makes us safer. If that were the case why do the worst shootings happen in gun-free zones, like schools? And while accidents do happen, aggressive, terroristic shootings like this are unheard of at gun and knife shows, or military bases. It bears repeating that an armed society truly is a polite society.
The fact is that firearm technology exists. It cannot be un-invented. As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government.
History shows us that another tragedy of gun laws is genocide. Hitler, for example, knew well that in order to enact his "final solution," disarmament of the Jewish population was a necessary precursor. While it is not always the case that an unarmed populace will be killed by their government, if a government is going to kill its own people, it must disarm them first so they cannot fight back. Disarmament must happen at a time when overall trust in government is high and under the guise of safety for the people, or perhaps the children. Knowing that any government, no matter how idealistically started, can become despotic, the Founding Fathers enabled the future freedom of Americans by enacting the Second amendment.
In our own country, we should be ever vigilant against any
attempts to disarm the people, especially in this economic downturn.
I expect violent crime to rise sharply in the coming days, and
as municipalities are even more financially strained, the police
will be even less able to respond to crime. In many areas, local
police could become absorbed with revenue-generating activities,
like minor traffic violations and the asset forfeiture opportunities
of non-violent drug offenses. Your safety has always, ultimately,
been your own responsibility, but never more so than now. People
have a natural right to defend themselves. Governments that take
that away from their people should be highly suspect.
|Top|
Dispatched from a mother ship in the Gulf of Aden, a dozen pirates toting rocket-propelled grenades, AK 47s, and grappling hooks leap from speedboats to seize control of another ship, which they then commandeer back to the Port of Eyl in Somalia. So far this year, African pirates have hijacked over 100 vessels, collecting approximately $150 million in ransom money. The payments are concealed in waterproof suitcases, then unloaded into the ocean from specially designated helicopters.
Becoming more brazen each week, the pirates recently abducted a Ukranian ship carrying $30 million worth of Soviet-made tanks, grenade launchers, and ammunition; a Saudi Arabian supertanker loaded with $100 million of crude oil; a British luxury cruise liner; a Japanese chemical tanker; a UN relief boat; while an American naval supply ship was also unsuccessfully targeted.
Currently, at least 17 ships and 300 seamen are being detained in Somali ports as negotiations between the pirates and owners take place.
The problem has taken on such international significance that the seas surrounding Africa are being guarded by NATO, China, the U.S., European Union, Russia, India, France, and the UK; while South Korea and Japan intend to join the coalition. To protect their interests, warships, destroyers, helicopters, and nuclear-powered submarines now patrol this area to combat what some call an "oceanic mafia epidemic."
Newsweek reports that some ship owners have taken to lining the outside of their crafts with barbed wire to prevent sea bandits from boarding. Additional deterrents include electrified fences, high-powered fire hoses, and Long-Range Acoustic Devices (IRADs) that emit an excruciating wall of sound capable of deafening or bursting the eardrums of would-be hijackers.
Despite these efforts, Somali piracy has become a booming industry, with ransom payments surpassing the entire budget of some provinces, such as Puntland. The pirates even boast an official spokesman (Sugule Ali), while syndicate leaders reside in mansions, drive imported luxury cars, and open special eateries which cater to the pirates and their hostages. To facilitate the movement of their illegally seized currency, pirates either launder it through Kenya (whose financial system annually handles over $100 million in dirty money), or via hawala—an informal Western Union-style transfer network in the Islamic world that leaves no paper trail, no records, and has no government regulation.
A recent report by the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics claims there have been "no arrests or prosecution for money laundering" related to these activities.
The modern-day piracy phenomenon began in 1991 when warlords overthrew Somali dictator Mohamed Siad Barre. With no effective central government, fishermen in this region began noticing that laws against illegal fishing along their 1,800-mile coastline were not being enforced, while they accused international companies of dumping toxic and/or nuclear waste in their waters. With their health and livelihoods threatened, along with mass hunger and continual war against Ethiopia, vigilante syndicates such as the Majarteen clan arose from this chaos.
Spokesman Sugule Ali characterizes the situation as such. "We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We are simply patrolling our seas. Think of us like a coast guard." Another pirate ringleader, Asad Abdulahi, concurs. "We don't see hijacking as a criminal act, but as a road tax because we have no central government to control our seas."
The problem is more complex. Evidence shows that some of the ransom money is being funneled toward al-Shabaab, a 3,000-member insurgency group founded in 2004 that has engaged in bombings, shootings, and other violent acts in their wars against Ethiopian soldiers and the Somali government.
Since 30 percent of the world's oil passes through the Gulf of Aden, the Horn of Africa leading to the Indian Ocean is an area of global importance. It becomes even more strategic when considering that sophisticated weaponry—brokered in secret deals with Sudan—is being seized, not to mention a ten-fold increase in insurance premiums for ships traveling through this treacherous territory.
Still, some suggest Somali piracy is in fact an excuse for certain countries to exercise or regain their naval supremacy. On the other hand, Jeff Stein of CQ Homeland Security writes that "shadowy individuals in Europe or elsewhere may be pulling the strings, ordering ship hijackings from lists of sailing vessels and satellite tracking."
He then quotes a CIA expert on Africa. "The timing and knowledge of which ships to attack are too good to leave to pirates."
Journalists Patrick Mayoyo and Lucas Barasa agree. A Somali military policeman told them that "unidentified Western countries are benefiting from piracy.
These pirates are well-connected, and some work with mafias and other international criminals who supply them with arms through countries like Yemen." A final contingent looks to Israel as the main culprit, claiming that they're not the actual pirates, but merely sponsors; their goal being to spread piracy so that the Red Sea off the coast of Saudi Arabia would have to be internationalized to combat "Islamic terrorism."
To make matters worse, U.N. mandates prohibit crew members on merchant ships from carrying firearms, and don't allow navies to board a ship after its been hijacked.
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Republican critics of President-elect Barack Obama are enthusiastically shouting "gotcha" in the wake of allegations that Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) was secretly trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat. However, there are much bigger long-term policy implications at work behind the scenes.
The truth is that Illinois politics—particularly in Obama's home base of Chicago—have long been known as a cauldron of venal political corruption with a handful of powerful secret interests directing the course of events. Even if Obama has "clean hands," the thread of corruption surrounding the governor and other Democratic power brokers may start to unravel, implicating many close Obama associates.
Already, Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is being implicated in the context of the bizarre Senate seat-for-sale tragicomedy.
The Watergate affair, which came to light as a result of a break-in by operatives linked to the Republican Nixon administration, snowballed into a more-wide-ranging series of scandals involving influence peddling, obstruction of justice, bribery, illegal campaign contributions, etc, netting a host of GOP figures and ultimately bringing down Richard Nixon and Vice President Spiro Agnew.
Although an argument can be made that there was a secret agenda behind the Watergate affair—that it was effectively a coup d'etat designed to topple Nixon (who was intent on cleaning house in official Washington and redirecting U.S. foreign policy against the long-standing "special relationship" with Israel)—the fact is that the scandal did entwine the president and prevent him from acting as he wished, and kept Nixon at bay for the two years following the 1972 election (which Nixon won by a landslide) until he was forced out of office.
The ongoing revelations in Illinois may well have a similar impact on the new Obama administration, keeping the president on edge, essentially destabilized. This is precisely what happened with the so-called "Whitewater" scandal that enveloped Bill and Hillary Clinton from virtually the first days of his administration, ultimately leading—through a tangled series of events—to the Monica Lewinsky mess, involving Bill Clinton's illicit affair with a White House intern.
Despite the common (and quite inaccurate) perception—particularly by Clinton's many "conservative" critics—that somehow the "liberal media" lionized Clinton during his presidency, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the truth is that throughout his presidency, Clinton was very much under fire from the mass media in America.
The record demonstrates that it was that media—which is controlled by Jewish families and financial networks sympathetic to Israel—which played such a large part in promoting public knowledge of the scandals surrounding the Clintons.
The January 4, 1999 issue of The Nation featured a revealing article by Michael Tomasky which examined this phenomenon in quite revealing detail. Tomasky pointed out that it was actually The New York Times—the flagship "liberal" newspaper—which played a substantial part in leaking many damaging revelations from the long-running investigation of President Clinton and Hillary Clinton by Special Prosecutor Ken Starr. Tomasky wrote:
"At every crucial turn and pivot, the Times' editorial page has marched in lockstep with the prosecutor and his cheering section."
"Why is this worth remarking on?" asked Tomasky. Because, he pointed out, "on national matters, the Times' editorial page serves as more of an ideological Baedeker, instructing the country's elite as to what constitutes responsible liberal opinion."
In other words, The New York Times—voice of the pro-Israel elite—was telling its readers that it was "okay" to support Ken Starr's maneuvering against Clinton. And so the question, then, was why one of America's most liberal presidents would be the target of the editorial wrath of the very liberal NewYork Times.
The answer it was that it was because Bill Clinton was perceived to be insufficiently supportive of the demands of Israel. In fact, the Lewinsky scandal forced the president into retreat as far as pushing Israel was concerned—much to the delight of Israel's Likud.
A journalist specializing in media critique, Michael Collins Piper is the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem, Dirty Secrets, The Judas Goats, The Golem, Target Traficant and My First Days in the White House All are available from AFP.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
ANYONE WHO THOUGHT JUST because you have "liberals" controlling the White House and Congress that the billions which go to the military-industrial-banking complex every year will be cut is in for a rude awakening. In a speech before the liberal Center for American Progress, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, laid out the plan for military spending in the years to come, and it doesn't look like weapons makers will be tightening their belts any time soon.
Murtha lamented the mess the Bush administration will be leaving behind for the country, namely the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a military stretched to the breaking point. And while he did speak of a future climate where defense budgets will be "constrained," he refused to go on record whether the Obama administration will reduce the size and scope of the military-industrial- banking complex by one nickel.
That is most likely because Murtha knows that appropriations for fiscal year 2009 have already been approved by Congress and that spending for 2010 is in the process of being drawn up. Capitol Hill's leading periodical, The Hill, reported that, no matter which way the U.S. economy goes, budgets for 2009 and 2010 include "sizeable programs for the industry."
While campaigning for the Democratic nomination in the fall of 2007, Barack Obama faced pressure from real liberals within his party to pledge to cut defense spending. Obama heard the message loud and clear, and in an October 2007 video message Obama promised to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. . . ." adding that he "will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," "will not weaponize space," and "will slow our development of future combat systems."
After Obama secured the nomination, these promises appear to have gone out the window. And now that he has won the election, Obama will likely feel compelled to pay back the tens of millions of dollars given to Democrats by arms companies and their army of lobbyists.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Like the infamous three monkeys of the "See no evil/Hear no evil/Speak no evil" caricature, mainstream Jewish groups are pretending not to notice a recent piece appearing in an Orthodox newspaper calling for the slaughter of innocent civilians in Muslim countries.
Entitled "The Appropriate Response to Islamic Terror," Lawrence Kulak writing in the 5 Towns Jewish Times opines that the "final solution" to the "Muslim Problem" the West faces today is simple–"Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out." In particular, he and the newspaper carrying the piece are calling for the deliberate killing of innocent women and children as a form of collective punishment (a war crime by international law) to those who would dare attack the apple of God's eye–Israel–or any of those fighting her wars for her. As of the moment of this writing, the lone organization sounding the alarm over the piece is CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, while at the same time all major Jewish organizations (yes, the same ones lecturing everyone else on a daily basis on issues of hate, bigotry, extremism and terror) are doing nothing to protest or distance themselves from the piece, the writer or publication.
As far as the wording of the piece itself, it is a case study in typical Zionist hatred of Gentiles and the justification of any and all violence against them and more so against those in the Muslim world resisting Jewish fanaticism and extremism. By his own words and arguments the writer Kulak betrays the fact that he operates under a barbaric code of morality that has no place in a civilized world and which has been the sole cause of Jews being "persecuted" and expelled from every place they have dwelt throughout history. Those political leaders who don't see things his way with regards to bombing the hell out of innocent women and children are ‘incompetent' and he uses quotation marks around the word "horror" when speaking of entire families being blown to bits with laser-guided bombs, indicating that he sees no horror in it at all.
Perhaps most disturbing of all though is how he begins his piece. Like a Nazi "mad scientist" character in a film describing in a measured, unemotional voice the extermination of those deemed "enemies of the New Order," so too does Kulak go about the business of dispassionately describing his idea of slaughtering non-combatants in a seemingly sterile, soulless manner. In the opening words, he speaks of the "great discoveries" such as penicillin that have been made in the field of medicine that took place by accident, and then goes on to describe in the same manner how the "cure" for terrorism was accidentally discovered when the American military bombed a tent in Afghanistan, killing an entire family.
Of the many things obviously deserving mention here, the first is that such a program of deliberately targeting Muslim women and children for extermination has already been done. One need look no further than what has taken place in Palestine for the last 60 years that to date has resulted in over a quarter of a million innocent civilian deaths. Added to this are the massacres at places such as Deir Yassin and at refugee camps such as Sabra and Shatilla, just a few of the many living historical testimonies to murder on a mass scale fueled by Jewish hatred of gentiles and the extremism it has always produced.
Next–and more up to date–is the fact that over a million innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan have been murdered in the last five years as a result of the same process advocated by the writer, and those not dead today will certainly be dead tomorrow as a result of the depleted uranium left by the U.S. and the destruction of infrastructure that unavoidably results in disease and starvation.
So as far as Kulak and the newspaper publishing his gospel of hate are concerned, what they are advocating is already a fait accompli. What all are left to conclude therefore is that what they are really driving it is an increase in the amount of civilian deaths than is already taking place. Possibly fearing that some readers might have a moral problem with what he is advocating, Kulak then goes on to dispel such possible (albeit unlikely, considering the readership for this particular paper) attacks of conscience by characterizing his idea as a "common sense" solution "etched in the Mosaic law."
For those unfamiliar, what he is referencing here are the Old Testament tales of genocide committed by the Israelites–forerunners to today's "Jews"–as they invaded village after village after village of peaceful, peaceable people and (at least by the biblical account) slaughtered every single man, woman and child. The only exceptions were those "young girls who had not slept with a man" who could then "be used" for whatever purposes "God's chosen people" decided as well as those who resigned to live as slaves, or, in the biblical language "hewers of wood and carriers of water."
By referencing the Mosaic law what Kulak is saying here in effect is that "The God of our forefathers–Yahweh, not only sanctioned this kind of behavior, He commanded it and we are therefore duty-bound to continue on in the ‘traditions' left us by our patriarchs."
As far as the worldwide backlash that would no doubt ensue from such a program, Kulak again betrays the fact he has no sense of universal decency and that the bottom line always deals with Israel and what benefit's the Chosen People–"Any and all collateral damage in the form of casualties to friends, relatives, or anyone connected to the lives of these terrorists should be swiftly ignored."
His one-sided Jewish thinking also betrays the fact that he and his fellow chosenites are always "the victim," pure as the wind driven snow and any untoward behavior that winds up in their neighborhood is the result of injustices done to them and never the result of their own evil actions. It is always "the other guy's fault" and more so, the world's fault for not coming to grips with Islam in the proper context, meaning in the manner the Jews demand:
"‘As for the Islamic terrorists themselves, there has been a universal ineptitude in understanding their mentalities and how they work. Primarily because of leftist leaders and public sympathy with revolutionary mindsets, which have in cancerous fashion infiltrated the efficient workings of Western governments and Israel, the tactics that are necessary to defeat Islamic terror have been suppressed and discarded as politically incorrect."
What Kulak and his paper of course fail to mention is the "ineptitude" under which the West has suffered in understanding the "mentality" of his co-religionists who were the bringers of terrorism to the Middle East generations ago. Before the ghettos of Europe were flushed of the criminal filth holed up there for centuries and then collectively transported like a deadly flesh-eating bacteria into what was an otherwise healthy political/cultural eco-system the Middle East there was no such thing as terrorism. What he is advocating with his superior Jewish intellect therefore is that the very thing that led to Islamic extremism in the first place–meaning the murder of innocent women and children–be used as the cure for wiping it out. It does not take one of Einstein's nieces or nephews to figure out that Kulak's remedy is akin to trying to put out an already out-of-control fire by tossing a bucket of gasoline on it.
The truth is, had the West better understood the maniacal, genocidal and subversive nature of the "mentality" produced in the corrosive, corrupting environment known as the synagogue, the various nations that today find themselves being blackmailed into fighting the war to end all wars for the benefit of Israel would not have fallen prey to this apocalyptic scheme, or at least not so easily. If there is any mentality that deserves study, it is the one that views itself as the embodiment of God on earth and which views all outsiders as having emanated from one of the "satanic spheres" as Judaism teaches.
By now–5 years after the destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan that has resulted in unprecedented human misery affecting tens of millions–an article being penned by some sick Jewish supremacist as he perversely fantasizes about the genocide of Middle Easterners has no doubt lost its shock value. Within seconds of 9/11 taking place a floodgate of anti-Islamic hysteria was unleashed upon America's airwaves as spies for Israel called for the mother of all holocausts–meaning the destruction of over a billion Muslims worldwide–on a minute-by-minute basis and therefore one more instance of this is not ‘news' by any means.
What is noteworthy however is the obvious sense of hypocrisy permeating the entire circumstance. After all, this is the heyday of creatures such as Abe Foxman and Morris Dees who, along with their organizations ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center are constantly getting into the collective face of humanity and proselytizing about the dangers of "hate" and "intolerance." Everytime an utterance is made by non-Jews of any stripe–be they Muslim, Christian or none of the above–where the idea of violence (real or imagined) is threatened against even ONE of God's Chosen People and–BATTA-BOOM!!!–the presses are kicked into overdrive. Having said this then, where, oh were are the watchmen on the tower, warning of this impending storm of bloodshed and violence against the Semites of the Middle East as advocated by the 5 Towns Jewish Times? Where is their patented program of wailing, shrieking and gnashing of teeth, as well as their demands for a retraction, apology and the loss of employment for the offending writer?
Well, as usual, surprise-surprise, they and their fellow travelers are quiet as church mice, (or synagogue rats, whichever is more appropriate) and for reasons so obvious that a blind man could see them in a minute–the writer is Jewish and is advocating for Jewish interests.
In an age where all creatures great and small living in the land of the free and home of the brave are subjected to a concerted, ceaseless program of pogromophobia by an hysterical Jewish-owned/Jewish-controlled media whenever some eruption of "extremism" takes place from any other corner (be it Muslim, neo-Nazi or whatever) the fact that not a microbe of discussion or "in-depth" investigation has taken place surrounding this event speaks volumes about the agenda ruling America these days. It does not take the prophetic powers of Nostradamus to envision what would happen if such a piece appeared in some Muslim publication in Dearborn, Michigan rather than in a Jewish publication in NY, NY.
As of the moment of this writing, the reaction out there on the Jewish blogosphere to the protests of CAIR is to characterize CAIR's action as –surprise, surprise, "anti-Semitic." To think such a day would arrive, when disagreeing with the slaughter of women and children could be called such is "beyond the pale", no pun intended.
And finally…
And yet, in this Orwellian age of doublespeak and doublethink, it is the Muslims, not the Jews, who are bloodthirsty, vengeful and cruel.
‘They killed our innocents, and unless we kill theirs, they will go on killing ours.'
Mark Glenn is a correspondent for the American Free Press newspaper.
Post script–a mere few hours after this piece hit the internet, the ADL, in obvious panic mode over the fact that they were revealed as the double-minded, forked-tongued hypocrites that they are, FINALLY issued a hastily-worded ‘condemnation' to the Jewish newspaper that published Lawrence Kulak's horrible piece. What it shows about the ADL is that–
1) Despite their best protests to the contrary, they are indeed a spy agency, surfing the net like some peeping tom looking for things not favorable about their parent corporation, Israel, and
2) They will only criticize ‘their own' meaning Jews and Jewish interests when they are caught with their back against the wall and have to in order to save face.
Nice try folks, unfortunately your timing stinks on this one.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
Many are worried by YouTube's recent announcement of collaboration with the Anti-Defamation League to eliminate "cyber-hate" on its website. If YouTube gives ADL too much control, free speech there may be a thing of the past for critics of Zionism or Christian critics of homosexuality. Censorship of the internet is especially ominous when driven by definitions of "prejudice" and "hate" as twisted as ADL's.
But there is hope. Most non-Zionist internet organizations and servers do not share ADL's extreme, even paranoid definitions of hatred, anti-Semitism, and homophobia. If internet content is factual, well-documented, non-racist and not actually anti-Semitic, ADL will encounter difficulty persuading YouTube to ban large numbers of politically incorrect users.
YouTube, Cisco, Microsoft, and Google still chafe from public outrage and Congressional displeasure over cooperation with Chinese bans of controversial internet content. Perhaps to compensate, these internet giants vehemently oppose Australia's planned censorship of incoming and outgoing "unlawful" internet content. The last thing YouTube wants now is to create a reputation of Chinese-style censorship. That would only fuel emerging Web 2.0 competitor websites, which could thrive on their boast of allowing freedom of expression unrestrained by the ADL.
Several years ago, I witnessed the difficulty faced by Jewish authorities wanting to remove my allegedly hateful film, The Other Israel, from repeated showing on a Virginia cable access TV station. The ACLU, persuaded to investigate and possibly militate for its removal, carefully studied my film and proclaimed it hate-free!
Yes, it is to ADL's advantage to involve itself in any (usually well-meaning) organizations' efforts to filter pornography and violence from families and children. (An example is ADL's recent liaison with AT&T and the Family Safety Online Institute.) Yet it is a different matter to persuade these organizations that "hate" includes criticism of Israel's mistreatment of Palestinians, the Talmud, Jewish control in US politics and war making, or homosexuality. This could prove beyond ADL's powers of persuasion or even coercion.
At the recent ADL-sponsored Global Summit on Internet Hate, Christopher Wolf, head of the ADL-inspired International Network Against Cyber-Hate (INACH), painted a bleak picture of difficulties faced by ADL in ending free speech online. INACH, says Wolf, remains frustrated by the internet's still-exploding outreach, universal invitation to participate, and difficulty to monitor and censor. Thousands of "hate sites" exist; even if ADL persuades servers to discontinue some of them, dozens of other servers will host them. Many more spring up daily. Wolf gloomily said the possibilities of cyber-hate expansion are exponential. He said this is unlike anything Jewish watchdog groups have ever experienced.
Although I am against bona fide hate, this is good news for lovers of freedom.
It is also good news that Wolf says all INACH and ADL can do is educationally confront it right now.
That's fair enough. ADL can "educate" through lies and misinformation. As long as we can educate through facts, truth will prevail. Historically, when truth is allowed to exist in the sunshine of open unrestrained scrutiny by mankind, it will eventually dispel lies.
When the internet was first created, many feared the worldwide web would become an anti-Christ tool to unite the world in global, Orwellian mind-control and governance. Yes, it has proven a boon to pornographers. But just as the Roman roads spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire, so the internet now provides global resistance to the greatest threat civilization has ever encountered: international Jewish supremacism.
Sometimes after dark and overcast days, the setting sun shines under the clouds for a few minutes, gloriously irradiating the earth before darkness. By God's grace, we are experiencing a period of unrestrained opportunity to shed such light worldwide. Let us use the internet wisely, moderately, in a factual, documented way. I believe that whatever ADL may do in the highest echelons, or behind the scenes, God will honor such truth-telling and humanity at large will respect it.
Especially if we can prevent a U.S. federal hate crimes law from being enacted this winter, a new era of light and freedom may just be dawning.
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute
- as long as full credit is given to Americaan Free Press - 645
Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003
|Top|
In another violation of civil liberties, the European Union announced that it is proposing a range of thought crimes which include racism, incitement to hatred, apology, and denial or trivialization of genocide, punishable by up to three years in prison.
The Brussels announcement, ignored by the world media, said that member states have agreed to establish these penalties in their laws.
"I welcome the introduction of strict and effective sanctions against these violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms which are common principles for European countries," said EU Justice Commissioner Jacques Barrot, ignoring the fact that of speech is also a fundamental freedom.
The new law will also be directed specifically at the Internet.
In what is obviously aimed at holocaust revisionism, the EU also intends to punish "the apology, denial or gross trivialization of public crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the International Criminal court."
This is a prickly issue, as Turkey's denial of the Armenian holocaust will effectively criminalize that state as it tries to join the EU.
The EU, which claims to be anti-fascist, is resorting to the
fascist tactics of denial of freedom of speech and arrest and
imprisonment of people whose only crime is to think thoughts which
they fo not like. What next? The reopening of Dachau for political
dissidents?
|Top|
History repeats itself, as the Federal Reserve is now confirming. The Fed brought about the first Great Depression. Now, Fed Chairman ben Bernanke, with the aid of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, is bringing about the 21st Century Great Depression.
A deep depression is always built upon an irrational boom. You had the greedy boom of the 1920s with its stock market crash. We have had the greedy boom of the dot com bubble followed by the real estate bubble, again resulting in a stock market crash - which has much more to run. In every case,, the Fed has promoted them by pumping billions into the banks that eventually flowed into the stock market with its low interest rates.
Again, our present depression is the result of the Fed pumping trillions of paper dollars or computer zeroes into the economy. The Fed is using the same tactics it used in 1929-32 of flooding the market with cash that the banks refused to use (then as now) due to the collapsing economy. Instead of stemming the tide of a depression, they are creating an economic tsunami.
The "Depressions"
In the first depression, the Fed fed the banks with excessive dollars that found their way into the stock market bubble of the 1920s. In the present depression, the Fed and the socialist politicians promoted the dot com and the housing bubbles with low interest rates.
In both depressions, due to the Fed and its excessive policies, the result is bankruptcy, foreclosures, unemployment and fear that drains off the confidence. For the recovery to take place, confidence must be restored. But massive amounts of money will simply not create the confidence needed. It didn't work then, it won't work now. However, this time there is the massive devaluation of the dollar. At least in the 1920s and 1930, the dollar retained its value. This time, with the dollar steadily being drained of value, recovery is pushed farther into the future.
Fed Cannot Admit Truth
What the Fed fails to recognize is that there cannot be a strong economy with a weak currency. Bernanke is wiping out the dollar with his massive printing presses. It will become nothing more than a piece of paper.
The sharp decline of the Dow Jones Industrial average is identical to the steep decline experienced from 1929-32. Large companies and banks failed then; large companies and banks are failing now. Then, as now, the Fed thought it could stem the tide by its own efforts. But without confidence within the consumer, all the phony money in the world will not be able to reverse the panic.
To quote Martin Weiss of Safe Money Report: "The
only way to avoid the pain of a great bust is to refrain from
the excesses of a great boon." The excesses of our immediate
past two booms are now history. Let us not compound our dilemma
by more excesses such as pumping in additional $6.8 trillion into
the banks, insurance companies, and financial houses.
|Top|
Here is an interview with Sylvia Stolz who was the lawyer for Germar Rudolf, charded with the "crime" of denying the Holocaust. Sylvia herself is imprisoned at Heidelberg Prison. Following is a remarkable account written by a prominent anti-Zionist Jew - the son of Yohudi Menuhim, one of the greatest concert violinists of all time.
As he enters the Heidelberg Justizvoll-zugsanstalt (prison complex) the visitor first comes to a counter protected by bulletproof glass, where he was to surrender his personal identification and vistor's permit. Then the visitor has to hand over his mobile telephone, which is locked away. After that he is led upstairs into a narrow waiting room, where his overcoat and wallet are locked in a storage compartment. Finally, he is led into the visiting room.
The matron in charge is correct and even sympathetic as she sits down at her little table in the corner. Sylvia Stolz enters the room, wearing a dark skirt. Her appearance is familiar from numerous photos I have seen in newspapers and TV. Her open countenance, youthful bearing and clear girlish voice also seem familiar. On the surface she appears calm and unperturbed. After a quick handshade we sat down on opposite sides of the long table.
This German woman has been sentenced to three and a half years in prison for uttering unlawful opinions - sentenced by a German judicial system that inposes milder sentences on foreigners who murder German citizens in Germany. Attorney Stolz once observed: "Germans are not inclined to chastise others."
In view of the anti-German propaganda that the Zionist and Gutmenschen (hypocritical moralizers) spin out like prayer wheels, it is enlightening to place Silvia's observation in its historical context. Sylvia, a vegetarian, cannot bear to see animals suffer. Her sympathy for tormented animals led her to protest their cruel treatment in experimentation and mass breeding. She admits that protests have failed. The same is true of the struggle for freedom of opinion and research.
Sylvia thinks that in the liberation struggle against the repression of historical truth, the best target for attack is the criminal justice system, since that is where official repression begins.
Sylvia is on good terms with most inmates, many of whom need legal advice. She would like to help them but she is forbidden to give anyone legal advice, even pro bono, for a period of five years.
Does she consider herself a martyr for Germany's sake? Her answer: "If the price of struggling for German's lieration is incarceration, then it is worth the sacrifice. Germany's freedom is do important to me that I am prepared to sacrifice. Germany's freedom is do important to me that I am prepared to sacrifice my own personal freedom."
Would she take the same path again, if she could do it over?
With iron resolution that seems incongruous in such a vulnerable
woman, she answers: "Whatever happens to me," Stolz
said, "prison has merely strengthened my conviction."
|Top|